Buffalo BIG plans for WEBR

[TheBigA]

I believe that radio has, or should have, obligations to the public beyond those of making money.

That's what Brendan Carr says. I don't think you agree with him.

Carr is calling his effort the Pledge America Campaign, with the agency noting that broadcasters can voluntary indicate their commitment but that it would be “consistent with their longstanding public interest obligations.”

Everybody has an opinion about what we should do. But we're the ones who pay the bills. You get radio for free. No obligation,

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

but I believe that radio has, or should have, obligations to the public beyond those of making money

In short, I think radio stations should serve the interests of the broader communities within their transmitter range than the narrow interests of advertisers and those who have a lot of cash to spend. And that is all I'll write on this subject on this thread.

outdated is an understatement, back in the 20s and 30s radio may have been as much a public service as anything else and it still is, but it has to make money to stay on the air and provide the public service.

The 4 stations i now work for do that. Our formerly just 1 standalone did beyond exceptional public service as a commercial outlet with 1 local air talent, two out of market voicertrackers, shows and the owner.

3 of our stations have a somewhat narrow focus because of the format. 1 is broader.

but we look at what our competitors do (and now we own some of them!), dont do.. and found our spot in between that. we do attempt to play the digital game because we'll never win. we do news, we do community calendar stuff but the cluster in the next city over owned by a conglomerate crushes it in digital.

Your ideas and suggesitons come from an outdated opinion and no actual working knowledge of the business.

 

[K.M. Richards]

After some thought, I would like to rebut Ted's last sentence differently than did @exdjted ...

In short, I think radio stations should serve the interests of the broader communities within their transmitter range than the narrow interests of advertisers and those who have a lot of cash to spend. And that is all I'll write on this subject on this thread.

The "narrow interest of advertisers" is actually to get as broad a segment of the listeners within the transmitter range, so those listeners can be marketed to.

Aside from ethnic-based programming, advertisers buy the station with the highest listening levels, and not the ones that have some obscure format that few (if any) listen to.

 

[b-turner]

I've been in radio since 1978. Never at any time did an advertiser try to dictate programming. or was programming designed for the advertiser. See the above post. With many years selling radio, if an advertiser tried to do so, he'd hear a mouthful from me. Then I'd go out and try to get his competitor on my station and take some of his customers. In fact the best product for the advertiser is a station serving it's community or segment of that community successfully.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I've been in radio since 1978. Never at any time did an advertiser try to dictate programming. or was programming designed for the advertiser. See the above post. With many years selling radio, if an advertiser tried to do so, he'd hear a mouthful from me. Then I'd go out and try to get his competitor on my station and take some of his customers. In fact the best product for the advertiser is a station serving it's community or segment of that community successfully.

I think you've misinterpreted what we are trying to say here.

If a station's programming appeals to a local business -- not designed specifically to an advertiser, or dictated by an advertiser -- that business will be more inclined to advertise when approached by said station.

What Ted has been advocating for is stations eschewing mass appeal formats to superserve specific niche audiences in their coverage area. What I am saying in rebuttal is that, except for ethnic-focused programming, that model does not have a chance of getting enough advertising dollars to remain viable.

Advertisers, for the most part, want the most people listening to their spots. That means mass appeal, but it does not mean tailoring programming by dictate of the advertisers.

 

[davideduardo]

During the interview, Dr. Pickard notes that advertising did not become the primary focus for newspapers until the late 1800s (prior to then, the model was mostly a subscription one with roughly 40% of the money being made from advertising). When commercial radio was invented in the 1920s, it simply surplanted, to the best of its ability, the advertising model used by newspapers simply because there was no way to force people to pay subscriptions for the radio service and the U.S. chose not to follow in the footsteps of most other democracies and require a tax on radio and (later) TV set purchases to help pay for the programming.

The tax on radio... and later TV... was not a trait of democracies. In all of Latin America and in many of the free nations of SE Asia radio was developed by the private sector.

Classic case: a guy who sold radios to passengers on the trains from San Antonio to Mexico City realized that he could sell more of them if there were something good to listen to in Mexico City, so he founded XEW which went on to be a 250,000 watt regioinal AM.

Same in lots and lots of other countries. In totalitarian regimes in the 30's and 40's the government controlled radio and, of course, popular dialog.

And here is where we are today. The argument is being made that regular programming can be relaxed somewhat during weekends because fewer people listen then and because Nielsen really doesn't monitor (or at least it doesn't publish any results of monitoring) weekend listening.

Nielsen rates 24/7, every day, all day in both the PPM and the diary. The lesser interest in weekends is that listening tends to be less and advertisers don't buy Mon-Sun as often as Mon-Fri.

@TheBigA and @davideduardo are arguing that all programming, no matter what time slot it is in, should follow a rigid "make money for the station" model. In other threads, @TheBigA has gone so far as to argue that, because of people jumping to the Internet, radio should follow the model of the Internet stations and do a 24/7 rigid format.

That is the way that successful private stations have operated ever since TV took over drama, comedy, soaps and the like. The reason is that there are many stations in most markets and area and people congregate to those that are predictable: "I feel like hearing that sort of stuff and that is what WZPQ does so that is where I am going to listen now!"

Frankly, I find this argument to be ridiculous. Individual Internet radio stations do not and cannot serve a lot of people at one time for several reasons. There are no FCC licenses for Internet stations and no public service requirements to fulfill. However, if Internet radio stations play copyrighted music, then they must pay a per song per listener fee for each and every song to the recording industry, something that is not now required for over-the-air only broadcasters.

AM and FM pay composer, author and publisher rights and have since the 30's. What they don't pay for analog AM and FM is the "DIGITAL Millennium Copyright Act" fees.

Look! Three weeks ago, KAZG in the Phoenix market abruptly dropped the hour of pre-Beatles music it was playing between 7 and 8am on Sunday mornings in favor of an hour-long infomercial to purchase stock advice for AI stocks. While I'm sure the station is being paid for the infomercial time, I can't help but think that that infomercial is drawing more listeners away from the station than the pre-Beatles rock did that it used to play during that hour.

In either case, KAZG is a daytime AM with a translator. It does not, probably, make money: it likely is added to buys on other cluster stations as a bonus. So they got a paid program on Sunday morning, when next to nobody listens to any station. I'll bet the oldies show was intended to be full until and if they got a paid show instead.

I also believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong for a radio station that is formatted with 1960s and 1970s rock to play for an hour at 7am on Sunday mornings music that is still rock but that attracts those people who are still alive who are a decade older. Hell, there was a period in the late 1970s when KOY, an AC/MOR station played Casey Kasem's "American Top 40," though a lot of the music on that show wasn't on the station's regular playlist.

Again, most stations use Sunday morning to fulfill license requirements with the FCC in Public Affairs and other required content. So this one got a chance to make money for an hour at a time when there was nothing to lose.

KOY was also the first Phoenix radio station to air the 1978 Bill Drake-narrated "The History of Rock and Roll,", though again, that show included songs and artists (Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc.) not normally played by the station during its format. If we can't allow music radio to occasionally break away from its format, regardless of short-term profitability because of what Internet radio is doing, then I say it is time to let broadcast radio die.

Radio on FM... I ignore AM music stations as they are essentially "dead man walking" situations... depends on consistency within some boundaries. We usually use research to determine what our own core listeners like (or we copy a station that we know does research).

Doing things that are way outside the tastes of our core listeners is suicide.

If commercial broadcasters are no longer willing to throw even crumbs to minorities and outliers, then, as far as I am concerned, the service can, and should, drop dead, as it is no longer worth my ears.

You are telling radio to do things that would make stations less appealing than they are now. You have a total misunderstanding of how the normal, average, regular radio listener uses the medium.

 

[davideduardo]

Of course, that last sentence applies to news and news commentaries and not to music programming. With regard to music programming, because of the limited number of radio frequencies available (even if those frequencies are worth less than they used to be), we do need to rethink the idea that radio should serve only the wishes of the broadest possible audiences or their advertisers at all times. As an old fogie with outdated ideas, I surely think this is more likely to lead to the death of the medium in the long term.

You make the mistake of thinking that broadcast radio is separate from streaming and podcasts and web "stations". It is not. To the listener, these all are sources of audio content. They pick the one that most matches their specific tastes.

If a station deviates from its specialty, all it does is drive its core away, and does not do it for enough time a week or per day to attract a new audience. So they loose most of the core, and gain no new listeners since those "newbies" won't like the rest of the station content.

I go to a drug store to fill a prescription... not to buy fresh produce. I know where to go for both, and if I find that either location no longer fulfills its primary purpose, I don't go back. Same with radio stations.

In short, I think radio stations should serve the interests of the broader communities within their transmitter range than the narrow interests of advertisers and those who have a lot of cash to spend.

OK, then explain how those stations that ruin the consistency of their format are going to pay their bills? About half of all stations don't make money, and it has been that way since the FCC financial reports back in the 50's.

The same goes for independent restaurants. Do a search for how many start up and don't last even two years. If you don´t offer something people want and do your offering very well, you fail.

I do not go to a Korean restaurant for coq au vin. What you are suggesting is like asking McDonalds to serve sushi. Not what is expected, and it distracts the customer from your profit center. Same in radio.

And that is all I'll write on this subject on this thread.

Without trying to sound insulting, I do have to say, "thank goodness".

 

[davideduardo]

outdated is an understatement, back in the 20s and 30s radio may have been as much a public service as anything else and it still is, but it has to make money to stay on the air and provide the public service.

Well into the 30's, significant stations (many in the 20's were club and hobbyist operations) stations were put on the air to be the "voice" of a car dealer (Earle C. Anthony, for example), and insurance company (WSM, WOW and many others) a store (WLS meant "World's Largest Store") or a newspaper (dozens of examples) among others.

As the 20's advanced, stations realized that they could sell ads to others, just like magazines or newspapers did. Thus we got sponsors, like some at The Grand Ole Opry, that promoted their flour for 80 years, give or take.

When RCA got stations to promote the sale of radios and some cigar vendor from Philly bought a struggling station to sell his tobacco products, we saw networks develop. And they came with sales to ad agencies, some of which actually produced and controlled their own shows!

The "public service" that motivated most stations was "to entertain people". The gumm'int made them do some other stuff, and certain things like network news proved to make the FRC / FCC happy and make money, too.

but we look at what our competitors do (and now we own some of them!), dont do.. and found our spot in between that. we do attempt to play the digital game because we'll never win. we do news, we do community calendar stuff but the cluster in the next city over owned by a conglomerate crushes it in digital.

And that is a good, solid reaction to market conditions. Offer a clear and well defined (and consistent) format to a group of people and advertisers will want to sell their stuff to them.

Your ideas and suggesitons come from an outdated opinion and no actual working knowledge of the business.

Totally.

My first station had no requirement for news, public affairs, educational shows or whatever. So I had DJs play the hits 24 hours a day, over and over. People liked it, and the station became #1 in upper and middle income levels in a market of about a million. It competed with and beat about 36 or 37 other full-time stations in the same market. But I gave more people exactly what they wanted and did not try to push "stuff" on them that did not fit.

And I was proud that I was, at age 18, able to entertain so effectively, so many people. I did not regret not having done talk shows or educational interludes or political discussions.

 

[Buddy Shula]

The broader community doesn't pay the bills. Advertisers do. We can't sell subscriptions like Pandora or SiriusXM. Advertisers and their money are the lifeblood of our business. I'm not playing music or talk programming to cater to just one person. I program to the widest audience possible because that's what the advertisers pay for. They want the widest audience possible for their message to attract customers to their doors. The advertisers are MY customers, not Marty living in his parents' basement writing manifestos and playing D&D all day.

That's the problem with so many people on this board. They've never worked a day in this business. They've never had to write a check to the FCC. They've never had to fill out ownership reports, or deal with ASCAP, SESAC or BMI. They've never dealt with having to broadcast through a hurricane or natural disaster while wondering if your own house will still be there when you get home.

You come at us as passionate listeners, but shout us down when we try to educate you on HOW the business works and WHY it works that way. You treat us like we're wrong in how we operate, but you'd never dare tell a police officer or a chef that they're wrong with how they conduct their business that they've spent an entire lifetime at.

You may think you know everything about this business, but trust me, YOU DON'T. None of us with decades in this business will ever know everything. What we DO know is how this business works for us.

If you want to message me privately, I'll give you the numbers of the brokers of the over 300 stations I personally know of for sale at this very moment. When you plunk down your hard-earned cash and put in 20 hour days 7 days a week to pay the bills, I'll listen to you.

From one Ted to another, you're wrong. We pay for our licenses, we buy the facilities, we pay the ongoing fees, and we have to live with the constant political changes that affect our livelihood on a daily basis. We do serve the broader community by doing blood drives, by airing PSAs, by providing weather and news, by broadcasting high school football and basketball. Most of this is now being taken over by Facebook and X and Instagram. They don't have to worry about vetting their sources. Anyone can post a completely false story on Facebook, and people will be sharing it and believing it simply because they read it. If we publish something so blatantly false, the FCC can have a field day with our license. Remind me the last time Mark Zuckerberg gave a rat's behind about the truth.

Buddy Shula is one of the most decorated people on this board. He's successful because he cares about the product and doing a good job, AND he's doing it on AM. Can you imagine what he could do with a 100kw FM? Hell, even Buddy has said AM is coming to an end. That's the reality. There are threads that are hundreds of pages long about saving it. Folks, there's no saving it. It's just postponing the inevitable. Guess what? FM is heading down that same dark path. We're keeping it on life support right now. And the advertisers are the lifeblood. Listeners are the brother who hasn't been home for years to see the dying patient and cries the loudest at the wake. They make a lot of noise but weren't there, never did the hard work, and put on a great show about how much they're grieving.

Sorry for the long rant, but until you've been where we've been and done what we've done, you can disagree, but DON'T tell us how to run OUR business.

Thank you very much for the kind words. I do think the AM and FM will be swirling the drain, as I also think this about broadcast tv, paper, etc

Buffalo is a pretty unique market. It does not change easily. It is behind most progressive cities, which is why I think Buffalo will remain in decent shape for a pretty long while.

I am 59 years old. Radio will still be kicking in Buffalo, but in case it isn’t, I have a very successful ad agency, and 12 high visibility billboard locations.

These businesses help each other, and the feed of one another.

With regard to the 100kw station, we would crush it. It may not be 100kw, (but close) and trust me, I’m working on it.

 

[DavidZ]

@ted chittenden, you should give WJIB in Boston a listen. A listener supported AM station with an FM translator and streaming.

A deep eclectic playlist.

Home

wjib.com

 

[ckg279]

That's why I said "successful for who?" Here's an example you'll like: KLOS in Los Angeles did a Yacht Rock special for Labor Day weekend. Yacht Rock is mainly 70s music, so it appeals to an older demographic. Bad idea if you're looking at demos. However, Labor Day weekend is a low listening time anyway. PLUS they got the whole weekend SPONSORED by a local Kia dealership. What could be better?

Nobody in radio personally cares about demos or ratings. But if you do something that attracts a sponsor? Then you're golden.

If memory serves, Boom 97.3 in Toronto has done something similar the past two summers: spend a good chunk of a weekend day playing Yacht Rock. The 70s(for the most part)music fits perfectly into their classic hits format and included stuff I hadn't heard in years. It's a nice diversion from the music they DO play(which is starting to diversify into 2000s music while keeping the 70s/80s/90s core of its music playlist intact).

 

[spt87]

I saw the comment about radio can't get income via subscriptions like a streaming service or satellite radio. I'd like to see commercial stations try to fund raise to support specific shows just to see if it could work. A perfect example of this is WJIB in Cambridge/Boston. It has been listener supported for many years and last year they amp'ed that up a bit and brought in well into 6 figures. I know - it has no staff, an unpaid owner who doubles as show host, etc. '

BUT, what if iHeart, for example, leveraged their app. to take payments to support specific shows. A few years ago now they canceled their long running overnight talk show on WBZ (and then later the overnight trucking show on WLW). They have basically eliminated overnights on all stations saying they can't the sell time. Well, they can sell some time overnights and that WBZ talk show did have advertisers - maybe not enough. What if they had coupled that with listeners who "subscribed" and sent in $10 or $20 a month. Maybe not to turn to a profit but enough to cover program costs. They would strengthen listener loyalty and keep something on overnight worth tuning into. They certainly aren't making a profit on the current overnight program of replaying old news all night - they just cost cut it to break even.

Just a thought. On smaller stations this may not work just as they don't have enough potential audience but a big station like WBZ (or WLW) which had a substantial loyal following overnight could potentially bring in enough to do something more with those hours. They have the tech stack and app that could be extended to handle it as well.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I'd like to see commercial stations try to fund raise to support specific shows just to see if it could work.

If you convince a station to try, do let us know if even one dollar comes in as revenue for same.

Think about how many people ignore pledge drives on NPR and PBS. I rest my case.

 

[spt87]

Yes, yet look at how many do donate. NPR and PBS would not exist without it. Even when they were getting govt funding listener donations + underwriting was the bulk of the revenue.

If you are iHeart or Audacy and have the apps they have - it's not a big reach to add in a payment capability/auto billing capability. WJIB with one station and no staff has that via their web site and they brought in near $200k last year. If Bradley Jay had gotten on his show and said please subscribe or I'll be canceled - people would have. Would it have been enough - well that is the question.

 

[TheBigA]

I'd like to see commercial stations try to fund raise to support specific shows just to see if it could work.

You know that stations like WBFO and WNED do that, right? You know what the average percentage is for listener support? It's about 7% of listeners actually support those stations. That's why those stations have to get underwriting support from corporations and foundations. People are cheap. They'll find any way they can to get around paying for things. My point is that the chances of getting radio listeners to pay for their stations are not too good.

Yes, yet look at how many do donate. NPR and PBS would not exist without it.

As I said, only 7% donate. That's why they need corporate sponsors. That's why WNED is going to accept commercials. People are cheap.

 

[spt87]

Ok - well then we can all keep throwing up our hands complaining that radio is circling the drain the there is nothing we can do about it. 7% donating is better than 0%.

Somehow WJIB raised what they did by just providing something people really want and were willing to pay for.

Plenty of people pay for SiriusXM and streaming (yes, I know they have a "paywall" so you can't get them for free at least not easily) but they COULD get close to the same thing for free flipping on their radio - yet they choose to pay.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Plenty of people pay for SiriusXM and streaming.

Because SiriusXM and the streaming services didn't start out as free, over the air services. This is where your logic fails ... convincing people to pay for an AM or FM broadcast is going to get you a look of "you're kidding me, right?"

 

[spt87]

This thread is really indicative of why AM/FM radio is in decline. A large number of people in the industry have decided to just cash their checks until they retire and not try to do something new or different from what has been done for the last 50 years.

I've long thought the biggest problem AM radio had was not static but owners who decided it was done and to just put it on auto pilot to rot.

Example: which AM owner's stations have still largely remained relevant and successful? Those that used to be part of Group W. Why? In the 1980s Group W decided they were an AM company and they sold all their FMs. They then invested in their AMs as if there was a future and they made a future for them that has continued on to the present day.

Yes - I know you will all brow beat me for saying the above but it is really one of the most negative industries I can think of. Suggesting trying something new is met with scorn yet I have more data to back up that what I propose may work than anyone here has to indicate it won't (with WJIB as the example).

 

[spt87]

This thread is really indicative of why AM/FM radio is in decline. A large number of people in the industry have decided to just cash their checks until they retire and not try to do something new or different from what has been done for the last 50 years.

I've long thought the biggest problem AM radio had was not static but owners who decided it was done and to just put it on auto pilot to rot.

Example: which AM owner's stations have still largely remained relevant and successful? Those that used to be part of Group W. Why? In the 1980s Group W decided they were an AM company and they sold all their FMs. They then invested in their AMs as if there was a future and they made a future for them that has continued on to the present day.

Yes - I know you will all brow beat me for saying the above but it is really one of the most negative industries I can think of. Suggesting trying something new is met with scorn yet I have more data to back up that what I propose may work than anyone here has to indicate it won't (with WJIB as the example).

This by the way is why I have grown to be a fan of John Garabedian and his protege Mason Kelter. They are positive and moving forward, trying new things (or reviving old things that DO work like live listener request top 40).

 

[K.M. Richards]

Until your data is strong enough to beat the combined experience of the professionals here, the equivalent experience at the station management level means you may as well be presenting it to a brick wall.

And you are dead wrong about AM static being the major factor in AM's downhill slide; over the decades the amount of man-made electrical interference has increased almost exponentially, and that is what has driven the audience to FM (as the Steely Dan song said, no static at all) and that in turn has caused owners to lose faith.

Tell me, do you have any broadcast experience which would convince the industry to take you seriously?