A Way To Revive a DOA All-News Station?

[Radio-X]

I've been thinking about this given the three major-market news stations just launched in the past six months. Chances are, one (maybe two) are going to flip formats in the next couple of years.

Canada has several "all-traffic" stations. I don't propose a 100% traffic format, but perhaps 50-75% traffic, and the remainder news/weather. Living in a DC suburb, there are several times I tune to the all-news stations strictly for the traffic and weather. Its safe to say I could care less about most of the local news, and my smartphone gets me the detailed national news I want. Why not can most the reporters, read a few wire copies per hour from a local newsreader, and rehire your pink-slipped reporters as new traffic staff?

What does everybody else think? Should I bank on collecting serious royalties on this idea ;D

Radio-X

 

[MC]

People do get traffic from GPS etc or smart phone. Maybe a Net-twitter-facebook news station. With frequent references to expanded information available on the net. The news stories are short, so at the beginning and end of the story say: "if you want more information on this story and how you can.....see our website or go to our facebook page or sign up for free news updates on...this topic etc."

Then have more ads on the net, etc.

Second idea: sell brokered shows.

 

[borderblaster]

There was the famous "car radio" experiment on KHJ in LA which didn't last too long. An X-bander in the Orlando market did an all-traffic format in the early 00's. Not sure how it would play now

 

[wadio]

About a year ago I purchased a TomTom GPS with "Lifetime Traffic." It's saved my butt several times. I no longer listen to traffic reports on the radio.

 

[NewsStud]

Traffic on radio (with the exception of some very big and enduring all-newsers) is a bit of a sham.

The content and talent has been outsourced to companies that only had a real interest in selling live-read spots and placed ads on the client stations. These companies, whether it was Metro (when it was Metro) or Traffic Pulse or even Total Traffic, really didn't invest in the technology and editorial manpower to really do meaningful traffic reporting.

And they didn't have to. The client stations gave them a thirty second window for a traffic report. How could you possibly cover a region's traffic problems (which change every five minutes) in thirty seconds and still read the live spot?

Doing nothing but traffic would mean investing in and probably inventing technology... technology that accurate monitors traffic conditions and presents it to humans in a way that can easily be interpreted by them to then report it on air. This gets a bit cost-prohbitive.

The same traffic data that feeds your GPS is also available to traffic reporters. That might help in your hypothetical. But unless your having editors or producers help gather and compile for each of your region's four corners, you'll be asking a lot of anchors to do all that on the fly for an hour-long report.

 

[radiophiler]

The above poster hits the nail on the head. Why are Google traffic and some other online/GPS traffic services now giving more accurate reports than you can hear on the radio? Lack of interest in investing in the readily available technology to give better traffic reports.
I'd listen to a radio traffic report before leaving work each day at 5 pm to decide which of two routes to take home. Time and time again the radio traffic report missed backups on a major highway. I found it was actually more accurate to look at Google maps before leaving work. Yellow or red along the route? OK, I'm avoiding that.
The Google maps are so accurate, I've often wondered why someone doesn't try to team with them to give "Google Traffic" on the radio.
And speaking of partnerships ... To get back to the original question of this thread: All-news is a really difficult format to do. See Merlin's start-ups. It costs a lot of money and it can take years to build even a decent audience.
As someone who worked 14 years in radio news before switching careers, it pains me to see news (or let's say credible news) disappear from the radio, except in the largest markets.
Personally, I didn't like Merlin's first idea about how to do a new type of all-news station. Certainly something I would not listen to on a regular basis. But as a male in my upper 40s, I'm not sure I was their target audience anyway.
But you almost (almost) have to give them credit for trying something new with all-news.
I wish the FCC would loosen the cross-ownership rules. Let newspapers and TV stations with news departments own radio stations in the same market. Use some of the resources already available from the newspaper or TV station to build a news station on the radio. It would be less expensive than starting a newsradio station from scratch like Merlin did.
Allegedly, the FCC is concerned with having enough different voices in a market. That's why the agency sticks with its old-fashioned cross ownership rules. Well, it seems in many markets, the choice might be allowing partnerships between newspapers and TV stations or having no (credible) radio news outlet at all.
I'd vote for allowing the cross ownership. It may spark a rebirth of news on the radio. And I think that would be a good thing.

Isn't the all-news station in Seattle co-owned and operated with a TV station? Do they share a lot of resources? Can someone write about how that works in Seattle?