Beating Clear Channel / CBS Radio in PGH

[ChancellorDukat]

While I am on a rant and I am curious to hear what all of you think, is there anyway we can keep local radio alive in Pittsburgh? I know this question can go in a lot of directions but is it possible to combat companies like Clear Channel and CBS Radio and their implanted pretty plastic faced DJs / Hosts? Can we still have a local appeal with radio or are those days over?


Sigh. Still looking for that Advil.........

 

[kenhawk1160]

While I am on a rant and I am curious to hear what all of you think, is there anyway we can keep local radio alive in Pittsburgh? I know this question can go in a lot of directions but is it possible to combat companies like Clear Channel and CBS Radio and their implanted pretty plastic faced DJs / Hosts? Can we still have a local appeal with radio or are those days over?

The potential is still there, like it always has been, and for the most part, it hasn't really changed. We still have live morning shows, but what we've seen happen from midday on isn't anything really different than what's been done in years past. The only different thing is that it's being done cheaper and more efficiently through technology and voice-tracking.

Lest you think I'm painting a picture of gloom and doom, I'm still very bullish on local radio. While XM and Sirius are competitors to be taken seriously, they still have limits like any other competitor. One is portability, and cost. You still have to pay that monthly fee, and still not every channel is entirely commercial free. If satellite channels find a way to suddenly become local (and they can be, if they're given the green light), then we're in trouble. The key for radio's survival is to stay ahead of the competitor, and I think the industry is doing a pretty good job in that regard.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

For all the bad rap CBS and CC get, in markets like Cleveland and Pittsburgh, they do have a good deal of local talent--some of it shared between stations (e.g., voicetracking), but there is local talent still here.

But what really irritates me is the sudden urge by owners to decide, "know what, we have this local Philly host who's a hit in Philly. Let's see how he does on the other side of the state." And in turn, replacing a local host--in PM drive no less.

It's one thing to throw on a syndicated show with a track record (see, Opie & Anthnoy). It's quite another to put on an otherwise market-centric host on a "network" for the sake of doing so.

But, we all know this is about nothing but money. Kidd Chris's aditional station in PGH nets him, let's say generously, $10,000 more (I doubt it's that much; CC's paying $3,000 more per year to VT a daily slot on a sister station--that's $3,000 for an additional 45 mins a day of work).

That $10,000 is alot less than a good vet like Dave Cook makes. Hell, it's less than they'd have to pay a newbie.

I agree with Ken--there are great local owners doing some good things in the city (Bob Stevens, Renda, Mike Seigel). There's even some good stuff being done by the big boys. But the second-tier CBS and CC stations are turning into nothing but cheaply-run afterthoughts. That's what bothers me. If the CBS and CC boys arn't going to direct full attention to them, and instead throw on whatever out-of-market host will do their bidding cheaply, why not sell to someone who can operate it with a local service in mind.

That last question was rhetorical--knowing how much these guys paid for the stations 7-8 years ago, they'd be selling for more than anyone but a similarly-situated owner could afford. Hence, why Cumulus and CC can deal, but Stevens and CC can't. It's pricing the stations right out of the market.

And these guys need more stations to "compete"!

 

[Pratte4Life]

I think we have a very local scene here in Pittsburgh.

Jim and Randy do a show that is purely Pittsburgh. KDKA is very local. Ellis Cannon is very local. For better or for worse Mark Madden is very local. Bill Hillgrove is very local. Guy Junker is very local.

 

[Boss Radio]

Hillgrove should be local since he's calling play by play of Steelers and Pitt games. What's your point, that a few of the sports talk shows are local? Check the percentage of programming at 1250 that's local and what comes off a satellite.

 

[kenhawk1160]

And these guys need more stations to "compete"!


So they say. I find that hard to believe that you need more stations in your portfolio to stay competitive. When duopoly first came about, the original rule was "no more than four" per market. That was a fair and reasonable deal, because it allowed some of the struggling stations a chance for real competition while reducing some overhead.

But even that wasn't enough. Owning more stations isn't going to make your company stronger. What makes a station strong is finding other sources of revenue than just simply selling regular ROS and daypart spots. This is why I love small market radio...because a creative owner-operator can sell anything. News and weather sponsorships, high school sports, remote broadcasts, and even non-broadcast income such as leasing out tower space, their subcarrier, even services with their own equipment. WJPA, when I was there, offered a service to listeners where they would clean and polish skipping CD's to restore them to like-new condition, and even color-copier services. They're not HUGE moneymakers, but every little bit helps. It's thinking like that which has helped that station endure consolidation and others in the market can learn from that kind of thinking.

As for voice-tracking, even without duopoly, that technology had been around for some time before it gained popularity. Once the bugs were worked out, it became realistically possible. I remember going back to 1990 reading ads in Radio Ink like "80 percent of this man's time is wasted", promoting automation software systems.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"I remember going back to 1990 reading ads in Radio Ink like "80 percent of this man's time is wasted", promoting automation software systems."

I remember in the late 1960's when KQV-FM had John Rygren as "Brother John" 24/7 playing the ABC "Love" package. Tell me that wasn't voice-tracking!!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

That wasn't voicetracking.

That was tape recording. Just like Bonneville, Drake-Chenault, and numerous others.

It was probably the voicetracking of its day, though in my mind throwing on a tape for all-ABC circulation is a bit different than recording a collection of stop-sets, intros-outros, and "live copy" for a single "show".

But we're never ones to be obtuse on this board, are we?

 

[cingram]

I think the biggest difference between automation and voicetracking was that automated stations didn't pretend to be live and local. Or if they did so, they did it badly.

Some voice-tracked stations have gone so far as to intercut the out-of-town jocks with the local winners, when the two never actually spoke to each other. If that is not in violation of some FCC rule, I find it misleading and dishonest at the very least. I'm reminded of the FCC rules about lack of candor.

I have no part with ANY station which pretends to be live and local, when in fact, there is nobody on the air in the studio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

It was probably the voicetracking of its day

No "probably" about it. The technology might change, but whether it's a 16 rpm transcription disc, a reel-to-reel tape, or digitial files on computer media, pre-recorded programming is pre-recorded programming.

I think the biggest difference between automation and voicetracking was that automated stations didn't pretend to be live and local.

They did it to the limit of whatever technology was current at the time. Transcribed programs might not have pretended to be local, but except for the "portions of the preceding were pre-recorded" disclaimer at the end, old-time pre-recorded shows did often attempt to give the impression that they were live.

As I see it, the big difference is merely the technology. Broadcasters have more technical bells and whistles to fancy things up with, but the fundamental principles are unchanged.

"I have no part with ANY station which pretends to be live and local, when in fact, there is nobody on the air in the studio."

You mean you actually have all those musicians and singers performing their songs in your studios? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but how "live and local" is any program which consists of two or three minutes of pre-recorded music with a few seconds of a "live and local" DJ talking in between? When an hour consists of 45 minutes of pre-recorded music, 10 minutes of pre-recorded commercials, and five minutes of a live and local human being talking, does that five minutes really matter all that much?

 

[cingram]

"I have no part with ANY station which pretends to be live and local, when in fact, there is nobody on the air in the studio."

You mean you actually have all those musicians and singers performing their songs in your studios? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but how "live and local" is any program which consists of two or three minutes of pre-recorded music with a few seconds of a "live and local" DJ talking in between? When an hour consists of 45 minutes of pre-recorded music, 10 minutes of pre-recorded commercials, and five minutes of a live and local human being talking, does that five minutes really matter all that much?

We already had this discussion over on the Pittsburgh Radio Nostalgia board. My definition of "live and local" radio in today's world is a local disc jockey or talk show host opening the microphone in the local studio to talk to the audience. Not being piped in from another market. Not recorded in advance. You've repeatedly expressed your opinion that "DJ shows" are not "live and local" as far as you're concerned, and that you'd prefer spoken-word programs or scripted dramas, and as your opinion that's fine, but as a definition or goal for radio, that's better suited for 1946 than for 2006. It may be that my definition is better suited for 1986 than 2006, but it has more of a chance than the return of live dramas and studio orchestras, which isn't about to happen. Recorded music has been the norm in radio since Petrillo and the AFM backed off. Look up Petrillo if you haven't heard of him (and I don't mean Sammy).

P.S. I have spent most of my career making that five minutes mean that much. So I have to say yes, it does matter. Or at least it should.

 

[kenhawk1160]

I think the biggest difference between automation and voicetracking was that automated stations didn't pretend to be live and local. Or if they did so, they did it badly.

I would agree with the second half of your statement, Clarke. There were a few that did it well, like here in Butler County, before we moved our studios and upgraded to DCS and then Simian. Prior to that, our FM had a homemade automation system that the owner built himself. At that time, we used Concept Programming's service, which was voice-tracked personalities on reel-to-reel tape. They went on the air after our AM morning show simulcast, interfaced their generic current happenings jibber-jabber with carted buffers. The jock was on one reel, with the music on the others. It was very important to make sure the reels were in sync, because the way the reels were sec-toned, the robo-jocks were able to hit the posts in exactly the right spots. Now the typical listener would not know that Steve Tyler, Dave Ware and Terry Nelson were not on-site, but even I had to admit it was a pretty good job at localism for the time (late 80's) and for the technology we had available. Most of the older automation stations did try to fool their listeners with their canned people, and for the most part, succeeded. But those were also smaller markets. I'd say the bigger stations weren't fooling anyone.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I have to jump back in here, to explain what I see as a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between automation of old (say, the 60s and 70s) and voicetracking of today (Simian, etc.).

Take for example a basic Drake-Chenault syndicated program (I'll use Hit Parade as an example--essentially Top 40). The music came on one set of reels; the "jock" was on another set, with generic time announcements (maybe an intro-outro if you were lucky). A number of stations ran the music, with an "announcer" reel doing time and calls-slogans (there's an excellent aircheck flaoting around of WHND, Monroe, MI from the mid/late-70s running a D-C automated format--maybe Solid Gold?--who had as their "announcer" a guy saying the calls and "Honey Radio" in every other stopset).

With voicetracking, at least as I've done it and have heard/seen others do it, you're actually, actively looking at the system's playlist, know what you're coming out of and going into, and can talk up an intro--like a real radio guy. You're not some canned reel from Canoga Park, but are a local guy, familiar to millions (as they say), and making THAT station your sole responsibility. I can say that at one point in my career, I wasn't able to do law and radio so I had to succumb to voiectracking. It makes life flexible, but given the choice, I always prefer live.

Now, I say this as one who's used voicetracking on one station, in one market. I'm on record as being an opponent of interstate voicetracking--or even intrastate voicetracking. Make it local; we don't need Philadelphia feeding Pittsburgh, or Cleveland feeding Mansfield.

 

[kenhawk1160]

With voicetracking, at least as I've done it and have heard/seen others do it, you're actually, actively looking at the system's playlist, know what you're coming out of and going into, and can talk up an intro--like a real radio guy.

My point exactly. It's done much better now. To do it with the technology of old, that wouldn't fool anyone today. If given the option of either voicetracking or putting a satellite on for a small station, I'd opt for voicetracking. But I've seen very very successful efforts for both sides.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"My definition of "live and local" radio in today's world is a local disc jockey or talk show host opening the microphone in the local studio to talk to the audience."

It's not that I dispute your definition. I only dispute that it really matters all that much to anyone except an ex-live and local DJ who now has to move on to new employment opportunities. Aside from people seeking work as radio disc jockeys, who else really cares where the DJ is sitting?

It's not that much different than discussions of whether local bars and clubs should hire "live and local" bands instead of disc jockeys. To the musicians looking for work, there is one perspective on that argument. To bar owners and bar patrons, there is a different perspective.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

To bar owners and bar patrons, there is a different perspective.

Wonder if there would be if the bar owners paid their licensing fees (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) as they are legally required to do?

When you put the onus on the live band to pay licensing fees, it comes out cheaper in the end.

 

[cingram]

"My definition of "live and local" radio in today's world is a local disc jockey or talk show host opening the microphone in the local studio to talk to the audience."

It's not that I dispute your definition. I only dispute that it really matters all that much to anyone except an ex-live and local DJ who now has to move on to new employment opportunities. Aside from people seeking work as radio disc jockeys, who else really cares where the DJ is sitting?

It's not that much different than discussions of whether local bars and clubs should hire "live and local" bands instead of disc jockeys. To the musicians looking for work, there is one perspective on that argument. To bar owners and bar patrons, there is a different perspective.

If the listening audience doesn't care where the DJ is sitting, or even if there is a DJ, then the DJs are failing at their job as entertainers.

My experience is that the audience is not all that stupid, and when they find out a radio station is voice-tracked, they strongly dislike the idea.

I will concede, though, that the DJ is less important now than in the days when we used to watch them through the KQV showcase window...and I'm not too sure that radio has anyone but itself to blame for that.

Your "bar" analogy is an apt one, except that it's an in-person appearance, and radio is generally a solo activity with one-on-one communication while people at bars are dancing and socializing. Not exactly the same thing but a decent analogy, and people differ on whether or not they want a live band or a DJ.

How would they feel, I wonder, if the music were merely piped in from somewhere else, with a DJ's voice occasionally coming over the speakers, but not physically present - and for that matter was pre-recorded?

Ay, there's the rub.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

How would they feel, I wonder, if the music were merely piped in from somewhere else, with a DJ's voice occasionally coming over the speakers, but not physically present - and for that matter was pre-recorded?

Ask the girls who frequent the Matrix, Tequila Willy's, Touch, Jimmy D's, etc. that question. Every time I've been in those "fine" establishments, the DJ is getting more estrogen osmosis than most guys. These could be club DJs or the traveling "Freak Show" from KISS.

Maybe it's because the audience likes to think they have some form of input with the music that's being played.

Interaction--that's the name of the game. And for as great jocks as they were, Humble Harve and the Real Don Steele sure sounded like they were in LA when they did their D-C time cuts.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"If the listening audience doesn't care where the DJ is sitting, or even if there is a DJ, then the DJs are failing at their job as entertainers."

If that is correct, then Pittsburgh radio is sure full of lots and lots of failures.

Normally, I do not like 50's vintage oldies. But I made a point to tune in a live and local Am station that plays 50's vintage oldies today for my ride home from work. There was a guy/girl DJ team. From 5:15 PM when I left the office until I pulled into my driveway at 5:45 PM, I didn't hear a single word that couldn't have been recorded on tape, or that couldn't have been spoken in another city, or both. Breaking into a song to say "This is dedicated to the Duquesne class of '61" didn't have to be done live, and it didn't have to be done local.

I'm not being argumentative here. I genuinely want to know. What can a live DJ say on the air that couldn't be pre-recorded? Even obvious stuff like traffic reports can be cutaways. And what can a DJ say in a studio in the local city he can't say just as well from some other city?

It would be different if stations hired local people, but we've already had that discussion. A market like Pittsburgh doesn't hire anyone who hasn't proven themselves in smaller markets, so the odds of a "live and local" Pittsburgh DJ being from Pittsburgh are pretty much slim and none. No one would hire anyone with a noticeable Pittsburgh accent, other than for use in comedy skits playing a Yinzer.

If "live and local" is so great, there must be something about it that taped "someplace else" cannot provide. I just want someone to tell me what that mysterious "something" is.

I'd also like to know how many "live and local" DJ's in Pittsburgh would turn down a gig making extra money doing voice tracking for someplace else, purely on principle.

 

[frothingslosh]

"If the listening audience doesn't care where the DJ is sitting, or even if there is a DJ, then the DJs are failing at their job as entertainers."

If that is correct, then Pittsburgh radio is sure full of lots and lots of failures.

Normally, I do not like 50's vintage oldies. But I made a point to tune in a live and local Am station that plays 50's vintage oldies today for my ride home from work. There was a guy/girl DJ team. From 5:15 PM when I left the office until I pulled into my driveway at 5:45 PM, I didn't hear a single word that couldn't have been recorded on tape, or that couldn't have been spoken in another city, or both. Breaking into a song to say "This is dedicated to the Duquesne class of '61" didn't have to be done live, and it didn't have to be done local.

I'm not being argumentative here. I genuinely want to know. What can a live DJ say on the air that couldn't be pre-recorded? Even obvious stuff like traffic reports can be cutaways. And what can a DJ say in a studio in the local city he can't say just as well from some other city?

It would be different if stations hired local people, but we've already had that discussion. A market like Pittsburgh doesn't hire anyone who hasn't proven themselves in smaller markets, so the odds of a "live and local" Pittsburgh DJ being from Pittsburgh are pretty much slim and none. No one would hire anyone with a noticeable Pittsburgh accent, other than for use in comedy skits playing a Yinzer.

If "live and local" is so great, there must be something about it that taped "someplace else" cannot provide. I just want someone to tell me what that mysterious "something" is.

I'd also like to know how many "live and local" DJ's in Pittsburgh would turn down a gig making extra money doing voice tracking for someplace else, purely on principle.

Indubitably, old man, you are correct.

But what in heaven's name are you blathering on about in the first place?

What the dickens do you want, my boy? Live orchestras playing dance music from the roof of a High Street hotel?

Then, no doubt, you would whinge if they were playing music that wasn't written in Pittsburgh. Perhaps you would demand that the instruments were made in Pittsburgh as well!

Sometimes I suspect that you are merely nostalgic for an airy-fairy ideal in commercial radio that is either long gone, or never was.

You've already established that having a Pittsburgh resident talk about Pittsburgh events while playing records in Pittsburgh is not "local" enough for you.

Yet I have watched commenters on this message board suggest that local "talk" shows are an example of local programmes. You disagree, saying that sometimes these programmes discuss national issues (as if Pittsburgh were not a part of the United States) and therefore, are disqualified.

My question, sir, is this: Are you barmy, or do you merely enjoy talking bollocks to wind others up?