Bob Pittman: Radio is "completely undervalued"

[Randy Roadz]

Bob Pittman: Radio is "completely undervalued"

The Clear Channel CEO opened his luncheon keynote at the Arbitron Client Conference with that quote.

------------------------------------------------

Anyone here have any ideas on how something like this could have happened??

RR

 

[Bongwater]

Bob Pittman needs to get the hell out of the f#¢king '80s and see how UGLY the radio industry actually IS TODAY.....PERIOD......

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

And not like, as the guy tasked with trying to make a silk purse from the crap that is CC ... that he would have an AGENDA for making a statement like that.

 

[bobdavcav]

And this coming from CC, the same company that just fired Dormat, Hidy May, Randy Lundquist and hundreds of others? That doesn't make sense to me at all! Does anyone have a link to a text or audio version of this speech?

 

[Randy Roadz]

And this coming from CC, the same company that just fired Dormat, Hidy May, Randy Lundquist and hundreds of others? That doesn't make sense to me at all! Does anyone have a link to a text or audio version of this speech?

Still looking for more... BUT--

The Clear Channel CEO opened his luncheon keynote at the Arbitron Client Conference with that quote, and followed it up with a raft of graphics and statistics about radio usage. He also drew a distinction between Pandora ("a playlist generator") and broadcast radio stations. He says "We should not let people confuse the two." He also says that "people listening online are our heaviest users of broadcast radio", saying "digital is a big opportunity for radio" to grow. Pittman's last and most important chart showed revenue adjusted for usage, in an ideal world. Newspapers would get much less of the advertising pie, TV stations would get somewhat less, and radio's take would mushroom from about $15 billion to $38.1 billion. Pittman says it's crucial for radio to "make new revenue to the radio sector our priority." And he has this advice, as a former radio programmer and executive now returned to the business: "Don't badmouth your own industry."

 

[bobdavcav]

And this coming from CC, the same company that just fired Dormat, Hidy May, Randy Lundquist and hundreds of others? That doesn't make sense to me at all! Does anyone have a link to a text or audio version of this speech?

Still looking for more... BUT--

The Clear Channel CEO opened his luncheon keynote at the Arbitron Client Conference with that quote, and followed it up with a raft of graphics and statistics about radio usage. He also drew a distinction between Pandora ("a playlist generator") and broadcast radio stations. He says "We should not let people confuse the two." He also says that "people listening online are our heaviest users of broadcast radio", saying "digital is a big opportunity for radio" to grow. Pittman's last and most important chart showed revenue adjusted for usage, in an ideal world. Newspapers would get much less of the advertising pie, TV stations would get somewhat less, and radio's take would mushroom from about $15 billion to $38.1 billion. Pittman says it's crucial for radio to "make new revenue to the radio sector our priority." And he has this advice, as a former radio programmer and executive now returned to the business: "Don't badmouth your own industry."

Agree with his points there. Honestly, I find Seattle radio somewhat boring sometimes, so that's why I listen to so many online. He's right that radio needs new revenue to survive, just like any other industry. Is his way of getting new revenue firing all the employees and voice tracking the stations? Won't most stations' revenues go down with the content not local? Honestly, I don't think if Tommy McFly was voicetracked, I don't think I would have enjoyed his show as much as I did when it was nights on WRQX. Too bad he's left and now doing afternoons at WIAD, don't get to listen hardly ever now. And what would KHKS in Dallas be like without local tallent? I don't think I'd listen to it much anymore, but that would also be a huge loss, I think they do it right. I'd stil like the music and I's listen for that, but it just wouldn't be the same.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

...though CC national VT'ing not entirely a bad model.

Every time I hear Ryan Seacrest I'm very grateful that "there are four hours of my life I just got back ... and four hours of radio I'll NEVER need to hear"

 

[radioguy123]

Ryan once he takes over for Matt Lauer on NBC in late 2012 (Wall Street Journal Story) will most likely have to track his show in LA as well. That means the midday show on KISS in Seattle will be an edited tracking of his tracked show out of LA. He will have to squeeze in the voicetracking of segments of American Idol and E as well.

Radio may be undervalued, but there could be a reason, just sayin.

 

[TheBigA]

Won't most stations' revenues go down with the content not local?

Why? Most of the content at music stations isn't local. Unless they're playing Nirvana. Just wrapping non-local music with a local voice doesn't make the content local. But you're right with formats like news, and that seems to be the format of choice these days for radio companies.

Radio may be undervalued, but there could be a reason, just sayin.

Keep in mind that the only part of Ryan's day that CC has any control over is the radio shows. Someone left an opening in his contract that allowed him to add a whole bunch of other things to his plate. I'd suspect the busier he gets, the angrier CC becomes.

 

[bobdavcav]

Well if the person you're laying off was just the card reader type that is referenced on these boards all the time, it won't make that much difference, but can people being voicetracked from another location bring the personality I mention in the two examples I've mentioned above?

 

[TheBigA]

but can people being voicetracked from another location bring the personality I mention in the two examples I've mentioned above?

Depends on the format or location, but I'm not sure if that's really an issue. Are people tuning in for the host or the music?

 

[Bongwater]

but can people being voicetracked from another location bring the personality I mention in the two examples I've mentioned above?

Depends on the format or location, but I'm not sure if that's really an issue. Are people tuning in for the host or the music?

Why not BOTH?

 

[scott salvatori]

....maybe clear channel, and the other behemoths can get their lobbyists to lobby the FCC for another change in market ownership rules, and numbers. this could create another superficial buying frenzy, and create more superficial value in the properties they already own. this would increase station value, which could be leveraged for more loans to buy more stations, which would superficial create another nice market bubble. they could then lay off more people, which would increase corporate profits to help pay all that debt they acrued from that buying frenzy they done lobbyied for. hence the increase in radio value mr pittman speaks of......

wasnt mr pittman elains boss on seinfeld back in the 90's?

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

....maybe clear channel, and the other behemoths can get their lobbyists to lobby the FCC

I believe that is called the "NAB"

 

[TheBigA]

....maybe clear channel, and the other behemoths can get their lobbyists to lobby the FCC for another change in market ownership rules, and numbers. this could create another superficial buying frenzy, and create more superficial value in the properties they already own.

Nope. Those days are clearly done. What has typified radio buying for the past 15 years is radio companies buy radio stations. That pattern is pretty much exhausted. What's needed is to have non-radio companies buy stations. That's how things used to be. What Pittman is talking about is to create value for companies outside of radio. That is the real challenge, because most of those companies, particularly those companies with lots of cash on hand, don't see any value in radio. Actually it's not just radio. The fact that a traditional broadcasting owner like GE sold NBC/Universal says a lot. But what Pittman wants is to increase value to advertisers, and to increase value to potential buyers.

 

[notalent]

Pittman wants to take more money from Newspapers while decreasing his bottom line even more.

Bain induced "efficiency"

 

[JJWALKER]

We as an industry have lost our way. Shame on all of us for allowing this to happen. Radio is show business, yet radio has lost it's showmanship, sizzle and serving the public intrest for the communities we broadcast to. Who among us is willing to step forward to protect the listner, because the FCC has made it clear they are not going to be the hall monitor. We live in a day and age when broadcasters in America's #1 market have perched themself above the law when it comes to allowing access to the station's public file. The New York Times went undercover and was denied inspection of various station's public file as required by law. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/nyregion/at-radio-and-tv-outlets-a-little-known-trove-of-kudos-and-complaints.html?pagewanted=all

Does anybody remember the days when the the FCC would travel across the country in dark blue vans topped with various circular antennas? The inspection engineers would visit a market, and their presence would spread like wildfire.

 

[TheBigA]

We live in a day and age when broadcasters in America's #1 market have perched themself above the law when it comes to allowing access to the station's public file. The New York Times went undercover and was denied inspection of various station's public file as required by law.

Just so you know, this is nothing new. I wrote my college term paper on similar experiences, visiting radio stations asking to see public files. This was before deregulation, and most of the stations were single licensees, not corporations.. Not only did the secretaries not know anything about them, but were very hostile when you pointed out they were required by law to show them. My best story was traveling to the legal address of the radio station, only to find out the station wasn't there at all. It was just a mailing address. The station's actual office was 60 miles away. Far outside the actual city of license.

 

[Goldilocks94941]

JJ - Thanks for posting the link to the story in last Monday's NY Times. I know the paperwork ionvolved in maintaining a public file can seem like busywork. But if at least a few people at a station will read the correspondence they get from the public, and see that there are real people in the audience, not bulk demographic statistics, they'll start to understand what Broadcasting is really about. Even the crazy ones deserve a chance to be heard.

Now for how the public is supposed to get to see what a broadcaster is all about. As for the online access, great idea in theory. But I've yet to click on a "correspondence" link on the FCC's website for station engineering applications, etc. and see anything. Even when I know there is correspondence from a competitor who's objecting to the application. So where does one see any of this info on the FCC website, including public comments about a station, without hiring a communications attorney? Hard to believe the non-broadcaster general public can find anything at fcc.gov that they can use, apart from self-congratulation about the groovy looking new design to the site.

 

[multiplex]

In just about any other business, you can't function well unless you're offering a product that customers want. Especially over the past three decades, radio seemingly only considers its "customers" to be banks, advertisers and other radio companies that might acquire stations.
There was always some of that, but increasingly listeners don't seem to be viewed as a path to profits.
Wendy's couldn't offer virtually no food with no one on the scene to even heat it up. A shoe store must offer footwear to attract customers.
But since acquisition's been the name of the game, the big boys put as little effort into running_ their businesses as they can.
Hence, radio is _overvalued_, thanks to decades of mismanagement and misplaced priorities.
It's a shame that many folks who started their careers during radio's dark ages have also drawn their guidance and inspiration from them; folks use the tools they have.
SO I doubt that radio can ever really come back, although I'd love to be wrong.
But Mr. P's statement is like trying to convince would-be purchasers of an abandoned city that they're buying a metropolis instead of a ghost town, when the seller kicked out its residents.
Yes, radio has potential. But if CC doesn't get top dollar when they have to jump ship, they only have themselves to blame. And speeches won't help. The emperor's still naked and everybody knows it.