Associated Press Story on the fading radio traffic report

[emailfailed]

Today the Associated Press featured an story on the decline of radio traffic reports, and the reporters.

This AP story today features Mike Nolan along with Airwatch Vice President Don Bastida's grim take on the future of radio traffic reports.

Also the story notes how KIIS dropped traffic reports, claiming AMP received higher rating by not airing any reports.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20091127/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_traffic_watchers

 

[dustintv]

A station getting higher ratings because they dropped traffic reports...well that must be a first! Do they advertise how they don't air those pesky traffic reports?

 

[calguy]

A station getting higher ratings because they dropped traffic reports...well that must be a first! Do they advertise how they don't air those pesky traffic reports?

Is that because of the trend of younger people not driving themselves anywhere, or is it just some suit's guess that traffic reports are a tune out? If anything, the problem for music stations is that they don't have enough traffic updates to make people tune in for them. If you only break twice an hour, how many updates can you do? Not enough to establish yourself as a station that really provides a service. Oh yeah, there it is again, providing a service for the community. Something the suits just don't get because for them it's all about money. It did look grim and Mike wasn't smiling. Wonder how CC will feel about this article? And this all comes back to companies biting off more than they could chew by buying up properties that they can't afford to run. I have seen the enemy, and they are us...

 

[ocer]

Is that because of the trend of younger people not driving themselves anywhere, or is it just some suit's guess that traffic reports are a tune out?

As a person in my mid-20s I usually turn to my smart phone for traffic before the radio. It's hard not to once you get one... it's immediate and you get traffic info. exactly where you need it. Almost all my friends my age use their phones and the internet for traffic, not the radio. I hate to say it but traffic on the radio just isn't as relevant for my generation.

 

[radiocph]

Don't many people use GPS's now for traffic info?

I have mixed feelings about traffic on the radio, anyway. Too many times, it has been inaccurate (e.g. you're stuck in traffic that hasn't been mentioned yet, or, conversely, traffic that has already cleared long ago is being mentioned).

Besides, <urban planner mode on>, it's Yet Another Hidden Subsidy for Automobiles </urban planner mode off>

Although stations in the SF Bay Area do mention if BART or Caltrain is running ok, we rarely hear about Metro or Metrolink in LA traffic reports, unless there's some big accident on one of those systems....

 

[davideduardo]

Don't many people use GPS's now for traffic info?

No, it's only in a small percentage of cars, even with add-ins. And it's generally an extra cost item, or part of an XM Sirius subscription. I think the best analysis is what Ocer says about checking online or on a smart phone prior to leaving.

I have a subscription traffic service (one of the ones that uses FM SCA fed data) and I generally ignore its advice, as the alternatives tend to be more blocked than the congested freeway! Unless I know way in advance and can take a radically different route, getting off on a two-lane side street along with 50,000 of my freeway friends is a disaster.

 

[davideduardo]

Is that because of the trend of younger people not driving themselves anywhere, or is it just some suit's guess that traffic reports are a tune out?

No, it is minute by minute data from PPM coupled with the daypart results and, likely, some kind of phone study or focus groups. Since traffic can be a revenue source, management would not kill them without a lot of evidence.

If anything, the problem for music stations is that they don't have enough traffic updates to make people tune in for them. If you only break twice an hour, how many updates can you do? Not enough to establish yourself as a station that really provides a service.

What we see in the PPM is behaviour that did not get written into a diary... people know where to go for traffic if they want it, and otherwise don't want it on their music station. If and when they need traffic, they tune to a station with very frequent traffic for a short time, then go back to the music or show they listen to most..

In the diary, the little incidents of traffic-seeking were lost. In PPM, we see them clearly, and know that a music station is best served by not giving traffic reports at all, or just covering the sigalerts.

Oh yeah, there it is again, providing a service for the community.

Something the listeners don't want, or know how to get elsewhere, is not a service. It detracts from the value of the main purpose of a station in many cases.

Something the suits just don't get because for them it's all about money.

There is nothing to directly replace the revenue from traffic; the reason for killing traffic reports is the finding that one's own audience does not want them and will, in fact, go away if they hear them. So serving that audience requires eliminating the stuff the audience does not want, even if it costs money initially to do so.

It did look grim and Mike wasn't smiling. Wonder how CC will feel about this article? And this all comes back to companies biting off more than they could chew by buying up properties that they can't afford to run. I have seen the enemy, and they are us...

You didn't get the point... traffic has always been consolidated, Shadow and Metro in the past... with most reporters having three or four names and doing reports on a similar number of stations. Today, the relevance and need for these reports has declined, so radio is moving out of the traffic business because listeners don't seek that data from radio to the extent they did before.

Years ago, I did a top 15 market's only traffic reports, even having an airplane up 3 hours per morning. After a year, we did research. Seems the market had little in the way of alternate routes, and so saying traffic was bad simply made people suffer. We suspended the reports, and ratings went up.

 

[henry]

Besides, <urban planner mode on>, it's Yet Another Hidden Subsidy for Automobiles </urban planner mode off>

I can't help but smile. Speaking as a Broadcast Journalism / Urban Planning double-major. (Who can't find work in either, FYI).

But I still grouch. Radio can't do thinks half-(butt) anymore. It either has to do it well, or not at all. I'd argue KNX's airborne does a great job telling me more than just the crash, but why, what, and most importantly how to get around it.

Less "crash on the 101 at sepulveda." Garmin can tell me that.

More "looking down on the Golden State freeway I see a Von's truck that's tipped over, and it's blocking the three left lanes. Crews look like they are cleaning that up, but it may take a good hour to get those lanes open." Garmin CAN NOT tell me that.

But that requires hiring people. And providing community service. And actually serving the public.


BAH hahaha ... good one. Radio owners serve the public. lol rofl .... like THAT will happen ...

 

[davideduardo]

But that requires hiring people. And providing community service. And actually serving the public.

Average LA commute time is 28 minutes, and more than half of people don't even get on a freeway. Still more have no alternative, as the route is direct and not variable. Unless a station covers traffic every 5 minutes, and does surface streets, too, most people could care less.

So a big percentage of people don't need traffic reports. Another percentage looks at traffic on morning TV shows. And still more use smart phones, the CalTrans website or a traffic service via GPS or XM satellite. There are so many alternatives now, many of which are instantaneous, that the long-trek commuter has likely found a better alternative.

Hiring people does not help. A plane or a compter are for show (been there, done that and in LA) and unless you have 6 or 7 of them and have figured out how to fly over the 405 on the west side, not really useful except in image. The Caltrans ensors and the reports that come in to the traffic services have far more detail and for more locations.

You don't think that stations actually had a full staff of traffic reporters, in recent memory, did you?

The role of radio is changing. Many things we did in the past are no longer relvant, and many things we dismissed are suddenly relevant. Sticking with a model that worked when radio had no portable or mobile competition is suicidal.

 

[calguy]

Is that because of the trend of younger people not driving themselves anywhere, or is it just some suit's guess that traffic reports are a tune out?

No, it is minute by minute data from PPM coupled with the daypart results and, likely, some kind of phone study or focus groups. Since traffic can be a revenue source, management would not kill them without a lot of evidence.

If anything, the problem for music stations is that they don't have enough traffic updates to make people tune in for them. If you only break twice an hour, how many updates can you do? Not enough to establish yourself as a station that really provides a service.

What we see in the PPM is behaviour that did not get written into a diary... people know where to go for traffic if they want it, and otherwise don't want it on their music station. If and when they need traffic, they tune to a station with very frequent traffic for a short time, then go back to the music or show they listen to most..

In the diary, the little incidents of traffic-seeking were lost. In PPM, we see them clearly, and know that a music station is best served by not giving traffic reports at all, or just covering the sigalerts.

Oh yeah, there it is again, providing a service for the community.

Something the listeners don't want, or know how to get elsewhere, is not a service. It detracts from the value of the main purpose of a station in many cases.

Something the suits just don't get because for them it's all about money.

There is nothing to directly replace the revenue from traffic; the reason for killing traffic reports is the finding that one's own audience does not want them and will, in fact, go away if they hear them. So serving that audience requires eliminating the stuff the audience does not want, even if it costs money initially to do so.

It did look grim and Mike wasn't smiling. Wonder how CC will feel about this article? And this all comes back to companies biting off more than they could chew by buying up properties that they can't afford to run. I have seen the enemy, and they are us...

You didn't get the point... traffic has always been consolidated, Shadow and Metro in the past... with most reporters having three or four names and doing reports on a similar number of stations. Today, the relevance and need for these reports has declined, so radio is moving out of the traffic business because listeners don't seek that data from radio to the extent they did before.

Years ago, I did a top 15 market's only traffic reports, even having an airplane up 3 hours per morning. After a year, we did research. Seems the market had little in the way of alternate routes, and so saying traffic was bad simply made people suffer. We suspended the reports, and ratings went up.

The funny thing about this David is that as I wrote my rant, I already knew what you would say. Yes, I know that the PPM provides us with this info, and I know that people use their smart phones to get the info they need. Of course when you re-program a station using the PPM as your research tool you get nothing more than a juke box. Not a lot of skill goes into a juke box, so the radio professional will eventually fade away as well. There will be no need for deejays or traffic reporters or even news people except for those on an all news operation. You'll just have imaging, music and a program director running many stations at a time. My interpretation of what Ocer has said is sadly that it doesn't really matter anymore, his generation has moved on and has no appreciation for what radio can bring to the table. Now it's an I-phone that provides his or her information and I suppose his or her entertainment, but there's nothing exciting about that. I remember full service radio that provided news and information and personalities that had you hanging on to hear what they would say or do next while playing your favorite music and introducing you to new music and bands. Sadly that's just history now. Technology, research and bean counters have combined to kill it all off and the younger generation doesn't want it anyway. Do I sound bitter? Maybe I am. Who knows...

By the way, does Ocer use his phone while driving? Or does Ocer check it before hand, because radio can provide that info when you can't check your super phone/camera/web access device while piloting your Prius down the highway.

 

[davideduardo]

The funny thing about this David is that as I wrote my rant, I already knew what you would say. Yes, I know that the PPM provides us with this info, and I know that people use their smart phones to get the info they need. Of course when you re-program a station using the PPM as your research tool you get nothing more than a juke box.

PPM is more of a report card than a research tool. It tells you whether the things you did work.

And, far from creating juke boxes, I've found that winning in PPM requires a vastly more skillful balancing of cume and TSL than the diary did; the diary rewarded branding but penalized real programming. My best example of winning in PPM involves a station with a kllosong library and high personality content shows, even in mid-days and overnights, too.

What this involves is always doing something a listener likes, for sure, but also being "engaging" in the sense of not just getting long TSL but in that of getting strong senses of belonging and attachment by listeners.

Not a lot of skill goes into a juke box, so the radio professional will eventually fade away as well.

I've done a few of those, and where there is competition, a great deal of skill is involved in creating music flow out of very few songs. I think we all know there are club DJs who may make $25 k for an evening, and others that make $25 bucks for a night. The difference is that ability to make the songs form more than the individual tunes themselves represent... it's engagement via the blend and flow of music. Not many can do it well, either. which is why I say it is not easy.

There will be no need for deejays or traffic reporters or even news people except for those on an all news operation.

Only specific formats need jocks, or news people or traffic reporters. In other cases, they can be downright negative. I look at Jack in LA, one of the finest crafted station I've ever heard. The flow is impeccable, right down to the intended "contrast segues" (which others call train wrecks) and the hosting by the listners themselvs. It's inspired and exciting and can't be duplicated on an iPod.

You'll just have imaging, music and a program director running many stations at a time.

Somehow we got too specialized in radio. I know few people who can program and manage and sell and tune an ATU, yet knowing about all aspects of the buiness to me is crucial. Perhaps this niche labor is what has made a lot of radio boring and uninspired. I keep thinking that the people who do many jobs or program several station have a broader picture and a better feel for the listener.

My interpretation of what Ocer has said is sadly that it doesn't really matter anymore, his generation has moved on and has no appreciation for what radio can bring to the table.

No, I think he is right... he expects something different from radio, and if radio wants to be a part of his life, it will jetison the old ways and adapt... including losing the arcane idea that we are in the "RF production business" as opposed to looking at all methods of distribution as channels for compelling content... which lots of stations still produce.

Now it's an I-phone that provides his or her information and I suppose his or her entertainment, but there's nothing exciting about that.

The smart phone is today's radio receiver. We have to stop thinking about dedicated radio reception devices and look at how a single instrument will be all manner of communications and entertainment solutions for people now.

I remember full service radio that provided news and information and personalities that had you hanging on to hear what they would say or do next while playing your favorite music and introducing you to new music and bands.

I remember that, too. And I see tomorrow' successful content taking the essence of that kind of entertainment (I did not say "radio" on purpose) and adapting it to the new usage of media.

Sadly that's just history now. Technology, research and bean counters have combined to kill it all off and the younger generation doesn't want it anyway. Do I sound bitter? Maybe I am. Who knows...

All manner of studies have shown the younger generation does want "it" but as part of a mix of entertainment options and delivered by devices that are appropriate today. Radio still reaches over 90% of "youth" but not for as long a time each week. Knowing how to make the piece of time we get interesting is the challenge... beyond changing our delivery methods.

By the way, does Ocer use his phone while driving? Or does Ocer check it before hand, because radio can provide that info when you can't check your super phone/camera/web access device while piloting your Prius down the highway.

I can plug my phone into my car and talk to it and have it tell me stuff that gets me where I am going. I don't have to look at it... some of the things show right on my screen in the car's display, and others are verbally delivered. Heck, even a Ford Focus can do that, even if it can't go from 0 to 60 in less than about 9 seconds.

 

[calguy]

Well David, I hear what you're saying and if one has the money he or she can get a phone that does all of this. But you're forgetting that the suits have fired the farm system, so where will those few who are chosen to be on "the media" come from? Will they be any good? I'm not hearing a lot of new talent that sounds very good. Time will tell. Guess video don't kill the radio star after all. Some other form of "media" did it. By the way, I do agree that it takes skill to create proper music flow. I don't however agree with your assessment of JACK. Personal preference I guess, but I've NEVER liked it. Can't stand the image voice and don't find the programming exciting. What's so exciting about those train wreck segues and a smarmy canned voice? Nothing in my book, but hey, you've got your opinion, I've got mine. I would site KRTH as a great example of how it's being done correctly, but JACK just doesn't float my boat. Also I might add that with the proper talent and training a smart person can balance cume and TSL to come out a winner, but talent to be on the radio as an entertainer takes more than just research and training. It takes a natural talent and ability, and not everyone has it.

 

[Robnoxious]

Radio traffic reporting died literally and figuratively with Bruce Wayne, KFI in the sky.