Answer these questions!

[davideduardo]

1. Who controls the radio -- the government, the broadcasting companies or the advertisers?

2. Why are the majority of radio programs so stupid?

3. How big is the bill for radio advertising?

4. Is the radio being employed for fascist propaganda?

5. Should the radio be a government monopoly?

6. What is the future of radio?"






(These are not new questions. They were asked in 1937 in a review of a book called "Not To Be Broadcast" by Ruth Brindze, claiming that the book answered those questions)

 

[b-turner]

OK,I'll bite.

In the USA,technically the license is owned by the government granted to the licensee. The licensee is allowed to program the station to their preference. Advertisers have some indirect influence if you consider programming is typically fine tuned to reach as many as possible to increase the odds of advertisers choosing the station as an advertising venue. The FCC makes no decisions on station programming except where FCC rules are concerned. In my decades in radio we have never allowed any advertiser to influence programming content regardless of how much they spend and any suggestion from an advertiser about content would be considered hostile and unwelcome.

Radio programmers back up all that they do with documentation from others or better yet local market research the station itself conducts.That's a far cry from stupid. The programmer keeps their job through successful programming that delivers the listeners.

Radio advertising rates are based on the number reached with the message. Some Low Power FMs charge pennies.

Fascist? Radio stations, in the USA, program for listeners. Thus, programming reflects the wants and desires of the target demographic the station has chosen for it's audience. If Fascist, there are lots of Fascists out there.

Radio is a government monopoly in many nations. In many of those countries there are tons of pirate stations. In nations where radio is government owned, radio listening is nowhere close to as popular as radio is in countries where radio is licensed to private companies.

I believe radio will mainly become national in coming years. I base this on the nature of most radio being reliant on local businesses for revenue. With national chains and online shopping adversely affecting local station revenue (more pronounced in smaller markets) by leaving the local merchant with fewer advertising dollars to work with, it only makes sense for national formats to take over. It may not be a satellite feed but certainly many elements would be identical.National shows have proven popular even in music formats.

 

[davideduardo]

OK,I'll bite.

In the USA,technically the license is owned by the government granted to the licensee. The licensee is allowed to program the station to their preference. Advertisers have some indirect influence if you consider programming is typically fine tuned to reach as many as possible to increase the odds of advertisers choosing the station as an advertising venue. The FCC makes no decisions on station programming except where FCC rules are concerned. In my decades in radio we have never allowed any advertiser to influence programming content regardless of how much they spend and any suggestion from an advertiser about content would be considered hostile and unwelcome.

Radio programmers back up all that they do with documentation from others or better yet local market research the station itself conducts.That's a far cry from stupid. The programmer keeps their job through successful programming that delivers the listeners.

Radio advertising rates are based on the number reached with the message. Some Low Power FMs charge pennies.

Fascist? Radio stations, in the USA, program for listeners. Thus, programming reflects the wants and desires of the target demographic the station has chosen for it's audience. If Fascist, there are lots of Fascists out there.

Radio is a government monopoly in many nations. In many of those countries there are tons of pirate stations. In nations where radio is government owned, radio listening is nowhere close to as popular as radio is in countries where radio is licensed to private companies.

I believe radio will mainly become national in coming years. I base this on the nature of most radio being reliant on local businesses for revenue. With national chains and online shopping adversely affecting local station revenue (more pronounced in smaller markets) by leaving the local merchant with fewer advertising dollars to work with, it only makes sense for national formats to take over. It may not be a satellite feed but certainly many elements would be identical.National shows have proven popular even in music formats.

Thoughtful.

Isn't it interesting that a set of questions first posed in 1937 are, save for a few differences in the way we use words, as relevant now as they were then.

As was said by George Santayana, "History shows that both those who do not learn history and those who do learn history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Delete My Account]

"Radio is a government monopoly in many nations. In many of those countries there are tons of pirate stations. In nations where radio is government owned, radio listening is nowhere close to as popular as radio is in countries where radio is licensed to private companies."

Are you referring to nations where the radio is exclusively government owned? Because I'd point out that in nations such as Canada, the UK and Australia, the CBC, BBC networks and Triple J (public broadcasters) are extremely popular, and often outrank the private broadcasters in ratings.

 

[b-turner]

I would agree that in nations like Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and perhaps another nation or two, the government operated stations are quite popular. The difference seems to be that in these instances the stations function almost as independent entities, permitted to program for the masses versus the government's directive. All these nations have free press and other radio competitors. In nations where media is tightly controlled, that is not the case. The only exceptions I am aware of where only government stations exist and do well are places where commercial or private operations are not financially viable.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

I would agree that in nations like Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and perhaps another nation or two, the government operated stations are quite popular. The difference seems to be that in these instances the stations function almost as independent entities, permitted to program for the masses versus the government's directive. All these nations have free press and other radio competitors. In nations where media is tightly controlled, that is not the case. The only exceptions I am aware of where only government stations exist and do well are places where commercial or private operations are not financially viable.

The same goes for Italy, where government owned RAI 1, 2 and 3 are popular, but there is also a large and vibrant private radio market.

 

[davideduardo]

I would agree that in nations like Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and perhaps another nation or two, the government operated stations are quite popular. The difference seems to be that in these instances the stations function almost as independent entities, permitted to program for the masses versus the government's directive. All these nations have free press and other radio competitors. In nations where media is tightly controlled, that is not the case. The only exceptions I am aware of where only government stations exist and do well are places where commercial or private operations are not financially viable.

You find that where governments can mandate massive change# in technology is where the commercial sector is small or very limited, such as India, the Scandinavian nations, etc. Where private radio is totally dominant, such change is harder to mandate because it affects the asset value of private property and amounts to confiscation.

And you have Canada where DAB was initiated but not forced on the public, and interest rapidly waned and the whole thing was abandoned.

India, where commercial radio only started about 20 years ago, is totally dominated by AIR, and they have decided to go with DRM on AM as they are, I believe, the only operator on AM so they can do whatever they want.

 

[landtuna]

In my decades in radio we have never allowed any advertiser to influence programming content regardless of how much they spend and any suggestion from an advertiser about content would be considered hostile and unwelcome.

I can think of at least two seemingly contradictions to that statement but semantics might play a part.

In the "old days" (and 1937 would be in the mix) commercial advertisers actually "owned" the radio show (or signed contracts individually with their performers). It isn't logical to assume they had no content input as the producers of said shows were, in fact, employees of the advertiser. I am thinking specifically of the radio soaps although there may have been other shows (Jack Benny et al) with similar considerations.

Moving into the modern era, wouldn't it be much the same thing where advertisers pulled their commercials as a result of bad behavior by the actors or the program addressing controversial subjects (such as abortion for example)? I haven't noticed this so much in modern radio but it has happened more frequently in TV land.

 

[davideduardo]

In the "old days" (and 1937 would be in the mix) commercial advertisers actually "owned" the radio show (or signed contracts individually with their performers). It isn't logical to assume they had no content input as the producers of said shows were, in fact, employees of the advertiser. I am thinking specifically of the radio soaps although there may have been other shows (Jack Benny et al) with similar considerations.

In the first decade of network radio, the ad agencies bought network hours and halves and produced shows for their major clients. Of course the client had a say as the client was, via its agency, producing the show and delivering it to the network for broadcast. A huge percentage of network shows were done this way.

 

[b-turner]

In that respect, paid time (ie: advertiser buying time) would be of an entirely different nature than that of radio station programmed content. In that respect, the 60 second commercial aired by a station is directly influenced by the advertiser and this includes the content of Underwriting announcements aired on public radio. The question becomes the level of influence approval has on a program where the client is charged for the production costs of the programming (ie: station requires client to pay all costs of airing a program over and above charges of time itself).