Anyone here seen my old friend RADIO?

[AConsultant]

I’ve been contemplating about making a contribution to this message board. There was a time when I would start a topic or reply with a comment. This board has gone through a transition and most of the former people from this board are gone. That’s sad because there were quite a few real radio people who added a lot to the board’s content. I’m not sure what this board has become, but it seems to mirror what radio has become. Bland, boring…..nasty.

I was in radio for 30 years. About three years in small and medium markets, then for the rest of my career I was an air talent and programmer at various stations in Top 20 markets, most of those years in Philly. I walked away from the business in 2000, my choice, with money in my pocket, a consulting business, and the feeling that I was getting out when the getting out was good. In another time and another place, I would have been at rock bottom leaving a business that meant so much to me. But I had endured an emotional roller coaster ride for the last 5 years of my career that convinced me of one thing, radio is finished, and the corporate owners are milking it as dry as can be. They have managed to rape passionate and talented people by sucking out the lifeblood that was their motivation. Corporations have targeted passion, work ethic and commitment as a foundation to abuse employees financially via pay cuts, poor benefits and position “elimination”. The fact is, in my years in radio, passion, commitment and talent were reasons to “reward” people. They were in fact, necessary tools to perform properly in broadcasting. Now those attributes are taken advantage of by radio employers. I am continually amazed when I surf over to Joel Denver’s AllAccess and find a half page of requirements to fill a 10 dollar an hour radio position. Must have college, must have 90 years experience, must have this and that, must live close, must be willing to give your life for the job, must be willing to slice your wrists so you can feed your blood to the corporate bloodsuckers. The radio business…..I mean…the BUSINESS of radio (sorry but true) is a joke. It is all about money and that is what business is, and that’s fine. Profit is good. But what isn’t good is the failure of the product and the company's failure to treat their people well. No, I am not personally bitter, though I may sound that way. I am bitter because I know what the business was, and see what it is now. I loved radio but now it is alien to me. As I read the many comments on this board, discontent and anger seem to be the motivating emotions. I think confusion even has a place.

So WSNI has changed. Who cares? Really. Is it important? It’s just another merry-go-round format change. Tune in for the next one coming soon to your favorite station. I think radio has become very NON-relevant. Voice-tracking is a fun technology. I love the computer toys and gadgets. But it has been abused (of course) by corporations not wanting to serve communities with a live on-air person because that would cut profits. Keeping the labor costs down mean a better return on the bottom-line and a really neat bonus for the CEO each year. In radio’s rush to make money, it has sacrificed the things that made it an important medium: Live people, news updates, weather updates, contests, games, meaningful comments and significant interaction with listeners. It’s called “stationality” which is basically the personality of a station or a particular format. Are you old enough to remember the WFIL days? Why did that station make such an impact? There were others too, like WABC, WIBG, WAMS, WLS, CKLW, KFRC and the list goes one. These stations were not cheap to run, but they made money, made history, and made an impact on generations of radio listeners. What stations will make an impact today?

All of you on this board should realize you are putting forth much more effort than you should with your postings and commentary about radio. It is just going to get worse as each year goes by. It is not interested in listeners being satisfied…..just the shareholders. That’s the game. If it were a mathematical equation, the “listener” would not be in the formula.

Radio is futile. There are too many alternative options today for entertainment and info-gathering. Radio has been lost in the technological shuffle because of egotism, attitude, false pride, and the lust for the all-mighty dollar. So what’s the answer? Well, how about STEREO AM!!! Or……HIGH DEF! Do intelligent people really enjoy hearing voice-tracked sterility and the same 20 songs played over and over again with obnoxious spots and bad jingles and imagers as transitions just because of high def?

I expect much more from radio. It can be so much more than what it is, and still be focused on profit and the bottom-line. Sadly, the product has been compromised and listener loyalty has become non-existent. As for me, I grieve for what radio was, and what it could have been.

 

[apco25]

Tell this to Mr. Dave Eduardo. Everything is great according to him. There's no war In Iraq, There's no debt, the world is wonderful all because of radio. A few more professionals like yourself quoting the same situation, and maybe he'll get it.

 

[BRUSSTAR]

What a well-written, thoughtful, and sad (albeit painfully obvious) commentary from someone on the inside who had the sense to get off the bus before it crashed.

As for Mr. Eduardo, I don't blame him one bit. If I were doing as well as he obviously is with today's terrestrial radio, I'd do whatever it took to perpetuate his views as well.

 

[qtpieislit]

A. Consultant captures the all too painfully real attributes of today’s monopolistic monolithic state of terrestrial broadcasting.
It's just too sad to even look.

 

[fred flintstone]

Plus de choses changent plus qu'ils restent la même chose

Descartes:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Radio has always been a business.
Radio has always had more than its share of greedy owners.
Uncle Wally Annenberg was NOT Mr. Nice Guy.
Neither, for the record, Sam, was George Storer.
It's easy to be seduced by nostalgia.
People who produced old time radio complained about real radio shows being replaced by DJs.
"Personality" DJs complained about the introduction of playlists.
Then they complained about Bill Drake bringing interchangeable time and temperature jocks to replace "personalities."
The NAB asked radio stations voluntarily to limit themselves to 18 mintues of spots an hour (and no more than three spots in a row). A lot of stations did more and refused to follow the code.
It's always been about the money.
Station employment ads didn't have a lot of legal fine print put in by H-R and EEOC but PDs did things now considered blatantly descriminitatory.
The good old days weren't so great.
This is like people complaining about noise and air pollution from cars and forgetting when city streets had horse pies everywhere.
Consultant was kid back then and willing to take a lot K-R-P just to be in radio; just like kids today.
Now Consultant, like all of us, is older, has responsibilities and has far less tolerance for BS.
That doesn't mean the BS hasn't always been there.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Plus de choses changent plus qu'ils restent la même chose

Neither, for the record, Sam, was George Storer.

---->>>> GBS was a very nice guy. So were his sons, especially Peter.

Then they complained about Bill Drake bringing interchangeable time and temperature jocks to replace "personalities."

---->>>> Only the most ignorant said this... the Drake stations did the impossible of combining brevity with personality. You can not say that Steele, Morgan, Humble Harve and the rest were not personalities.

The NAB asked radio stations voluntarily to limit themselves to 18 mintues of spots an hour (and no more than three spots in a row). A lot of stations did more and refused to follow the code.

---->>>> The code also prohibited hard liquor ads, which is why no station in Puerto Rico was a code member, ever. And the code was a suggested list of guidelines, eventually ruled to be monoploistic and to be borderline collusion. The FCC in the 60's began setting aside for review any station whose composite week had days and hours with 18 minutes and over. So stations that did not want the doubts and cost of a license renewal problem stayed under 18 minutes.

It's always been about the money.

---->>>>> As in any business.

Station employment ads didn't have a lot of legal fine print put in by H-R and EEOC but PDs did things now considered blatantly descriminitatory.
The good old days weren't so great.

--- There we agree. All you had to do was work for Richard Eaton or Don Burden or managers like Harry Averil at WEAM (just three of thousands of examples) to know that radio was horrible for the employees in the 50s and 60's.

This is like people complaining about noise and air pollution from cars and forgetting when city streets had horse pies everywhere.
Consultant was kid back then and willing to take a lot K-R-P just to be in radio; just like kids today.
Now Consultant, like all of us, is older, has responsibilities and has far less tolerance for BS.
That doesn't mean the BS hasn't always been there.

---->>>> today, mostly tha nks to consolidation, emplyees have more fair treatment. And managers and owners can not avoid compliance with lawas that did not exist back then.

 

[AConsultant]

David,

Consolidation has had very little positive effects on employees. How would you even begin to think that? It has put hundreds of very talented people out of work and forced those lucky enough (?) to keep their jobs into positions of working 16 hour days, particularly in programming. When I was a program director, I was in the station at 9:45am and left around 7pm. But I was listening to my morning show with critical ears and a legal pad by my side for notes about the show. I was at the station for the midday and afternoon shows. In my office, the radio was always on and when the talent was speaking, everything in my office stopped until a spot break on music was on the air. I would analyze the quality of the station as much as I could. I was never away from hearing my station. I even had the station on while watching TV or whatever. I can't say that my method of programming was the best, nor the right way to do it. But it worked. The ARB said so and the bonus structure said so. The stations I prgrammed during my career were my children and I wanted to "grow" them into the best they could be. That is what is missing now. It has all been taken out of the programmer's hands and the corporate "plan" must be followed. OH, and I love the term "Brand". Let's wok hard on our "Brand". It sounds so trite, as if radio is a box of soap powder. Sadly, the "brand" concept isn't the worst idea, but the "brand" seems to change so much that listeners have no chance to build "brand loyalty".

David, you may be a programmer and I wish you much success. But if you think consolidation was a good thing, then you have been lured away from rational reasoning and logic by corporate rhetoric. Don't fall into the trap. Keep your job but also, keep your own ideas. You mentioned employees are better off now because of all the laws corporations must follow. Let me ask you a question...what laws protected the "job eliminations" of so many highly experienced and talented people? What law protects an employee from having their contracts renewed for 5 years in a row without even a cost of living adjustment? What law protects them from not having their contract renewed and being thrown out in the street after years of service with two weeks of severence? What law protects good and talented people from being thrown out into the streets because a format change occurs and the on-air talent is told they have been eliminated because they "don't live the lifestyle" of the newly targeted audience?

Nothing is fair in life, business or career. It is what it is. If you choose to gamble at a career as insecure as radio, then you have to expect the worst. This is true in any business. I want profit in my business just as much as the big guys. But let's just be honest about it, and call it what it is. I never had a regret about being in broadcasting. I gambled and had som success. I was lucky. I entered the business at a time when it still had future.

My advice to any radio person is simple: love it and enjoy it...but have a real job or career on the side because you will need it!

 

[davideduardo]

Consolidation has had very little positive effects on employees. How would you even begin to think that? It has put hundreds of very talented people out of work and forced those lucky enough (?) to keep their jobs into positions of working 16 hour days, particularly in programming.

---->>>> I wonder why I hear these comments, yet when I am at R&R or meet friends I har nothing of the sort. I get comments about the fact that companies can now give career paths because they are larger, and that the benefits and stability are better. Most small stations our groups could not afford insurance, and were not beig enough for any kinds of benefits. They generally couldnot even get financing to expand.

When I was a program director, I was in the station at 9:45am and left around 7pm. But I was listening to my morning show with critical ears and a legal pad by my side for notes about the show. I was at the station for the midday and afternoon shows. In my office, the radio was always on and when the talent was speaking, everything in my office stopped until a spot break on music was on the air. I would analyze the quality of the station as much as I could. I was never away from hearing my station. I even had the station on while watching TV or whatever. I can't say that my method of programming was the best, nor the right way to do it. But it worked.

---- >>>> I know plenty of PDs, especially those I work with, who do this too. I even know ones who use thier iPod to download the morning show from our web based logger to listen to the parts they couldnot hear. I know PDs who are in at 8 and out at 9... 9 PM, that is. People who love the art are not exclusive to an era or a format... or, in this case, a language.

The ARB said so and the bonus structure said so.

---->>>> Am I right in guessing this was long ago? I have not heard anyone call Arbitron "Arb" for several decades. And yeay, I go back that far, too, and it took me a while to un-memorize the initials.

The stations I prgrammed during my career were my children and I wanted to "grow" them into the best they could be. That is what is missing now. It has all been taken out of the programmer's hands and the corporate "plan" must be followed. OH, and I love the term "Brand". Let's wok hard on our "Brand". It sounds so trite, as if radio is a box of soap powder. Sadly, the "brand" concept isn't the worst idea, but the "brand" seems to change so much that listeners have no chance to build "brand loyalty".

---->>>> I see no evidence of this at all from where I stand or sit. The formats are developed in a team, based on programability, salebility and chances of success. We make the potential PD very much a part of the format searches and development. And there is a real sense of ownership and pride in the product, and significant rewards for success.

---->>>> Radio stations are brands. When I did my first programming gigs in the 60's, I put on about a dozen different formats in my first 8 years. I thought of each station as a brand under one marquee. Each brand served a different audience, mood or purpose. I can not see why it is hard to envision a station that is one a band (platform) with a format (category) and a name (brand) to be "brands." I think it is foolish and probably self-destructive not to do so, as by looking at marketing and brand life cycles we can learn how to keep a product fress and interesting to the consumer.

David, you may be a programmer and I wish you much success. But if you think consolidation was a good thing, then you have been lured away from rational reasoning and logic by corporate rhetoric.

---->>>> I worked at my first cluster (5 stations in one market) in 1963. I started building my own "consolidated" cluster in 1964, and built it to over a dozen on-air stations in the first 7 or 8 years. I paid better than anyone, was able to serve advertisers better, and had the highest ratings. We did good radio for the time, including having the first cart machines, first solid state audio processing, etc., in my markets. we had the first FM for 1000 miles around. None of this could have been done with just one station. And there was no big money behind it... I was 17 when I put the first one on the air.

Don't fall into the trap. Keep your job but also, keep your own ideas. You mentioned employees are better off now because of all the laws corporations must follow. Let me ask you a question...what laws protected the "job eliminations" of so many highly experienced and talented people? What law protects an employee from having their contracts renewed for 5 years in a row without even a cost of living adjustment?

---->>>> The free market? No group has a monopoly. All those I work with who are under contract have regular revisions. I would say that for every bad consolidated company, there were 100 bad small operators in the past.

What law protects them from not having their contract renewed and being thrown out in the street after years of service with two weeks of severence? What law protects good and talented people from being thrown out into the streets because a format change occurs and the on-air talent is told they have been eliminated because they "don't live the lifestyle" of the newly targeted audience?

---->>>> Again, it would be the right to work states where this happens. In any case, talent on radio is like talent in TV shows. You are only renewed if the show works. If you want security, become an actuary, where your "audience" is dead people.

Nothing is fair in life, business or career. It is what it is. If you choose to gamble at a career as insecure as radio, then you have to expect the worst. This is true in any business. I want profit in my business just as much as the big guys. But let's just be honest about it, and call it what it is. I never had a regret about being in broadcasting. I gambled and had som success. I was lucky. I entered the business at a time when it still had future.

---->>>> This I agree on. It is very risky, very uncomfortable and most of us are paranoid, even if we have a 7-year non-cancelable contract. That is because we are like actors and other artists, subject to the whims of management and the audience. But consolidation has made it more secure for many, if not most.

My advice to any radio person is simple: love it and enjoy it...but have a real job or career on the side because you will need it!

---->>>> I have never had to dabble on the side. that would be a distraction, and a bad thing. I guess it depends on luck to an extent, but the good folks I know are doing well.

 

[fred flintstone]

I worked at my first cluster (5 stations in one market) in 1963.

Sorry, David. There was no such thing as clusters in 1963. There was AM and FM, usually simulcast, but no such thing as a five station cluster. Not even duopolies were allowed at that time - let alone five stations.
You're busted.

While you're at it, please learn how to use the quote button (lower row, second from the right).

 

[apco25]

Yes Fred, I wondered about that too, even though I was not even in grade school in 63, It seems that the rules that have changed today seems to be they were always there in the first place. Even in 1963.
Duopolys were not around till the late 80's, And they brought back 100 % full simulcast of a local AM/FM was passed until somewhere around spring of 86', because AM's were starting to feel the pinch as music started to exit the band, and clusters??? I better do some defragging on my hard drive.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Flintstone Busted Back to the Stone Age

I worked at my first cluster (5 stations in one market) in 1963.

Sorry, David. There was no such thing as clusters in 1963. There was AM and FM, usually simulcast, but no such thing as a five station cluster. Not even duopolies were allowed at that time - let alone five stations.
You're busted.

While you're at it, please learn how to use the quote button (lower row, second from the right).

I know how to use the quote button. However, for interline comments, using a highlighting device is perfectly appropriate.

Secondly, I worked in Organización Radio Centro, at Artículo 123 N° 90 as an apprentice in 1963. We had 5 stations, XERC 790, XEQR 1030, XEJP 1150, XEAI 1320 and XELZ 1440. A cluster. Formats were CHR, MOR, CHR, Tropical and ranchera. Each was number one in its format, in a market with 31 full signal AMs.

In 1966, tow years after being in Mexico, I added the second AM to the first station I built, and became a cluster operator as Núcleo radión. By 1967, I had 6 stations in the same market, and added 3 more in the next couple of years, plus others outside the first market. Again, a cluster of 9 in 1970.

Next time, fella, try thinking outside the box.

 

[apco25]

David.... that's Mexico. Yes I believe you in that situation, because I worked for a mexican license station (studio was on the US side, tx on the mexican side, ) the owner owned I believe 8 in one market, 4th largest in Mexico.
But your comparing Apples with oranges. Radio info's board is based here in the US. The discussions and knowledge are US based.
You seem to compare the advantages and disadvantages of today with you past back ground or today's broadcast culture with the way things were in another country to now in the US. It's like comparing an announcer who worked for Radio Moscow back in the 70's to someone who still works in terrestrial US radio today. No wonder things are so good for you. If you want to compare..let's just stick with US with US.

 

[davideduardo]

David.... that's Mexico. Yes I believe you in that situation, because I worked for a mexican license station (studio was on the US side, tx on the mexican side, ) the owner owned I believe 8 in one market, 4th largest in Mexico.
But your comparing Apples with oranges. Radio info's board is based here in the US. The discussions and knowledge are US based.
You seem to compare the advantages and disadvantages of today with you past back ground or today's broadcast culture with the way things were in another country to now in the US. It's like comparing an announcer who worked for Radio Moscow back in the 70's to someone who still works in terrestrial US radio today. No wonder things are so good for you. If you want to compare..let's just stick with US with US.

Mexico and Ecuador are totally relevant. I worked in US radio, Mexican, Ecuadorian, Puerto Rican, Peruvian, Dominican, even in Pakistan. There is no difference.

And my point is that duopoly and clusters have been common in the rest of the world for 50 years or more... and they have proven to benefit the listener. In the US, broadcasters are jsut figuring out how to work clusters, yet elsewhere it was known in the 50's and 60's.

Everywhere the issue is the same. You program to get listeners, you look for advertisers, and try to make some moeny.

 

[apco25]

Yes, I can understand that, but that still doesn't mean that it will work in the US. And it hasn't gotten started with positive feelings or off to a good start. Soccer is very popular sport in all those 50 countries, but still hasn't quite taken off (especially professional) in the US. It's played in schools, or little league, but as far as attendance wanting to pay for high tickets, contracts, and attend it like a Football, basketball game, no it hasn't worked.
The problem with clusters today in US radio, the listener feels controlled on what he'll listen to, just like they do in other countries. Example, back in 64' BBC 1 BBC 2 BBC 3 etc, and the Beatles. Neither one of those channels would play the Beatles as popular as they were. They had to be played on a ship way out in the Atlantic....why?, because BBC wouldn't play them. And these so called clear channel clusters are going in the same direction. Ask why the latest Rolling Stones single or even CD received no or very limited airplay. They sell concerts? Barry Manilow had a successful CD, was any single from that CD played on the air at any Modern or Hot AC station. He still sells out concerts. The clusters seem to decide when a musicians career is over on the airwaves. Not the people or sales. That's why I'm personally weerie about clusters, and any firm owning 40, 50, 60 % of any market.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, I can understand that, but that still doesn't mean that it will work in the US. And it hasn't gotten started with positive feelings or off to a good start. Soccer is very popular sport in all those 50 countries, but still hasn't quite taken off (especially professional) in the US. It's played in schools, or little league, but as far as attendance wanting to pay for high tickets, contracts, and attend it like a Football, basketball game, no it hasn't worked.
The problem with clusters today in US radio, the listener feels controlled on what he'll listen to, just like they do in other countries. Example, back in 64' BBC 1 BBC 2 BBC 3 etc, and the Beatles. Neither one of those channels would play the Beatles as popular as they were. They had to be played on a ship way out in the Atlantic....why?, because BBC wouldn't play them. And these so called clear channel clusters are going in the same direction. Ask why the latest Rolling Stones single or even CD received no or very limited airplay. They sell concerts? Barry Manilow had a successful CD, was any single from that CD played on the air at any Modern or Hot AC station. He still sells out concerts. The clusters seem to decide when a musicians career is over on the airwaves. Not the people or sales. That's why I'm personally weerie about clusters, and any firm owning 40, 50, 60 % of any market.

The sports example I do not find relevant. Sports is popular in nearly every conuntry, but it varies from one to another what sport may be the best one. Just as music tastes vary, yet all peoples like some form of it.

Consolidation has the opposite effect on broadening formats... it allows operators to not have to go for #1 with thier "only" staiton. When I owned my first cluster, I did some things that had no profitabilty in the near range future, such as the first FM for a thousand miles. Yet, with time, the FM became very profitable. I was able to secure adequate numbers of frequencies so as to do things like classical music, something that would not have sustained a stand-alone, yet was modestly profitable as part of a cluster.

The BBC example, I fear, fails too. That was not a cluster, it was a monopoly by and of the government, financed by a tax yet unbeholden to the taxpayers.

Clusters widen choices, and listeners do not understand them anyway. Each listener spends considerable time with only 3 or 4 staitons. In most US markets, there are a dozen (below market 200) up to nearly 100 (the largest markets) There is plenty of choice, and I have never heard a listener complain of a format that is anywhere near mainstream being missing. Only among certain young demos and rock fans do you hear complaints on mix (everyone want's thier own taste to be catered to, yet objects to anyone else being served). All this means is that some formats are tough to program, not that listeners feel controlled.

I always have a hard time with concert comparisons. In NY, a successful concert is 15,000 in a closed venue, yet there are several stations with cumes of over 2.4 million. Concerts in many ways are unrelated to radio listening. In fact, I was at a reasonably recent Stones show, and the crowd wanted nothing to do with the cuts from the new CD... they wanted to hear Satisfaction and Ruby Tuesday. A concert is a one time thing, and it is as visual as it is musical. I don't want, ever, to ehar Manilow on the radio. But I would love to see the concert at some time.

Very few clusters have more than the original 40% of a market allowed when they were created. And in the larger markets, most have vastly less. I remeber when in the market I started in, which was top 15 at the time, we had 8 viable stations. 3 were Top 40, 3 were MOR and 1 was r&b and the other was a religious / r&b daytimer in 1540. So much for variety. Everyone wanted to be #1, so they did one of the big formats. Toady, there are multiple ways of making money, and being #1 12+ has nothing to do with it.

 

[apco25]

The sports example I do not find relevant. Sports is popular in nearly every conuntry, but it varies from one to another what sport may be the best one. Just as music tastes vary, yet all peoples like some form of it.

>>>>>I was just looking for the closest example of what does or what doesn't work in every country.


Consolidation has the opposite effect on broadening formats... it allows operators to not have to go for #1 with thier "only" staiton. When I owned my first cluster, I did some things that had no profitabilty in the near range future, such as the first FM for a thousand miles. Yet, with time, the FM became very profitable. I was able to secure adequate numbers of frequencies so as to do things like classical music, something that would not have sustained a stand-alone, yet was modestly profitable as part of a cluster.

>>>>I see what your saying, but the back lash is when you have one program director programming 5-8 stations, it sounds like he's pleasing him self. It just feels like you have less minds or taste going into programming individual formats under one roof or cluster. And if you have no competiition coming outside across town, there's no worry. We'll just or change when we feel like it.

>>>>For example, KNBR sports in San Francisco, always been the sports leader, but they end up buying a frequency at 1050 KHZ, and make it sports to. One that does it makes the whole format corned in the Bay area, and prevents an individual operation to compete with it. KNBR will be willing to sacfice a few tenths of points to their ratings just to keep out outside competition. Theb same situation as KMEL/KYLD, both CHR/Rythmic, they don't care if one goes down or up, they have that format cornered. Which I feel less creativity as far as competition goes.

The BBC example, I fear, fails too. That was not a cluster, it was a monopoly by and of the government, financed by a tax yet unbeholden to the taxpayers.


>>>>>It's just an example when something has too much control of an area, country , or market.


Only among certain young demos and rock fans do you hear complaints on mix (everyone want's thier own taste to be catered to, yet objects to anyone else being served). All this means is that some formats are tough to program, not that listeners feel controlled.

>>>>>>That parts true.....but when it comes to hear what's on the national charts of the trade magazines...today's stations do not play or relate with what's going on. I don't hear all of today's current chart songs like you did in the AT top 40 days. Kasey Kasem's show related with exactly what song's were charting with all the other markets. If it was Top 20, it got played just about everywhere.


In fact, I was at a reasonably recent Stones show, and the crowd wanted nothing to do with the cuts from the new CD... they wanted to hear Satisfaction and Ruby Tuesday.

>>>>>That's what's sad. Any top 40 station of the 70's 80's couldn't wait to be the first station in their market to jump all over the single, same with McCartney. Today, it just gets bypassed. And the other term I hate when it comes to clusters or conglamorates, " the term playing it safe." That's what kills the music programming. I always love tight but fresh playlist. Since the 90's it gotten too tight. All of the formats. (Except for Rap) which I don't listen to.
as far as the Stones ,at least their single should have been previewed on the HOT AC playlist, so we can decide as listeners and purchasers if they are washed up or not, not the corporations or advertisers. If it becomes a near miss or stiff, so be it. That was CHR I remembered.

 

[davideduardo]

I see what your saying, but the back lash is when you have one program director programming 5-8 stations, it sounds like he's pleasing him self. It just feels like you have less minds or taste going into programming individual formats under one roof or cluster. And if you have no competiition coming outside across town, there's no worry. We'll just or change when we feel like it.

--->>>> I have not seen cases of PDs doing more than one or two stations (in 1972, I was PD of an AM FM in a large Southern market, so that is not new) but don't recall seeing PDs of whole clusters. My caveat is that I am mostly involved in top 50 markets, with just a couple outside that size... so perhaps clusters in smaller markets do have multi-station PDs. I never thought to ask! Of course, from the 50's to the pre-consolidation years, half of all stations in the US did not make money, so using one PD for many stations may be a necessity. when there is one Pd for many staitons, how do the staitons do? I relate to one of our LA stations, where the PD spends about 2 hours just massaging the log, as well as daily airchecks, an airshift, promotion meetings, etjc., and can not see how anyone could do so many stations well unless each one had an APD who did the bulk of the work.

For example, KNBR sports in San Francisco, always been the sports leader, but they end up buying a frequency at 1050 KHZ, and make it sports to. One that does it makes the whole format corned in the Bay area, and prevents an individual operation to compete with it. KNBR will be willing to sacfice a few tenths of points to their ratings just to keep out outside competition. Theb same situation as KMEL/KYLD, both CHR/Rythmic, they don't care if one goes down or up, they have that format cornered. Which I feel less creativity as far as competition goes.

---->>>> the reason I heard was that they needed two to cover the play by play contracts, and maked one mostly a local guy-talk station like the Ticket in Dallas and the other a more conventional sports station. Given the revenues available, and the fact that there are only news, talk and sports available as viable A formats, they did the best thing.


That parts true.....but when it comes to hear what's on the national charts of the trade magazines...today's stations do not play or relate with what's going on. I don't hear all of today's current chart songs like you did in the AT top 40 days. Kasey Kasem's show related with exactly what song's were charting with all the other markets. If it was Top 20, it got played just about everywhere.

----->>>> I just read a piece that showed that 40% of the recorded music is bought by 10% of consumers... and that group is the only group intensely interested in new music... the ones who look for new songs and artists and cherish them. To the other 90%, new is not good. New is unfamiliar, and you can not hum or sing it and it has no memories. These are foks who would rather hear Donna Summer, and that is saying a lot!

That's what's sad. Any top 40 station of the 70's 80's couldn't wait to be the first station in their market to jump all over the single, same with McCartney. Today, it just gets bypassed. And the other term I hate when it comes to clusters or conglamorates, " the term playing it safe." That's what kills the music programming. I always love tight but fresh playlist. Since the 90's it gotten too tight. All of the formats. (Except for Rap) which I don't listen to.
as far as the Stones ,at least their single should have been previewed on the HOT AC playlist, so we can decide as listeners and purchasers if they are washed up or not, not the corporations or advertisers. If it becomes a near miss or stiff, so be it. That was CHR I remembered.

--->>>> What stations and programmers learned as formats fragmented was that the tolerance for new music was very limited... and as some staitons took a more conservative approach, the ones that played lots of new stuff got killed. A good example is Lee Abrams' Superstars version of AOR vs. Progressive free form rockers. A superstars station, with a limited list and fewer currents and new songs decimated the free form stations, and most went away. Listeners did not want all that "variety" (a misnomer) and unfamiliar music. Variety is really the playing of a listener's favorites, with nothing unfamiliar or not a favorite.

 

[apco25]

I just read a piece that showed that 40% of the recorded music is bought by 10% of consumers... and that group is the only group intensely interested in new music... the ones who look for new songs and artists and cherish them. To the other 90%, new is not good. New is unfamiliar, and you can not hum or sing it and it has no memories. These are foks who would rather hear Donna Summer, and that is saying a lot!


>>>>>I wouldn't be surprised, look what has been coming out. Many of these songs are just plain stale. But let me ask ....would this be the same resulting 10% let's take a year like 1966, or 1979, 1982 etc...that wouldn't want to here the latest hits that just came out or was added on. Being out of radio since 1990, What ever happen to the hitbound, hot add, breakout, that kept top 30 playlist fresh for contemporary stations? I can't believe , (then who knows or understands these days) who would want to hear a current that has been played for 30 weeks, like the K.T. Turnstall , or that Nickleback song. Great songs from groups like the Grass Roots, Three Dog night, Journey, or one hit wonders that hit number 1 never had consistent air play that long. Never 30 weeks plus on a current playlist, A stack rotation practically, talk about burnout.
I can remmeber stations playing something you didn't care for at first, then when you heard it over and over , it started to catch on, then you loved it. That's how you break a hit. Yes one thing about 1965-66, there was rampant competition, (Motown, British, soul, Monkees, etc) that many great songs that should've been a hit, only hit somewhere in the 40's or 50's on the charts. But as great as these songs were in the 60's and 70's , and even the 80's, even the Michael Jackson's Beat It never experienced 6 month consistent current song airplay. It was 2 maybe 3 months up and down the chart, then fade it to rest, until becomes an oldie. Not 30-40 weeks like these songs we been hearing for the last 15 years. Then they become re-currents, and that's why I was chased away to satellite radio yelling "Help". I'm still recovering from the grinding never ending forced airplay plummeted in my head for months like "Lovefool, by the Cardigans". you think this band has been around 10 years or so with 30 top 10 records.



What stations and programmers learned as formats fragmented was that the tolerance for new music was very limited... and as some staitons took a more conservative approach, the ones that played lots of new stuff got killed. A good example is Lee Abrams' Superstars version of AOR vs. Progressive free form rockers. A superstars station, with a limited list and fewer currents and new songs decimated the free form stations, and most went away. Listeners did not want all that "variety" (a misnomer) and unfamiliar music. Variety is really the playing of a listener's favorites, with nothing unfamiliar or not a favorite.

>>>>>I don't want to make you sound that stations should be like free formed play or eclectic type programming, because that never worked and it sucks, you have to play the best, but what i'm trying to say songs shouldn't be on a playlist for 40 weeks out of 52. Yes, I'm aware things got fragmented, and whatever got spread around the variable formats, it sounds like very little new product gets played and radio in general gets tired.
I've been in serious arguments before where i hve been referred or ridiculed as "buggle gum" for enjoying the same hits over and over instead of the college, open free form, album cut filler of never ending artists that never charted and never heard from again once the hash trip is over, but you have to say these hit songs and playlist today are programmed too tightly. And too cubicled.
Which also means what is your view as far as (without going probably off topic so I will take this conversation and post it on the Internet board with your name on it) as far as the type listeners on the Internet and programing. You'll see what i mean when ask over there. Coming to a post near you.

 

[fred flintstone]

I know how to use the quote button. However, for interline comments, using a highlighting device is perfectly appropriate.

If you look at your exchange with apco maybe you will notice how unreadable the posts are without the use of quote boxes.

But then maybe your definition of "appropriate" is broad enough to include such things are being in this country illegally. Since you are an enabler of foreign language broadcasting, clear communication may not be a concern for you.

This is not Mexico.
This is not Mexican radio.
This is an English-speaking country.
Foreign language broadcasting should be illegal.

 

[davideduardo]

I know how to use the quote button. However, for interline comments, using a highlighting device is perfectly appropriate.

If you look at your exchange with apco maybe you will notice how unreadable the posts are without the use of quote boxes.

But then maybe your definition of "appropriate" is broad enough to include such things are being in this country illegally. Since you are an enabler of foreign language broadcasting, clear communication may not be a concern for you.

This is not Mexico.
This is not Mexican radio.
This is an English-speaking country.
Foreign language broadcasting should be illegal.

What does this discussion, which is somewhat related to radio programming, have to do with the legal status of immigrants? For all I know, you think _I_ am illegal. Gawd.

I am not Mexican. Mexican Radio is not very good, as evidenced by the fact a quarter of the populaiton does not listen to it.

This is a country with a tradition of accepting immigrants. Immigrants, in the first generation, don't become very proficient in English. In fact, anyone who tries to learn a foreign lagnguage after early adolescence generally has very minimal success and will, all thier life, translate back and forth to the native language in their mind. The few notable exceptions, like Andy Grove, Arnold Schwarzenneger and Henry Kissinger prove the truth of the generalization.

The US has had a fertile and useful history spanning over 200 years of periodicals and media in the languages of immigrants, and it has been proven that such media is useful in acclimating immigrants to the new country, even if they don't progress far inthe langauge of the US:

Restricting the use of language would violated one of the greatest underpinnings of the US, the guarantee that the government will not limit the freedom of the citizens to express themselves. restricting the language of expression is a clear violation of this Consititutional guarantee, and many a law school thesis has been based on an analysis of the constitutionality of such a prohibition.