Any Mea Culpas?

[jerry367]

Has there been even ONE radio exec who has come out and said that these companies have royally #%$@ed up this whole industry?

 

[HowardMBurgers]

So let me ask you.. How did any group or individuals mess up the "whole industry", exactly? Better yet, are you even in the business to have an adequate perspective? If so, then what do you do? (in general terms of course).

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio has problems?

Corporate is good. They know what they're doing. We'll all benefit from their benevolence. Programming has never been better. Less is more. Do more with less. Ask not what corporate can do for you, ask what you can do for corporate. Smile for the Skype camera. Have some more Kool-Aid.

Did I miss any?

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Beyond the obvious cynicism of your post, I would be interested in knowing where you get the information to develop such opinions that corporate ownership of radio is bad and somehow to blame for the current economic enviroment. Is your opinion formed through discussions on this board? Or do you know someone in radio that have you this opinion? Are you actually employed, or formerly employed by a radio operation? If so, then what was/is your role?

For months I've read similar sarcastic and most times smug comments about "corporate radio", but never have yet read any anecdotal evidence that the comments are based on any actual insider knowledge of the industry. Not to be unkind, but being a board-operator, call screener or whatever, doesn't qualify you as having actual knowledge

I've been in this business for over 30 years, all of them I've worked for a corporation that owns a station, or group of stations as the case may be. Some of them have been small corporations, while others have been quite large. Believe me, if the small corporations which owned a couple small or medium market stations could borrow or sell some shares of stock to grow their group, they would in a heartbeat. Does that also make them evil corporate owners that caused the demise of radio as you know it?

 

[TheBigA]

Has there been even ONE radio exec who has come out and said that these companies have royally #%$@ed up this whole industry?

There is no "one size fits all" blame. Can you say that Bonneville royally screwed up the industry? Has CBS royally screwed up? There are lots of big companies that are struggling through tough business times, like all of us individuals, and are still managing to pay their bills. There was only one company that didn't.

But no one likes to crap where they live. I can't expect anyone from any company is going to come out and trash another company. Those kinds of things have a way of coming back to haunt. Kind of like one football team attacking another a few days before they play against each other.

Here's what screwed up the industry: Assuming that everything stays the same and nothing changes. So once things change (as they did about 5 years ago), everyone scrambles. The internet and a lot of new technologies completely changes the media landscape, not just for radio, but also TV and newspapers. If you're ad supported, and you don't send bills to subscribers every month like telecom and cable, you're in trouble. That wasn't caused by big companies. If we had frozen the ownership situation in 1994 (which would have been a bad idea), we'd be in this exact same situation now. Although Citadel might not have gone Chap 11. Otherwise, we'd all still be struggling with audience loss and new competition.

You won't see any more of these high-debt mega mergers any more. The trades have already reported that station sales are way down. No one's buying, no one's selling. Bad time to be a radio broker. There's no business.

 

[radioray]

HowardMBurgers

ll I can say is that, as a station

1. Morning guy in a Top 10 market and PM drive guy Top 5 (many years ago)
2. Sales Manager with several stations doing over a million a month and some doing less than 50,000 (and believe it or not sometimes I think I had the most fun and did my best work at the smaller stations)
3. PD/MD Top 15 markets
4. GM Top 30 Market, Top 50 size cluster

and now

Owner - (part or whole) or 7 clusters (over one million weekly cume all combined)....I DO think it is people LIKE me who screwed things up.

My colleagues, sales and owner typed

As a rule (There are exceptions!)

* Did not value the product enough. It's not just business, it's show business, you cannot forget the "show" aspect.

* Overpaid. Cmon no station was worth over a 13 times multiple even a decade ago.

* Thought the party would never end.

* Thought short term instead of long term. Allowed Wall Street expectations to run their business instead of taking the google approach.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120972570.html

* Did not value their employees enough.

* Did not value the industry associations enough (whey the hell isnt EVERY GM and GSM of Citadel and Clear Channel and Cumulus at both the RAB and every PD at the NAB or Gavin or RR show? No excuse for not supporting these industry organizations and exchanging ideas and information with colleagues). But the big wigs sure have time to make the RadioInk conference, yeah, nice.

* Did not invest enough in new technologies.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Fair enough Ray. You've been around long enough to have perspective. That being said, I agree with someone else that said in another thread; if anything radio owners became complacent with the business, ignoring new technology and emerging competition.

My take is that besides the economic conditions and excessive leverage which have trashed the best-laid-plans of some larger groups, radio still has a valuable place in the world. Whether that place is as large as it was when there was no competition other than records, CD's or cassette tapes, I don't think it ever will again. But as you've no doubt experienced over the years, if done correctly and prudently, running a radio business large or small can be profitable. Because after all, it is 'show business' but still a business.

As many poster's like lemmings in this forum jump on a bandwagon quick to blame a group like Citadel, Clear Channel, CBS, or what-have-you, on the slump in radio sales due to a bad economy is, in my view rather ignorant.

 

[jerry367]

Beyond the obvious cynicism of your post, I would be interested in knowing where you get the information to develop such opinions that corporate ownership of radio is bad and somehow to blame for the current economic enviroment. Is your opinion formed through discussions on this board? Or do you know someone in radio that have you this opinion? Are you actually employed, or formerly employed by a radio operation? If so, then what was/is your role?

For months I've read similar sarcastic and most times smug comments about "corporate radio", but never have yet read any anecdotal evidence that the comments are based on any actual insider knowledge of the industry. Not to be unkind, but being a board-operator, call screener or whatever, doesn't qualify you as having actual knowledge

I've been in this business for over 30 years, all of them I've worked for a corporation that owns a station, or group of stations as the case may be. Some of them have been small corporations, while others have been quite large. Believe me, if the small corporations which owned a couple small or medium market stations could borrow or sell some shares of stock to grow their group, they would in a heartbeat. Does that also make them evil corporate owners that caused the demise of radio as you know it?

Excuse me?

I never said coporate ownership was bad. What you CANNOT dispute, is that these companies thirst for power and control caused them to overpay several fold in an attempt to swallow up as many properties as they could once ownership limits were eased.

THAT practice is especially responsible for the incredible mess radio is in today----not the ipod or internet. If anything, the alternate audio sources now available further emphasize how poorly corporate execs have reacted to their money woes by further cutting the quality of the "product", thereby perpetually hamstringing themselves for years to come.

 

[davideduardo]

What you CANNOT dispute, is that these companies thirst for power and control caused them to overpay several fold in an attempt to swallow up as many properties as they could once ownership limits were eased.

Power and control? Hardly.

When ownership caps were lifted, those companies that wanted to be major players understood that there were relatively few good signals in each market and more chasers than sellers. So prices went up as companies paid too much with the idea that there were synergies and other advantages to having market clusters.

The simple goal was to make more money, and the stock markets rewarded the companies that did the most consolidating... initially.

Greed, perhaps. But not power and control.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Excuse me?

I never said coporate ownership was bad. What you CANNOT dispute, is that these companies thirst for power and control caused them to overpay several fold in an attempt to swallow up as many properties as they could once ownership limits were eased.

THAT practice is especially responsible for the incredible mess radio is in today----not the ipod or internet. If anything, the alternate audio sources now available further emphasize how poorly corporate execs have reacted to their money woes by further cutting the quality of the "product", thereby perpetually hamstringing themselves for years to come.

You're excused Jerry.

As David pointed out, there is no "thirst for power" involved with any of the corporations that own broadcast facilties. I know personally many of the players that you speak of, and all of them are just trying to do their job; increase shareholder value plus protect and grow the business. Whether these folks have have been sucessful given the economy is in question I agree, but to make the inference that any corporation or sinister cabal of corporate folks have created somehow the demise of radio is complete nonsense.

So now are you going to answer my earlier question about how you have arrived at your opinion? Exactly what sort of "mess" is radio in today? Maybe due to the economic conditions or whatever, but according to PPM data, radio listening is at an all time high. Probably because listening to the radio is free. Are your opinions about the quality of "the product", based on your own personal views?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Howard, it's pretty obvious that TSL is suffering. That's an empirical fact. Anecdotally, a LOT of people both in and out of the business decry the decline in timely, compelling programming on the radio today. Radio as primarily a music delivery system has too much competition these days. There needs to be some added value - other than free access - to make it competitive.

Of course, PPM changes the methodology for audience measurement, which means that it will become all but impossible to compare listening to pre-PPM levels. And, PPM doesn't measure listening, it measures HEARING. There's no component that determines conscious listening vs. background noise. That's going to separate radio sales people from "order-takers".

Corporate's role in trying to make radio a regional or national medium instead of an inherently local medium is obvious. The results of that attempt are coming home to roost. The promised "economies of scale" generally failed to materialize, and they misread the appeal of syndication in many markets.

 

[TheBigA]

There needs to be some added value - other than free access - to make it competitive.

If you're talking about live and local DJs, they still exist at most stations today. And even with the live & local DJs, TSL is suffering.

Look, if one or two companies want to fire their staff, that makes it easier for the other companies in the market to kick their butts. The goal is to be #1 and give listeners what they want. This is not a one-size-fits-all thing where 15,000 radio stations have all fired their talent and replaced them with syndication. Every market, even the smallest ones, have stations with live air talent. In some cases, it does well. In others, it doesn't matter. If listeners want live & local talent, they can find it in every market, regardless of size.

The real question is: Do people want live & local talent playing music. If you give me a free sweet roll, that's not going to make me like sushi. I question whether music listeners really want live DJs interrupting their music. But once again, the public has that choice, and it doesn't always seem to be the deciding factor.

Some of the companies that are still investing in local talent are owned by big companies. So the generalization that "corporate role in trying to make radio a regional or national medium" is a load of crap. Just because one or two companies do something doesn't make it an industry-wide thing.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Howard, it's pretty obvious that TSL is suffering. That's an empirical fact. Anecdotally, a LOT of people both in and out of the business decry the decline in timely, compelling programming on the radio today. Radio as primarily a music delivery system has too much competition these days. There needs to be some added value - other than free access - to make it competitive.

You are absolutley right that there is increased competition for listening these days. To that point, making the statement that TSL is suffering may be too dramatic, primarily because frankly we don't have anything on-par to compare current data to.

Sure back in 1980 there was no competition from things like the Internet or MP3 devices. Now people have so many choices of how to get their content when they want it, that indeed they may spend less time listening to radio. But according to a measuring system I would argue much more accurate than the prior diary method, the total number of listeners to free radio have increased. The trick for radio is now to better complete with the 'sexiness' of the Internet, because on-line advertising provides the advertiser immediate feedback/ratings.

Regarding what in my mind is an old and tired argument that if only radio went back to developing major personalities, listening number would return to the days of old, is completely without merit. The vast majority of modern society wants music or other content when they want it, period.

Tastes and interests over time change with technology and societal changes. Radio is currently adapting to current times, tastes and increasing competition. The real bottom line is that if radio falls too much further behind waiting for the old days to return, it's toast.

 

[davideduardo]

And, PPM doesn't measure listening, it measures HEARING.

And that is exactly what advertisers have wanted for some time.

There's no component that determines conscious listening vs. background noise.

It's under development by the Partnership for Radio Engagement Leadership Team which has been the subject of several press releases from Arbitron and the company contracted to work with the advertising and radio industries, Sequent Partners.

That's going to separate radio sales people from "order-takers".

I haven't seen any "order takers" for many many decades.

The promised "economies of scale" generally failed to materialize,

Where they materialized were in areas like accounting, traffic, office rental, etc. Were US broadcasters to have looked at cluster-based operations outside the US where they have been "developing" for as much as 60 years, they could have seen this.

and they misread the appeal of syndication in many markets.

If anything was misread, it was the appeal of bad talent, a la Adam Corolla. The appeal of good syndicated shows (we called them "networks" back then) goes back to the 1930's.

 

[davideduardo]

Regarding what in my mind is an old and tired argument that if only radio went back to developing major personalities, listening number would return to the days of old, is completely without merit.

Not only is that idea without merit, it has been proven without merit in the ever-increasing number of PPM markets.

The classic case is the Radio One cluster in Houston. Rather than blame the PPM for the initial poor debut of The Box and Majic in the PPM, Radio One decided to find out if their own stations were, perhaps, less than stellar.

Recognizing that the diary tended to register brands rather than precise usage, they realized they had good brands but deficient execution and set about cutting back DJ chatter, reducting talk in music dayparts, shortening talk in morning shows and adding more songs, etc.

The result: #1 and #2 12+ in Houston.

The PPM shows that talky, DJ intensive formats die. Even Seacreast lost a month to jockless Amp in LA until he cut back talk and returned to a leadership position.

And talking to many listeners reveals that they are burnt out on jocks and want "DJs" like in clubs... meaning great song to song flow with tunes they really like... and no talk.

 

[davideduardo]

Maybe due to the economic conditions or whatever, but according to PPM data, radio listening is at an all time high.

Abosolutely. What most posters ignore, perhaps conveniently, is that the diary was a defective measurement system in that listeners recorded listening form memory, often putting in entries to a favorite stations of, for example, "WXXX 6 Am to 9 Am" when in fact, the real listening in that time period was 47 minutes.

So new measurement shows what was true all along. What the PPM adds is the cume for less favorite stations or ones heard at work or with family members and so on. That fact boosts radio reach to about 95% of all persons. Yes, TSL is down, but it was down due to ongoing diary cooperation rates and the defects of the diary, and radio now can be seen with the PPM to give advertisers access to nearly everyone in the country!

 

[jerry367]

You're excused Jerry.

As David pointed out, there is no "thirst for power" involved with any of the corporations that own broadcast facilties. I know personally many of the players that you speak of, and all of them are just trying to do their job; increase shareholder value plus protect and grow the business. Whether these folks have have been sucessful given the economy is in question I agree, but to make the inference that any corporation or sinister cabal of corporate folks have created somehow the demise of radio is complete nonsense.

So now are you going to answer my earlier question about how you have arrived at your opinion? Exactly what sort of "mess" is radio in today? Maybe due to the economic conditions or whatever, but according to PPM data, radio listening is at an all time high. Probably because listening to the radio is free. Are your opinions about the quality of "the product", based on your own personal views?

You're a bit naive.

When I say "power and control", I am referring to the ability to manipulate a marketplace. Whether it be through ad rates, in conjunctuion with concert venues or simply buying the major AM signals in a market and neatly positoning stations according to the demos you want to sell---no real competitors need apply. This nonsense has gone on in market after market after market over the last 13 years.

Wake up.

 

[davideduardo]

.
When I say "power and control", I am referring to the ability to manipulate a marketplace.

No company can manipulate a marketplace with the market caps currently in place.

I had a cluster in a million-population market 40 years ago... I had 9 stations in a 45 station market. There was no way I could manipulate anything, as any advertiser had 36 other stations they could use to buy around me.

Whether it be through ad rates,

Ad agencies set cost per point goals for each market. If a station comes in above the CPP goals, they get bought around.

in conjunctuion with concert venues

What radio company controls venues? Venues tend to control radio, giving the artist promotions to the station that makes the best deal..

or simply buying the major AM signals in a market and neatly positoning stations according to the demos you want to sell-

The top 100 markets have less than 200 viable AM station. AM in general has about below a 15 share of listening under age 55, so a market can't be controlled with any amount of its AM signals.

--no real competitors need apply.

None of these points is true in the real world.

This nonsense has gone on in market after market after market over the last 13 years.

No, it really hasn't.

 

[TheBigA]

When I say "power and control", I am referring to the ability to manipulate a marketplace. Whether it be through ad rates, in conjunctuion with concert venues or simply buying the major AM signals in a market and neatly positoning stations according to the demos you want to sell---no real competitors need apply. This nonsense has gone on in market after market after market over the last 13 years.

Huh? Maybe you can be more specific. Since you say it happens in market after market, you should be able to give us a few specifics.

Clear Channel tried to use its synergies with radio and it's concert venues, and it failed completely. The promoters and artists want the dominant station in the market, regardless of ownership.

As for buying the AM signals in a market, I fail to understand the strategy there.

 

[TVradioguru]

You're a bit naive.

When I say "power and control", I am referring to the ability to manipulate a marketplace. Whether it be through ad rates, in conjunctuion with concert venues or simply buying the major AM signals in a market and neatly positoning stations according to the demos you want to sell---no real competitors need apply. This nonsense has gone on in market after market after market over the last 13 years.

Wake up.

Jerry I believe on more than one occasion that Mr. Burgers asked you to reveal where you get your information, however you seem to be side-stepping that part.

Trust me Jerry.. Guys like Howard, David, and Big A have forgotten more about radio than you'll ever know. So rather than come off like some sort of an expert, I suggest you read and learn.