ACTIVE RADIO LISTENERS AND CBS-FM

[Element9]

Why is this very simple thing so damned difficult to understand? Huh?

Jane Donatano was born in June, 1967. She's 40 now. The Beatles were the music her parents listened to. She likes some Beatles songs, but she came of "musical interest" age in the late 70's and 80's, and she really prefers music from that era. Elvis and Roy made a few songs she might recognize and listen to, she's heard them in bars and weddings, but they're just "OK" and not really her favorites.

Jane is not much interested in the Elgins and knows only a few Aretha songs. "Respect" is her favorite. "The House that Jack Built" draws a blank. She's heard the Supremes but only likes "Baby Love," yet "Stoned Love" doesn't register.
It's all about the hits. The station that plays 'em wins, whether it's Country, AC or Classic Hits.

Stations that want Jane to listen are going to ask her what she likes, what her favorite songs are and what stores and restaurants she patronizes. Jane is part of the coveted 35-44 Female demo. Dead center. There's not a music station in NY, LA or even BUFFALO that isn't interested in Jane (double negatives=EVERY station wants Jane to listen.)

It ain't rocket science people. A little bit of basic math and some simple Algebra goes a long way to solving the radio riddle. Don't "over-think" the answers to the questions. You wanna reach listeners in a specific demographic, play the music most of them wanna to hear most of the time. And make sure the station's jocks understand what motivates Jane to listen. There. Done. Good lord, this issue has been beaten to death! Fin!

-9-

 

[fang39]

Wait a minute, David....we're discussing the JAMMIN' format--not "MOVIN'." This format was created and christened "Jammin" by Tom Joyner, a well known African American Radio Air Personality. I don't understand your statement that a format featuring black soul, disco and R&B hits would be targeted to Mexican women? To be perfectly blunt, this was "black" music for "white" people!

Umm... I thought we were talking about the Jammin' Oldies format, created by AMFM and Harold Austin for 92.3 in Los Angeles in the 90's (Harold had been PD of The Beat in LA, but is Hispanic). This one was totally developed for Hispanics, and was mistakenly taken and put on in other markets, some very white ones included, and it burnt to a crisp or never got off the ground. The original concept of Jammin' was exactly that... Black and rhythmic oldies for non-Black people. Unfortunately, the appeal was mostly limited to Mexican origin Hispanics, and at that time, there were very few of those in NY.

I was under the impression that Joyner, who has been called "The Godfather" of Jammin', was the creative force behind the format. I could be mistaken. However, I can clearly remember Tom appearring on the "Donny & Marie" syndicated TV show in 1998 to promote the "Jammin'" music format that was being rolled out across the country. Was "Donny & Marie" aimed at Mexicans too?

 

[davideduardo]

I was under the impression that Joyner, who has been called "The Godfather" of Jammin', was the creative force behind the format. I could be mistaken. However, I can clearly remember Tom appearring on the "Donny & Marie" syndicated TV show in 1998 to promote the "Jammin'" music format that was being rolled out across the country. Was "Donny & Marie" aimed at Mexicans too?

Jammin debuted in LA. It had nothing to do with Joyner at the time. Joyner joined the party when the concept was introduced in other markets.

"When AMFM launched Mega 100 (KCMG, Los Angeles) in November 1997, it launched what would become a new radio genre: Jammin Oldies. The goal of the studio project was to create a facility that would reflect the attitude of this new format and serve as a flexible platform to serve other AMFM stations." (Radio Magazine archive story)

The format, as I said, was invented by the peeps at KCMH in LA to superserve assimilated Hispanic females in LA. Later it morphed... or mutated... into something else.

The format was modified in each market it appeared in, but was "rolled out across the country" as even at its peak, there were only about 30 or so stations licensed by AMFM to use the Jammin' Oldies service mark. There were also quite a few imitators unde rother names, such as Mega, who did the format without the AMFM service mark.

In fact, other than some Jammin' stations also having the Joyner morning show at the time, there was no affiliation of Joyner with the format... the LA station had John London on mornings, in fact.

 

[fang39]

I was under the impression that Joyner, who has been called "The Godfather" of Jammin', was the creative force behind the format. I could be mistaken. However, I can clearly remember Tom appearring on the "Donny & Marie" syndicated TV show in 1998 to promote the "Jammin'" music format that was being rolled out across the country. Was "Donny & Marie" aimed at Mexicans too?

Jammin debuted in LA. It had nothing to do with Joyner at the time. Joyner joined the party when the concept was introduced in other markets.

"When AMFM launched Mega 100 (KCMG, Los Angeles) in November 1997, it launched what would become a new radio genre: Jammin Oldies. The goal of the studio project was to create a facility that would reflect the attitude of this new format and serve as a flexible platform to serve other AMFM stations." (Radio Magazine archive story)

The format, as I said, was invented by the peeps at KCMH in LA to superserve assimilated Hispanic females in LA. Later it morphed... or mutated... into something else.

The format was modified in each market it appeared in, but was "rolled out across the country" as even at its peak, there were only about 30 or so stations licensed by AMFM to use the Jammin' Oldies service mark. There were also quite a few imitators unde rother names, such as Mega, who did the format without the AMFM service mark.

In fact, other than some Jammin' stations also having the Joyner morning show at the time, there was no affiliation of Joyner with the format... the LA station had John London on mornings, in fact.

Interesting stuff! Thanks for setting the record straight for me!

 

[adma]

This thread has gotten way off topic. The point that I was trying to make is that any station that makes any programming or music decision based on the rantings of the active audience/groupies, is doomed to failure. These groupies all have some kind of goofy agenda and should not be taken seriously. Many of them were either
college djs, worked for $6.00 an hour in the boonies or radio wannabes. Jingle and aircheck collectors are worse.
Success for a radio station, especially in a major market, comes from having a game plan, targeting your audience, having well thought out, planned research and a cohesive relationship between programming and sales.
Success is not listening to the verbal and written diarrhea of a bunch of frustrated radio geeks who inhabit the majority of radio message boards like a fungus.

I dunno, WFMU seems to be succeeding on an "active audience/groupie" model. But it's a different kind of "success", which isn't based on raw numbers--but it *is* based on a game plan, targeting its audience, etc.

Like, as if I've said before, if art worked the same way as the radio you're defending, Thomas Kinkade would be the greatest living artist and a model to advance and to learn from. And yes, the success of tasteless hacks like Kinkade is perhaps based on "not listening to the verbal and written diarrhea of a bunch of artsy-fartsy groupies with some kind of goofy agenda who should not be taken seriously" et al.

Fine. Go ahead. Follow that model. And if you don't need the "goofy agenda-ists" anymore, the feeling is mutual.

Though...is it all as simple as "frustrated radio geekery"? By your standards, maybe the auto industry shouldn't have taken a rumpled unemployable-in-the-industry weirdo like Ralph Nader and his "goofy agenda" seriously 40 odd years ago. (Heck, now that Detroit controls less than half the market for the first time ever, maybe certain auto industry hacks are still snarling at Nader, "he ruined us", etc...)

 

[adma]

Stations that want Jane to listen are going to ask her what she likes, what her favorite songs are and what stores and restaurants she patronizes. Jane is part of the coveted 35-44 Female demo. Dead center. There's not a music station in NY, LA or even BUFFALO that isn't interested in Jane (double negatives=EVERY station wants Jane to listen.)

But--maybe this is where the (maybe necessary?) divide w/so-called "active listeners" kicks in. Maybe these stations are interested in "Jane Donatano"; but to my "active listener/groupie" sensibility, she sounds pretty soft-headed and Stepfordish. I wouldn't want to date this kind of woman; I wouldn't want to marry this kind of woman; and if I *were* married to this kind of woman, I wouldn't allow her to vegetate into this timid and retrogressive state. Heck, I'd even take Courtney Love over "Jane Donatano".

Which might not be a simple knock against the radio industry--indeed, it might implicitly affirm *why* a certain "active listener" core is wasting time arguing whatever points. (That is, I'm backhandedly agreeing with RADIO TRUTH.)

A little anecdote: I went to Ikea this morning, and took note of the piped music, even obscure enlightened boomer chestnuts like the Byrds' "I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better" (yes, not even "Mr Tambourine Man" or "Turn! Turn! Turn!"). Now, consider Ikea as something which has its own market-savvy finger on the pulse of a certain 35-44 sensibility. If they operated on a radio-mentality model, perhaps they ought to have struck out such tunes for being too "old" and "obscure", etc--thankfully, they don't. (Hey, how often does one come across the "you hear better music programming in groceries and department stores than on the radio" mantra these days?)

 

[Element9]

Maybe these stations are interested in "Jane Donatano"; but to my "active listener/groupie" sensibility, she sounds pretty soft-headed and Stepfordish. I wouldn't want to date this kind of woman; I wouldn't want to marry this kind of woman; and if I *were* married to this kind of woman, I wouldn't allow her to vegetate into this timid and retrogressive state. Heck, I'd even take Courtney Love over "Jane Donatano".

I'm trying very hard not to sound condescending as I respond to your statement here, because what you've written appears very condescending and rather controlling. Be that as it may, I'll only offer that the minute we "project" stereotypes or our personality preferences on our customers (i.e., "listeners") is the minute we lose the race and validity of research unravels. You sure do like using that "Stepford wife" analogy.

Successful retailers don't stand at the door and tell customers, "sorry, you can't come in because you're too fat, drive a mini-van or live in the wrong zipcode." In fact, they greet everybody and say, "How can I help you?"

Which might not be a simple knock against the radio industry--indeed, it might implicitly affirm *why* a certain "active listener" core is wasting time arguing whatever points. (That is, I'm backhandedly agreeing with RADIO TRUTH.)

Active listeners, or "P-1's" as they're tagged, make the call as to what they expect to find in the store when they walk in the door. Radio afficianados, geeks, poseurs, wannabees, fans and groupies (did I cover all bases) don't make the call. We post on these boards and whine about why our favorite station isn't really "Oldies" and doesn't play "Mohair Sam."

A little anecdote: I went to Ikea this morning, and took note of the piped music, even obscure enlightened boomer chestnuts like the Byrds' "I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better" (yes, not even "Mr Tambourine Man" or "Turn! Turn! Turn!"). Now, consider Ikea as something which has its own market-savvy finger on the pulse of a certain 35-44 sensibility.

Cool, "I'll Feel a Whole lot Better," a deep cut for guys like me who like The Byrds ("My Back Pages" being another one of my faves) and have the "Greatest Hits" CD in our collections. (Perhaps songs like this are in rotation to keep husbands and boyfriends from bolting as they follow their wives-significant others around the store. There, how's that for a negative personality profile.)

But at last check, Ikea sells furniture and doesn't rely on customers filling out diaries or wearing small electronic devices to verify their radio listening. Ikea also does not rely on their in store music-casts to draw listeners in a competitive and "free-to-choose" environment. If that were the case, songs like "I'll Fell a Whole Lot Better" would ellicit an "I don't know this song" or "I don't like this song" reaction from "listeners" who would be more inclined to "push the button" rather than continue listening. Ikea's customers are in the store to buy furniture, not listen to hip Muzak.

If they operated on a radio-mentality model, perhaps they ought to have struck out such tunes for being too "old" and "obscure", etc--thankfully, they don't. (Hey, how often does one come across the "you hear better music programming in groceries and department stores than on the radio" mantra these days?)

Ikea's primary goal is to sell furniture or whatever's in their stores. Put their music on a 50kW FM in Market #1 or #71 and it's very likely that station would get smoked... and Ikea wouldn't want to buy advertising on it.

-9-

 

[KevinFodor]

They believe "radio sucks". And if we'd only listen to them, radio would be fun again, live DJ's would be hired 24/7,

Well, without being hostile towards you, I ask:

Does research state that listeners want 6 to as many as 9 spots in a stopset. Or is that a function of economic goals and pressure from having paid too much for the station ten years ago?

Does research indicate that oldies stations should limit their playlists to some 250-300 songs inspite of the fact that most of thir listeners will have heard these songs for upwards of 40 years.

Ican give two examples that tend to refute this approach: WTJM (Jammin' 105) when it debuted in Dec '98 I heard it in many of my locations, alot of the staff said how great this "new" station was...BY march '99 it was almost completely gone from said locations' background radios. Why? Too much repetition , too limited in genres covered.

This thing was hugely researched before being rolled out nationwide but it failed in a short time because it was too limited Just like all the "Alices" "Arrows" etc.

Major research has shown that young working-class males want "edgy" talk and that same "research" must have shown that winners like Leslie Gold deserved yet a third (or is it fourth) go 'round . It also must have shown that this sort of talk warrented a format dedicated 24/7 to it.

Why then did it fail twice?

That's called "research". And, they ignore the fact that successful radio stations, including WCBS-FM have operated in this manner since, certainly the 1980's if not before.

One of the criticisms rasied against WCBS-fm in the late 1990s was that they hadn't updated their playlist and had gone on cruise control since shortly after Joe McCoy arrived in the early 1980s. Didn't any "research" point out the looming demo problem and how ill-advised it was to stop the clock and not include 1980's hits as they went oldies?

WCBS is also interesting from a tinkering standpoint; from 1989 through early 1990s they were often #1 (12+) Gradually the audience declined -not just in demos but in real, gross numbers of listeners.

Why didn't "research" point to a solution? Instead, all of the attempts made the situation worse. When an inherently "beloved" format such as this falls so dramtically there has to be a reason.

I contend that alot of this research was from the premise of achieving greatest ecomomies of scale after bought-up stations during the late 1990s.

Bottom line; you can draw a colinear curve with increased research and station stick price, but it hasn't allways served it's master well.

Lino

Lino:

A couple of good thought here...

First on commercial loads: I would agree with you that a company (most often Clear Channel) that plays 9 units or more in a stop set is crazy. Their "less is more" was a mere smokescreen to make them more money. (Run 6 :30's, 3 :15's, a :10 and a :05...and you make more money than you would by running 4 :60's.) They claim to be playing fewer commercials, but run a monitor on them...their unit count is usually 17-24 spots...way too much for my blood. And, I think L.I.M. has also contributed to devaluing the radio market, since...at the end of the month, it seems spots go for bargain basement rates on some of these stations, as the station struggles to hit its' numbers. That depresses the rate other stations in the market can charge.

But, you're comparing one or two companies to the whole industry. Some of our stations here run no more than 10-12 units per hour. And, compare that to the 24 unit an hour numbers stations like WABC played in the 60's. You wanna know why FM eventually took over? No lie...the personalities kept the numbers up about as long as they could. In the end, less commercials and more music won.

Just how "few" commercials do you think a radio station can run and still be profitable? I think once the unit count drops below about 8 per hour...it gets tough to make money. Especially with the depressed rate situation we're dealing with today.

Playlist size: that tends to be a market by market and situation by situation deal. Example: some oldies stations I have programmed, or been involved with operated with about 450-500 "active" titles, with an additional library "universe" of about 1,500 songs total. The other songs in the "universe" were used for daily specialty features, specialty weekends, and specialty programming. (I've never believed, for example, in doing a "top 10 at 10" and fudging the chart. One incidental play of "Strangers In The Night" at 10:15 pm will not kill a station.)

On the other hand, a station showing a cume issue might cut the list to 250-300 titles in an attempt to force recurrences of listening..."everytime I turn the station on I hear a hit". However, if you do that too long in the oldies format, I would agree you'll eventually be dealing with burn issues.

What tactic you take depends upon the individual station and market's situation. I have seen music tests where it's extremely hard to get 300 songs to test. (By this I mean have 60% of the test audience say they either like a song, or like it a lot.) So, there's no real "one size fits all" formula. Tighter is better overall, but you may find yourself in a situation where a tad more open list can be beneficial.

Maybe not where you are, but I know of a number of markets where the "Arrow" format did very well. In fact, today's "Classic Hits" format is very close to what "Arrow" was in the beginning. Could the problem have been it was ahead of its' time? Worth pondering...

One of the reasons oldies stations generally never moved forward is that they really didn't have to for a while. Not as long as the baby boomers ruled the advertiser's budgets. But once that changed, a change in the format itself became necessary. Hence where things are today. But, I would suggest that the issue you present with CBS-FM in the 90's was probably more complicated than just a PD not moving the format forward. There can be a lot of things going on internally inside radio stations people outside of radio never hear or see. Consolidation also brought, for example: major cuts in promotional budgets to just about every station in America. We were told to "do more with less". What effect might that have had on the #1 12 plus ranking? Radio used to be a "spend money to make money" business. But, that was before Wall Street moved in.

Research is important. But, it's not the only tool radio uses. But, without some type of research (even poor man's research like a subscription to Mediabase), most stations are screwed when it comes to gaining audience.

 

[adma]

Ikea's primary goal is to sell furniture or whatever's in their stores. Put their music on a 50kW FM in Market #1 or #71 and it's very likely that station would get smoked... and Ikea wouldn't want to buy advertising on it.

Fundamentally, I realize--and probably more so than a lot of the complaining "active listeners" and "wannabes" around here--how, given what radio's become and the role it plays today, expecting such "enlightened" "breadth" is beside the point. (And re Ikea advertising; hey, it isn't necessarily new. I remember Top 40 stations plugging concerts/performers they didn't actually play, or that you might have heard on their FM sisters at most. At the same time, there's something about Ikea's rather clever radio-advertising strategy that might be about "fleshing out the bottom", i.e. they're implicitly good for everyone, even Terrestrial Joe + Jane Yokel as well. Matter-of-factly reaching out to the "sorry, you can't come in because you're too fat, drive a mini-van or live in the wrong zipcode" bunch--not by pandering to them, but simply by virally investing in their realm. It's truer to the old Top 40 spirit than any actual commercial radio fare today )

Perhaps what I'm trying to delineate is why a large swath of the discerning doesn't bother with radio any more, has bothered less and less; and while it may be fine in its way (and a natural reflection of technical and cultural change), it's also less-than-fine in its way, esp. when it comes to the medium's future. (Consider the media-rust-belt undertones of KevinFodor's last post, and others like it. I feel the pain and struggle.) And while yes, such "condescending" and "controlling" behaviour might be inappropriate if you're, say, a medical practitioner, when it comes to media and culture--and anything that could be conceivably be subjected to "criticism" of such a sort--there might be more justification in taking such concerns a little bit seriously. Unless you don't want to, that is.

Though re "media and culture", at least, I'm intrigued by how a lot of the radio biz apparently visualizes itself in such supremely isolated terms; like it's still simply the best thing around. Really? Still? In 2007? I don't know of anywhere else where there's such a RADIO TRUTH-esque pattern of jerkwater attacks on critics as loser wannabes, has-beens, never-weres, etc--when, as a matter of fact, a lot of those who take issue with what radio's become are perhaps *better off* now in whatever medium or profession they've chosen. Better paid, and in realms with more glamour. Indeed, their issue might be more of a despair with how squalid the medium they once worshipped or worked in has become; it coulda been a contenda, but now it's just a bum. A "profitable" bum, maybe; but a bum all the same. And RADIO TRUTH might as well be those hillbilly grifters who booted the Simpsons out of their own home.

In fact--and this is important in our age of layoffs and technological and media change--I'm seriously wondering how a lot of these folk who attack "radio wannabes" would cope in life outside of radio. Assuming that a lot of them are "radio lifers". If they lost their radio livelihood...what then? Maybe there's a fear involved in their attacks?

I know of people who once might have thrown such "radio wannabe" and "disgruntled ex-employee" brickbats on web forums--then, *they* became ex-employees, and rather pathetic ones at that. Trying to keep the fire going through lunkheaded blogs or ineptly imbedded podcasts, falling to the bottle, etc. Eating their words, to the degree that their overinflated egos and underinflated aptitudes would allow...

 

[Barry45RPM]

Aparently, Radio is the ONLY business in the world where the Store Owner hires a "manager" who doesn't care one whit what the customer wants and repeatedly asks for, will present only what he inherently "knows" which is the best product to sell, even if its the same thing as every third store on the block is selling and sits back waiting to collect the profits? The only one who makes out here is the guy making "Store For Rent" Signs.

I believe Media buyers will only buy spots on a station that has listeners. You can't sell what you want. You have to sell what the listener wants, even if you sincerely hoped it was your product they would prefer, If they ask for the old product in big numbers, good business dictates then thats what you give them.

 

[KevinFodor]

Ok, Barry.

Go try and do it.

 

[adma]

Aparently, Radio is the ONLY business in the world where the Store Owner hires a "manager" who doesn't care one whit what the customer wants and repeatedly asks for, will present only what he inherently "knows" which is the best product to sell, even if its the same thing as every third store on the block is selling and sits back waiting to collect the profits? The only one who makes out here is the guy making "Store For Rent" Signs.

I believe Media buyers will only buy spots on a station that has listeners. You can't sell what you want. You have to sell what the listener wants, even if you sincerely hoped it was your product they would prefer, If they ask for the old product in big numbers, good business dictates then thats what you give them.

Depending on one's interpretation, those two paragraphs may or may not contradict each other. To disgruntled oldies fans, it's bigshot radio consultants who don't care one whit and are driving the biz to the ground. To radio biz types, it's Stepford-haters like me who don't care one whit and would drive the biz to the ground.

And reading between it all, it might also be (as I've emphasized before) a matter of particular, rather than generic, types of listeners generated. Just because conservative mouth-breather talk predominates on the radio (albeit in the euphemistic name of "entertainment") doesn't mean those values do or ought to be central in society at large--"radio reality" isn't reality. (Though it does have a way of rubbing off on people's impressions of the medium at large, and "winnowing out" those who don't conform.)

If one applied RADIO TRUTH-esque dismissal of "active listener" marginalia to society at large, then, re to take the case of David Eduardo's Ecuador, situations like this wouldn't have a hope in heck of being addressed...

 

[LinoNYC]

It's interesting how a thread started by a bitter misanthrope turned into one of the most interesting.

Great to get away from "All CBS-fm All The Time".

Lino

 

[adma]

Hey, but I thought his message was that *we're* the bitter misanthropes ;D

 

[OldiesCat]

A number of you pretty easily toss around the "programmers and consultants who don't care" accusations.

Based on- what? Do you know us personally? Have you ever personally worked for us? How do you purport to know what's in our heart and soul? That's an amazing talent you have, that ability to read minds. You should try out for "America's Got Talent".

If we really "don't care", why is the spirit of 99% of our posts making radio better for radio listeners? The answer is you just want us to give radio people the answers they desperately WANT, not the real-world, everyday practical solutions for what radio needs to give to our LISTENERS. That's the big difference- some of you live totally inside radio and are never really and truly interested in looking outside your little circle.

I've got news for you: the radio industry isn't here to satisfy your career aspirations- we are here to serve the listening public.

 

[adma]

That's the big difference- some of you live totally inside radio and are never really and truly interested in looking outside your little circle.

And ironically, that's the salvo I've been lobbing at "your" (or, perhaps more properly, RADIO TRUTH's) side. Living totally inside radio, circumscribed within your inner circle. Pot, kettle, black.

How old are you, how long have you been in the business? This is 2007, not 1977. Radio isn't "attractive" anymore, certainly not the way it used to be. Transpose your youthful self to the present, and the medium you're in might as well be off-radar. It's no longer a desirable "career aspiration". And the "listening public" you've generated is the dregs.

Other than the fact that you're a lifer and it's ingrained in you and "it's a living", what's the big thrill about being in radio? To discerning young'uns, it's redundant, and identified with Herb Tarlek sleazebags besides...

 

[LinoNYC]

This is 2007, not 1977. Radio isn't "attractive" anymore, certainly not the way it used to be. Transpose your youthful self to the present, and the medium you're in might as well be off-radar. It's no longer a desirable "career aspiration". And the "listening public" you've generated is the dregs.

As Archis would say "aw jeez" Seriously though, if you really feel that way why bother to post here?

I've read extensively about the subject and what I have distilled from this and personal interaction with the younger potential listeners is that radio has gone from being a cultural windsock to a comoddity and utility. Evidence fo this is that amongst the (mostly white) middle class the popular stations are background fare "Lite" etc. They exist to keep the boss' drones happy in work environments and to fill-in the gaps of silence that might leave people with just the noise inside their heads.

Otherwise, the only two areas of growth over the last 6 years are; Ethnic, we are crawling with recent arrivals, and Non-commercial. The latter has claimed the educated middle-class for talk and left the comms to cater to Archies with such stuff as "Savage" 'Levin" etc and those audiences are ageing-out.

The most ominous trend is the fact that radio has dissappeared almost completely from the cultural hardware of youth. Few MP3 players even have a radio,,none have AM. For all the handwringing that occurred when cassette then CD walkmen were introduced neither of these could contain your entire music collection and most had a tuner to fall back on.

Free music was allways the intro for newest listeners, now that they get that elsewhere, what will get them in the door. One of the dangers in this scenario is that radio takes the same route that AM did sime 25 year ago when it could no longer attract youthful ears, they took another stab at the old folks. They probably had little choice, nonetheless AM today has virtually no listeners under 45. The future for the AM band looks alot like shortwave does today; a few major reputable stations, some ethnic and the Elmer Gantrys bringing up the rear.

Lino

 

[OldiesCat]

That's the big difference- some of you live totally inside radio and are never really and truly interested in looking outside your little circle.

And ironically, that's the salvo I've been lobbing at "your" (or, perhaps more properly, RADIO TRUTH's) side. Living totally inside radio, circumscribed within your inner circle. Pot, kettle, black.

How old are you, how long have you been in the business? This is 2007, not 1977. Radio isn't "attractive" anymore, certainly not the way it used to be. Transpose your youthful self to the present, and the medium you're in might as well be off-radar. It's no longer a desirable "career aspiration". And the "listening public" you've generated is the dregs.

Other than the fact that you're a lifer and it's ingrained in you and "it's a living", what's the big thrill about being in radio? To discerning young'uns, it's redundant, and identified with Herb Tarlek sleazebags besides...

Uh, wrong. A dedicated radio lifer? Absolutely. A life outside radio? Again, resounding YES. And I don't just hang around like-thinkers in this business- I don't Program by the "well, we've always done it this way" mindset. I'm always looking for new and different ways to do things; in fact, the entire spirit of my postings on CBS-FM was "don't just do it the same old way as before--it's time to re-invent CBS-FM and make it viable for the long haul". You forget that, of course.

Here's my message to you: if radio doesn't thrill you, please get out. If it's redundant, quit bitching and DO SOMETHING to make it more entertaining. And, finally, if you're not in the biz to serve your listening public, you owe it to the industry and those listeners to go do something that truly excites you. Radio obviously does not (as you clearly stated).

 

[KevinFodor]

That's the big difference- some of you live totally inside radio and are never really and truly interested in looking outside your little circle.

And ironically, that's the salvo I've been lobbing at "your" (or, perhaps more properly, RADIO TRUTH's) side. Living totally inside radio, circumscribed within your inner circle. Pot, kettle, black.

How old are you, how long have you been in the business? This is 2007, not 1977. Radio isn't "attractive" anymore, certainly not the way it used to be. Transpose your youthful self to the present, and the medium you're in might as well be off-radar. It's no longer a desirable "career aspiration". And the "listening public" you've generated is the dregs.

Other than the fact that you're a lifer and it's ingrained in you and "it's a living", what's the big thrill about being in radio? To discerning young'uns, it's redundant, and identified with Herb Tarlek sleazebags besides...

Adma:

That not as many young people are as interested in a career in radio as were in the past is accurate. But to suggest it is "no longer a desirable career aspiration" is dead wrong.

Ask the 10 or 12 broadcasting students I teach every week in a local fully accredited 2 year career college. Yes, in previous decades that class would have been more like 15-20. But, we're finding that some potential students are "tainted" by the opinions of their friends. Once they find out that jobs will be available...and that careers can be made in the business, (And I am totally honest and realistic with them about how long it's going to take to establilsh their careers) then interest follows.

Oh yeah. Show me a business anywhere in America that doesn't have a "Herb Tarlek Sleazebag" working in it at one time or another...

And your insult of the radio listening public really shows us how "holier than thou" you really are. I'm around radio listeners of all types every day. Some are 6 figure a year surgeons and attorneys...others are welfare recipients. Some are brilliant people, some are dumber than a box of rocks. But, I respect them all. Because, whether you or some of the other know-it-all's on this board can tell: radio is still, to them, an important part of their lives. And I'm proud they choose my stations on a daily basis.

Yes, radio needs to do more to connect with the younger generation. To that, you and I agree. And this will happen soon.

Sure, we have made, and will continue to make mistakes in this business. But the fact that you don't seem to think there's anyone in the business that "gets it" shows how little you really know about it. Real change, in any industry, is glacial. But change can happen.

 

[adma]

Here's my message to you: if radio doesn't thrill you, please get out. If it's redundant, quit bitching and DO SOMETHING to make it more entertaining. And, finally, if you're not in the biz to serve your listening public, you owe it to the industry and those listeners to go do something that truly excites you. Radio obviously does not (as you clearly stated).

With this "please get out" message, do you feel my sticking around and highlighting certain truths and perceptions is threatening your livelihood?

Anyway, if you want further proof of how certain radio-lifer types are (or fear being) not ready for prime time outside the strict slap-one-another-on-the-back radio orbit, witness John Mainelli's two-bit meltdown in this thread...