Any Mea Culpas?

[firepoint525]

Yes but ten years ago all these stations would have been live.

Ten, twenty, and thirty years ago, these stations ran syndicated music shows. Casey Kasem, Dick Clark, Bob Kingsley, Walt Baby Love, and many more. That's what radio stations have been running on Sundays for years.

True, but doesn't quite tell the whole story. In the '70s, on my local AM station, Casey was on Sunday afternoons at 3:00. Appointment radio for me! In the '80s, they shifted him over to their FM station, but moved him to 6:00 on Saturday mornings! :'( As best as I could tell, they didn't really have any weekend jocks. Their weekday people worked six day weeks, with maybe a six-hour shift on the weekends, whereas their weekday shift might be only four or five hours.

 

[TheBigA]

What many stations did in the years before VT was running "best of" tapes of their morning show on Saturdays. That way, listeners who may have missed great bits by the morning show, or who just wanted to hear them again, could hear them on a day when they weren't limited by their commute times. Those tapes were either run by board ops or the show producer.

Today, it's possible to do the same thing with automation or VT. Radio stations that create original content in morning drive need to find ways of making that content available to listeners, either through multiple repeats on the main channel, or via podcasts on their internet site. We already know that a portion of the public doesn't watch TV in real time. I can imagine that will become a bigger factor for radio. Specialty programs, such as weekend countdowns, are already available either by streams or podcasts.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What many stations did in the years before VT was running "best of" tapes of their morning show on Saturdays. That way, listeners who may have missed great bits by the morning show, or who just wanted to hear them again, could hear them on a day when they weren't limited by their commute times. Those tapes were either run by board ops or the show producer.

Today, it's possible to do the same thing with automation or VT. Radio stations that create original content in morning drive need to find ways of making that content available to listeners, either through multiple repeats on the main channel, or via podcasts on their internet site. We already know that a portion of the public doesn't watch TV in real time. I can imagine that will become a bigger factor for radio. Specialty programs, such as weekend countdowns, are already available either by streams or podcasts.

You're citing the exact reasons that fresh, local content is even more important on the weekend. The original post was about the LACK of fresh, original content on the weekend.

Saturday and Sunday mornings were always lost time. What changed is that mid-days and PM drive on Saturday and Sunday - dayparts with VERY large audiences - are being treated as throw-aways. That not only hurts the station, it hurts the industry. Maybe as the bankruptcies and/or restructured debt deals add up, money will be freed up to do better programming.

 

[TheBigA]

You're citing the exact reasons that fresh, local content is even more important on the weekend.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Contrary to your misinterpretation, I believe the weekend is a great time to repeat weekday programming. That's what I said in my post, and I stand by that view. And it doesn't have to be local. Rush, Hannity, and all the rest provide weekend best-ofs for their affiliates. And I don't see it as a throw-away. I see it as a necessary public service. As I said, most people can't sit through a full 4-hour show during the week. Most of the material will be new to a majority of the audience.

Maybe as the bankruptcies and/or restructured debt deals add up, money will be freed up to do better programming.

Hahahhahahahaha!!!! How naive are you? That money is going to the banks, who will spend it on their bonuses.

And Farid gets a bonus if the restructuring goes smoothly. Guess who pays for it.

 

[firepoint525]

Specialty programs, such as weekend countdowns, are already available either by streams or podcasts.

If that had been the case back in the '70s and '80s, I would have listened to the countdowns there. You think I would get up at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday when I didn't have to? I'm sure that if I listen online, I could repeat segments that I wanted to hear again, or skip songs that I didn't like. How could radio possibly compete with that, unless the weekend's countdown was not put on the website until the following Monday?

 

[TheBigA]

How could radio possibly compete with that, unless the weekend's countdown was not put on the website until the following Monday?

Radio can't compete with that. That's the point.

Listeners don't live their lives around the broadcaster's schedule any more. That went out with DVRs in the 80s. It's already a major problem for TV stations. It's up to radio stations to make their most popular features available 24/7, and find ways to monetize that. Because the concept of planning one's personal life around the radio is going away. You are the last generation to remember that.

 

[SirRoxalot]

How about if radio stations become CONTENT PROVIDERS, providing compelling, relatable, FRESH content during the majority of the day?

If you miss something, you can download the podcast from the website. Recycling syndication is a losers game. All you're doing is building an audience for the syndicator's website.

Nobody's going to make a repeat of weekday programming "appointment listening". If you heard it the first time, it's boring. If you missed it the first time, it's likely available on the web at YOUR convenience. Where's the benefit in recycling it on the air for the LISTENER?

 

[gr8oldies]

It may or may not be on the web..as far as I know you have to become a paid subscriber to hear podcasts of Rush and Hannity. If my lunch hour is a half hour I might want to hear a whole show on the weekend, rather than the garden guy..especially if I don't garden. Don't get me wrong, I like WLW's weekend local offerings, at the same time I don't like my local WHIO's because I don't garden, my back doesn't hurt, I have no money to invest and I don't own a gun. OK, my car needs fixed so one paid specialty show that works for me.

 

[firepoint525]

When Rush had his syndicated TV show in the mid '90s, I observed that he usually had the same bits there that he had used earlier that same day on his radio show. So I could get the same information in half an hour on TV that it took three hours to hear over the radio? Hmm, that was a no-brainer for me! And I never really picked up the habit of listening to his radio show again, once he dropped his TV show, but by then, I was working overnights, thus sleeping most middays.

 

[firepoint525]

Nobody's going to make a repeat of weekday programming "appointment listening". If you heard it the first time, it's boring. If you missed it the first time, it's likely available on the web at YOUR convenience. Where's the benefit in recycling it on the air for the LISTENER?

My guess is that stations do this because they can likely get it straight off the satellite, it fills time in which listenership is likely to be low anyway, and it's that much less time that they have to fill with a live announcer. And even if they have a board-op on duty riding the board during those shows, it doesn't matter that he might not be a great jock, because he won't be talking over the air, anyway.

 

[TheBigA]

How about if radio stations become CONTENT PROVIDERS, providing compelling, relatable, FRESH content during the majority of the day?

Some do. Some don't. Depends on the licensee. There is no requirement that what they do is "compelling, relatable, or fresh." That's a function of what they each perceive that to be. But the words "compelling, relatable, or fresh" are not in the FCC Rules & Regulations, and how a licensee programs his station is up to him.

Where's the benefit in recycling it on the air for the LISTENER?

That's a question to ask the listeners, but they seem to enjoy hearing the same songs over and over again, whether on the radio, their iPod, a stream, or other source. So repeats don't seem to be a problem for listeners. Their main concern is that they like it. Not that it's "fresh." Media companies spend a lot of money creating content, and it's absolutely wasteful to air it once and never again. Even in the pre-tape days of the 1930s, radio broadcasters saw the need for recording their shows on transcription discs, and re-airing them at convenient times. Today, lots of local TV stations and cable channels do nothing but air off-network repeats all day and all night. They make good money and have good audiences. It seems to me that given a choice between airing bad fresh content, or repeating good content, the choice would be the latter. NPR stations re-air shows like All Things Considered and Morning Edition three times a day, and some stations air all three broadcasts. Sure, they update the news inserts, but the majority of the show is run off automation.

As I said, "appointment listening" is dead. If you really think that the majority of people adjust their life schedules to that of the local radio station, you're dreaming. They don't. If something good is on when they tune the radio on, they listen. If not, they go elsewhere. Your job, as a programmer, is to try and hold them in any way possible. That includes repeats of content, if it's better than the alternative.

 

[12 In a Row]

Big A, agree 100%
This has been my feeling for years. Just take a look at the success of the cable networks and it's marathon airings of popular shows.

 

[12 In a Row]

And I'll never forget the P.D. who told me we're nothing more than an small appliance.
They use it and move on. When they need it, make sure it works and works well.
I was first insulted by that comment but as it turns out he was correct.

I'm driving to and from work, you got me from 7:30-8:10 and 5:10-5:50.
Looking for the best appliance to entertain and inform, that's it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Why do you always assume that "fresh" content is "bad" content? Fresh content is generally preferable to stale content. Up-to-date commentary is infinitely preferable to commentary that's so old that it no longer applies. How timely is that Tiger Woods joke that the morning show told last Monday?

All you're doing is defending what's cheap, not what's good. If your fresh content sucks, you need to hire better talent. The resulting increase in ratings will allow decent sales people to bring in enough revenue to more than pay for the increased talent costs.

 

[12 In a Row]

Hmmmmm, no where did I read "fresh content" is all bad.
We all appreciate you carrying the save my job flag, but times, habits and tastes change.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Why do you always assume that "fresh" content is "bad" content? Fresh content is generally preferable to stale content. Up-to-date commentary is infinitely preferable to commentary that's so old that it no longer applies. How timely is that Tiger Woods joke that the morning show told last Monday?

All you're doing is defending what's cheap, not what's good. If your fresh content sucks, you need to hire better talent. The resulting increase in ratings will allow decent sales people to bring in enough revenue to more than pay for the increased talent costs.

Okay so how do you define "fresh content"? Fresh to you? Are your personal tastes representitave of the millions of folks that listen to the radio every day? How does one maintain "fresh" content? Don't many of the college stations pride themselves on unique content? College stations don't exactly blow everyone off the dial with high ratings in any market.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Just responding to "TheBigA"

It seems to me that given a choice between airing bad fresh content, or repeating good content, the choice would be the latter.

Radio will only succeed if it differentiates itself from the content already available on the web - especially if that content is free. Radio survived the rise of TV by concentrating on being a more flexible, instantaneous medium, and by switching from long-form programming to music. Ultimately, many stations restructed to be simply a music delivery system. Now, that format is in danger from MP3 players, programmable on-line services, and other sources.

What can radio do to avoid being "somebody else's iPod"? Either get out of the music business, or add value to the music by introducing new songs in a particular genre, or adding information and other service elements to the programming. In some parts of the country, weather is a big deal. Having an accurate weather forecast with a reliable temperature makes radio more valuable than an iPod. Ditto with accurate traffic information. Not everybody has a smart phone, or access to a computer, especially when they're driving. Everybody has access to the radio, it's easy to access, and it's free.

Those just a few of the elements missing when you're syndicated or voice-tracked. Making jokes about yesterday's news just doesn't cut it in today's society.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio will only succeed if it differentiates itself from the content already available on the web

Says who? And what is success?

Look, there are ten different fast food chains that sell hamburgers. There's not much difference among them all. Sure, Hardees and Burger King flame broil, but the rest are fried. No one cares.

Radio isn’t dead. Over 280 million people use the radio now, even with all the competition. The issue is that radio SHARES that audience with lots of other things. That’s not going to change. There will be no solution to that problem. No amount of added value will get people to throw away their other devices. So radio simply has to adjust their budgets and game plans around the new reality. That's what they're doing now.

What can radio do to avoid being "somebody else's iPod"? Either get out of the music business, or add value to the music by introducing new songs in a particular genre, or adding information and other service elements to the programming.

Maybe. Only a small segment of the population seems interested in hearing “new and hot.” That’s a small aspect of the internet music services. Same with information. They get all the information they need from Twitter and TMZ.

Before you start lecturing us on the salvation of radio, you need to study the public and see what they really want. It’s clear to me that you have no experience there, and all you talk about is your own personal taste or job security. The fact is that there are already radio stations providing “added value” or the other things you talk about. And there are stations that don’t. That’s how you program in a world with unlimited choices. There is no one single solution, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to radio programming. So quit acting like you have the one single solution. There isn't.

 

[gr8oldies]

There was a time when only the radio station had access to what was going on in the world and the town. That clickety-clacking AP or UPI machine told us what to tell listeners. Now, virtually everyone has that very same information. Tell me about some news or entertainment story on your midday DJ show and you're telling me nothing new; it was on my computer being reported, videoed and discussed the minute I fired up my computer. So whatever is new on the radio is already old.

Makes me wonder if, ten years from now, we approach 2020, if we're still going to be on this board and saying "if we only did it the way we did in the 70s".

 

[SirRoxalot]

Maybe. Only a small segment of the population seems interested in hearing “new and hot.” That’s a small aspect of the internet music services. Same with information. They get all the information they need from Twitter and TMZ.

You'd be astounded at the number of people who don't twitter, and have never been to TMZ. Yet they listen to the radio. Many - perhaps the majority of people - don't spend their lives in front of a computer - as you apparently do - and don't have a smart phone.

Before you start lecturing us on the salvation of radio, you need to study the public and see what they really want. It’s clear to me that you have no experience there, and all you talk about is your own personal taste or job security. The fact is that there are already radio stations providing “added value” or the other things you talk about. And there are stations that don’t. That’s how you program in a world with unlimited choices. There is no one single solution, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to radio programming. So quit acting like you have the one single solution. There isn't.

So, how about providing a link to your studies of the public and "what they really want"? How aboput cluing us in on your experience as a successful programmer, and your track record as a successful air personality?

I never said that "one-size-fits-all". Talk radio is a very successful format on the air right now. Why? It's even extending the life of AM radio. The solution that is becoming increasingly offered is syndication and voice-tracking. How's that working out for most companies? You blame TSL losses on "other media". Strange how the TSL losses began before the advent of computers.

Radio is adjusting to "new media" by going broke. Sounds like a poor solution to me.