A question for all

[mcamp]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?
When was the last time any of us heard a song on the radio, and your immediate reaction was "I got to buy that".
Are we just staving off the inevidible, that commercial radio, like the newspaper will become the 21st Century dinosaur?

 

[argytunes]

mcamp...

Maybe the programming sounds tired because very few risks are taken?

It's a whole lot easier to go with a sure thing like an established format...than taking a risk on something different? If listener demographics take priority over creativity...you can bet that one radio station will attempt to copy another radio station in some way? :

And if a potential advertiser HATES that particular format...you can say buh-bye to any present or future revenue!

argytunes

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?

Major-market commercial music radio is not here for the minority "'us' music fans" who are tired of the same old same old. It's here for the masses of casual listeners who actually want to hear their same few favorite hits over and over again during their commute, or in the background during their workday or their weekend activities, and who don't post on radio and/or music internet boards. It's a business, not a "public service".

"Music fans" who want something different generally have to seek it out on non-comm and public radio, satellite radio, internet radio, etc...

It's a whole lot easier to go with a sure thing like an established format...than taking a risk on something different? If listener demographics take priority over creativity...you can bet that one radio station will attempt to copy another radio station in some way? :

And if a potential advertiser HATES that particular format...you can say buh-bye to any present or future revenue!

In commercial radio, catering to mass demographics equals revenue, which CERTAINLY takes priority over "creativity" and doing something which may be more interesting to a small minority of aficionados. It's a business. It doesn't have anything to do with whether a sponsor "hates" a particular type of music or format, it has to do with whether the music or format has been proven to bring them the maximum amount of potential customers for their advertising dollars that they're paying to the stations.

 

[spilot113]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?

What does commercial radio offer to "you" music fans?

For a long time it was simply "free music"! You find the station closest to your tastes, and with a radio, you get music for FREE!

For a long time that was enough.

It appears now people have different expectations. Part of the expectations game is that music has splintered...and people expect to hear only the music that they want.

There was a time when WRKO would play Aerosmith's "Dream On" *AND* Helen Reddy's "Delta Dawn"...on the same station. Now people have less patience for music that is "not theirs".

So...what are your expectations? (Outside of being able to play a station all day and get free music...)

When was the last time any of us heard a song on the radio, and your immediate reaction was "I got to buy that".

Are we just staving off the inevidible, that commercial radio, like the newspaper will become the 21st Century dinosaur?

I think people are out of the mode of "buying" music....for a variety of reasons....

I will agree programming is much more safe and less interesting. But what will replace the place to go for free music? XM & Sirius? While sat radio is a novelty....I don't hear anyone raving about the great programming on sattelite radio.

 

[Chuckigo]

the major benefit of commercial radio is that it's free, with a slight string attached: there are a few commercials. and surprisingly, people may not realize it, but those commercials DO work. maybe not today, but they strike a chord in most people who listen. there's a reason why McDonald's sign now says "billions and billions" instead of 237,548 (that was a great day, 7/24/77!).

with a variety of stations, including today's CHR and new-music alternatives, plus the fact that people have to make financial choices (do i pay to listen to radio in the car this week? or do i pay to actually drive the car this week?), commercial radio is still very viable. i have three kids who somehow stay ahead of me on the newer hit-music curve, and yet i don't know when they have time to listen to radio. yes, they download and have their i-pods, but they credit the CHR stations for "Breaking the hits," and also know who the guys&gals on the radio are.

plus, local commerical radio still has local info available (weather, traffic, news) that people do rely upon.

i'm of a like-mind of Greater Media's Peter Smyth who feels that the albeit brief down-tick in local radio listening has bottomed-out and will very much rebound in the months ahead.

just my $ .02 as i finish a long day that featured a 3-hour remote at an RV dealer in Maine today - a shared remote with two other radio stations (one from my current company, and one from a competitor that wrapped up as we were starting), no less, and featured many drive-in listeners to all 3 stations, and for me, involved more questions about my daughter's wedding plans (which i'v mentioned during my morning show) than i received about the free prizes. and the free prizes included actual CD's - which people were very happy to include in their collections.

 

[mcamp]

I think people are out of the mode of "buying" music....for a variety of reasons....

I will agree programming is much more safe and less interesting. But what will replace the place to go for free music? XM & Sirius? While sat radio is a novelty....I don't hear anyone raving about the great programming on sattelite radio.

Some said at one time cable TV was a novelty.
Why should I pay when I can get 13 channels for free?
Now most of the educated world complains about the tied "reality" programming that litters over 200 channels.
For many of the younger generation ipods are their music source...for the same people, the internet has also become their newspaper "why should I have to wait for tomorrows newspaper when I can get news is now".
The same could be said for radio "why should I wait for a song that I like, when I have 5,000 in my ipod that I know I like"....almost every new car has a ipod dock, many satellite ready.

 

[ciao99]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?
When was the last time any of us heard a song on the radio, and your immediate reaction was "I got to buy that".
Are we just staving off the inevidible, that commercial radio, like the newspaper will become the 21st Century dinosaur?

Actually since I've been listening to Big City 101.3, I've purchased alot of new music: including Alborosie, Beenie Man, Queen Ifrica, even a local Boston singer named Jadine. Say what you want about Big City, it's breaking new artists that other stations are scared of.

 

[spilot113]

Actually since I've been listening to Big City 101.3, I've purchased alot of new music: iSay what you want about Big City, it's breaking new artists that other stations are scared of.

Hey...that could be their new slogan!

"We're breaking new artists and breakin' the law! We ain't afraid of nuthin'!"

 

[chaajoad]

Chuckigo -

I liked your post. I've been doing syndicated radio for years now and I actually miss doing those weekend remotes. I miss the extra cash but I also miss the interaction with listeners and sponsors. I always liked the ritual of talking about it on the air, showing up at the station on a Saturday (even though the weather might make me want to head for the beach or at least a cold beer sitting on the deck), loading up the van, heading out, setting up and tearing down. There's an upside to weekends off but your post brought home what I miss and what syndicated can not do - directly interact with a listener.

From the sound of your post, it seems like you enjoy what you do. I hope you're filing away these memories for a few reasons. First, this all might disappear. The current media climate is, at best, cloudy. Secondly, when you reach a "certain age", as I have, those memories are precious.

Plus, you work in Maine - that has to be nice.

 

[Chuckigo]

From the sound of your post, it seems like you enjoy what you do. I hope you're filing away these memories for a few reasons. First, this all might disappear. The current media climate is, at best, cloudy. Secondly, when you reach a "certain age", as I have, those memories are precious.

Plus, you work in Maine - that has to be nice.

you're too kind. my first airshift was in 1979 in Portland, Maine. i started doing weekends and fill-ins at WHDH (the nifty 850) in the summer of '83. i assume then that the "certain age" to which you refer is 65? 70? there are those of us of that "certain age" who still enjoy what we do, having learned early on that radio is a "want to do" gig instead of a "have to do" gig. there is a difference between a job and a career.

and yes, living and working in Maine is nice!

 

[mistermicrophone]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?
When was the last time any of us heard a song on the radio, and your immediate reaction was "I got to buy that".
Are we just staving off the inevidible, that commercial radio, like the newspaper will become the 21st Century dinosaur?

While there are things that a station can do within their programming that can be considered publice service, music/foramt is not one of them. How does causing an immediate reaction to go out and buy a record (CD) a public service?

 

[ciao99]

Besides a job, what does commercial music radio offer to "us" music fans.
The general tone at this site is cynical, with good reason, and the conversation leans to "tired programming"....is playing a song by Boston really a public service?
When was the last time any of us heard a song on the radio, and your immediate reaction was "I got to buy that".
Are we just staving off the inevidible, that commercial radio, like the newspaper will become the 21st Century dinosaur?

While there are things that a station can do within their programming that can be considered publice service, music/foramt is not one of them. How does causing an immediate reaction to go out and buy a record (CD) a public service?

His point is very clear. Commercialized, white washed music formats are not compelling radio. I will say that white radio has come compelling talk radio hosts, i.e Severin, OReilly, Opie & Anthony. Even if you don't like them you want to hear what they have to say. But in terms of music, its just bland, manufactured and boring.

 

[spilot113]

While there are things that a station can do within their programming that can be considered publice service, music/foramt is not one of them. How does causing an immediate reaction to go out and buy a record (CD) a public service?

His point is very clear. Commercialized, white washed music formats are not compelling radio.

You didn't answer the question....

--

...white washed music formats are not compelling radio. I will say that white radio has come compelling talk radio hosts.

White vs black? Is this how you see the world?

It keeps coming back to this?

 

[oaktree]

15 years ago, people had no idea that with a little box that you can put in your pocket, not only can you hear music in full fidelity and wherever you take it ... it plays exactly what YOU want it to play because YOU program it to do so.

So, today, radio is not the "personal medium" it used to be. Today, we program our "own" stations via iPod, burn CDs, download files, listen to satellite or Internet and that's why "commercial" radio sounds so bland.

Terrestrial radio has a particular business model to uphold, with a recurring "cost of doing business." Anything over those airwaves out of "critical mass" doesn't make money ... so, they play it safe, while you run your own station in your pocket, "commercial free" via iPod.

So, would advertisers pay to be on something different? No, not often. They know that to get customers, what you may like in particular, other people may hate ... so, they program to "the lowest common denominator" as an advertiser ... going to the stations with the "masses" ... those who haven't filled their iPods with what they like. Rather ... there are still people who do leave it up to "commercial radio" to provide the homogenized, watered-down sound that you hear.

Why? Because it works.

Maybe not for the people who like "your" music ... but to those who just don't give a damn about "something new."

And so it goes. Businesses don't take risks when their economic realities and futures are on the line ... Used to, but then, radio was a whole different media. No so, now.

 

[mistermicrophone]

His point is very clear. Commercialized, white washed music formats are not compelling radio. I will say that white radio has come compelling talk radio hosts, i.e Severin, OReilly, Opie & Anthony. Even if you don't like them you want to hear what they have to say. But in terms of music, its just bland, manufactured and boring.

No, his point wasn't clear. Radio stations have to "serve the public" as outlined by the FCC. Causing someone to buy the music they hear is not a service to anyone except the record labels and certainly doesn't fall under the "serve the public" umbrella.

 

[oaktree]

Radio stations have to "serve the public" as outlined by the FCC. Causing someone to buy the music they hear is not a service to anyone except the record labels and certainly doesn't fall under the "serve the public" umbrella.


Sorry, but you have misinterpreted / understood what is "outlined by the FCC." The rules say nothing about "serve the public." They say, "serve the public's INTEREST as a PUBLIC TRUST, NEED & INTEREST." If it were up to the FCC, we'd all be doing community oriented Low Power stations. They don't give a lick about "music" ... let alone "programming." That's the station's problem. The FCC only cares about "serving the community as a PUBLIC TRUST" which means ... "keep the community informed, up to date, serve its emergency needs, serve its cultural, educational and other needs as determined and required by the licensee and keep it moderately clean in doing so."

Radio does not "cause" anyone to buy music they hear. You're right ... it is NOT a service. It's to fill gaps between the "commercials" which are used to pay for station operating expenses. Pure and simple. The FCC doesn't care if you play records backwards, as long as the other "community needs" stuff is in there.

 

[spilot113]

Sorry, but you have misinterpreted / understood what is "outlined by the FCC." The rules say nothing about "serve the public." They say, "serve the public's INTEREST as a PUBLIC TRUST, NEED & INTEREST."

And how does gangsta rap serve the public need?

 

[mcamp]

So, would advertisers pay to be on something different? No, not often. They know that to get customers, what you may like in particular, other people may hate ... so, they program to "the lowest common denominator" as an advertiser ... going to the stations with the "masses" ... those who haven't filled their iPods with what they like. Rather ... there are still people who do leave it up to "commercial radio" to provide the homogenized, watered-down sound that you hear.

Why? Because it works.

Maybe not for the people who like "your" music ... but to those who just don't give a damn about "something new."

And so it goes. Businesses don't take risks when their economic realities and futures are on the line ... Used to, but then, radio was a whole different media. No so, now.

Is it really working?
Doesn't it seem that DJ's are just getting so outragous, for the listener it's like watching a train wreck....if the music doesn't draw them in....bring in Opie and Anothony, then they'll listen? Then what?
As for my "public service" comment....what I'm refering to is when radio had more freedom, and enlightened a listener. But when the occasional "deep cut" is played, isn't that serving as a public service? Isn't playing anything else but Boston , Tom Petty, and Bob Seger radio suicide? So should a station play anything but the tryed and true....so they can pat themself on the back for being old school?

 

[ciao99]

Sorry, but you have misinterpreted / understood what is "outlined by the FCC." The rules say nothing about "serve the public." They say, "serve the public's INTEREST as a PUBLIC TRUST, NEED & INTEREST."

And how does gangsta rap serve the public need?

There is not one post in this series of threads where anyone suggests playing Gangsta Rap.
As I've said before, some people have a very limited experience with urban radio and accordingly do not know what it is. If you lived all your life in Boston, you probably think it's Jammin 94.5 and nothing else.

Those of us who've lived in other cities know it's also R&B, Old School, Reggae, Soca, Gospel, Talk, jazz. I truly feel sorry for those who haven't heard a decent Urban station.

 

[mistermicrophone]

Radio stations have to "serve the public" as outlined by the FCC. Causing someone to buy the music they hear is not a service to anyone except the record labels and certainly doesn't fall under the "serve the public" umbrella.


Sorry, but you have misinterpreted / understood what is "outlined by the FCC." The rules say nothing about "serve the public." They say, "serve the public's INTEREST as a PUBLIC TRUST, NEED & INTEREST." If it were up to the FCC, we'd all be doing community oriented Low Power stations. They don't give a lick about "music" ... let alone "programming." That's the station's problem. The FCC only cares about "serving the community as a PUBLIC TRUST" which means ... "keep the community informed, up to date, serve its emergency needs, serve its cultural, educational and other needs as determined and required by the licensee and keep it moderately clean in doing so."

Radio does not "cause" anyone to buy music they hear. You're right ... it is NOT a service. It's to fill gaps between the "commercials" which are used to pay for station operating expenses. Pure and simple. The FCC doesn't care if you play records backwards, as long as the other "community needs" stuff is in there.

I am well aware of the rules and regulations and terminology regarding "serve the public's INTEREST as a PUBLIC TRUST, NEED & INTEREST." I was posting in a simplified manner to relate to those who think playing music is a "service." I also pointed out that some programming can fall under said umbrella, but not all programming is considered as such.