Bring Back Real Radio

[cspotrun]

but you STILL gotta have A Good Product ... and thats what is being talked about here... Radio can invade Every Platform out there, but if the product is Crap, it won't matter. in the end radio has to Entertain with personality, be fun to listen to and offer something a hand held jukebox cannot, or it will not survive.

 

[TheBigA]

but you STILL gotta have A Good Product ... and thats what is being talked about here... Radio can invade Every Platform out there, but if the product is Crap, it won't matter. in the end radio has to Entertain with personality, be fun to listen to and offer something a hand held jukebox cannot, or it will not survive.

Maybe. What Jerry Seinfeld and "Friends" proved is you can have a hit with a show about nothing. That's really been the entertainment story for the past 20 years. Take a look at the hits on TV. Take a look at what's popular in music. Would you call that great product?

 

[redrocket]

Maybe. What Jerry Seinfeld and "Friends" proved is you can have a hit with a show about nothing. That's really been the entertainment story for the past 20 years. Take a look at the hits on TV. Take a look at what's popular in music. Would you call that great product?

Quality wise, television is better right now than it's ever been. Not on the major networks, but the cable nets have grabbed the ball and run with it. The audience is fragmented, but still pretty large. It's different for radio because for the most part, the primary purpose of radio is to provide music. No one needs radio to do that anymore.

And popular music isn't my cup of tea, but that's probably because as Aziz Ansari said, I don't like huge chunks of &^%$ in my tea.

 

[bturner]

From what I'm reading here, there are people on both sides of the issue pointing back to radio in an earlier era when the topic of 'real radio' is mentioned. It seems the opposing side to this is in agreement with those that complain about current radio offerings. It looks as if you both agree radio was better then but forget about radio cartering to the whims of the potential audience.

I think what is being said, without wanting to sound sarcastic, is radio has evolved over the decades and will never go back to what it once was. I contend radio can change like hair styles or fashions, in unison with technology and our changing world, embracing all of that and be relevant to the public. Critics are ready to point out radio has competition. You know what, so does Walmart, but they didn't give up.

How can we embrace current technology and economics and create radio that satisfies and is sensitive to the desires of the listeners.

I think we can admit the day of live 24/7 jocks is gone. How about local voicetracking? I thought one small market group had a nice idea. They had three stations run by one person who real time voicetracked all 3 stations. Why can't this be done by talent from their homes? I think someone from the general local area is the best (you know the area well enough to get street names right, to know the areas of a big city and generally have the knowledge of the listener).

I contend radio has room for improvement. I think we worked so hard to capture each 'target audience' that we became more bland rather than a distinct station. I contend listeners want to identify with their station. You can agrue with that but why do people, young through old, have descriptive terms for stations (if they know them at all) based on the general consensus of their circle of friends? I contend radio has moved away from a station personality or creating a stage where people can identify with a station.

Music is another issue. I believe we are snugly fit in a tiny box sealed shut. We honed playlists to the point we are too predictable and bland but if we move beyond that point the audience tunes out even though they say they want to hear some 'different' stuff tossed in.

I don't have the answers to these issues but it is clear the mold is the best option to build numbers yet it also drives more and more away. I don't blame that on technology as much as content. We also seem to be grasping at how we can embrace newer technology and take pot shots in the dark.

I contend radio is at an exciting place where it is on the cusp of a new era. The ideas are out there and the talent and creative is there but I fear we need to fall further before radio reinvents itself. Maybe once internet streaming happens in cars very affordably all of this will gel. That's still years away because people retain cars longer now (almost 10 years) so from the starting point, we have a few years to build that platform, allowing costs to go down and market penetration to become very substantial. Even so, the early entries will have a leg up.

I contend the desire for live and local is based more on the expectation of listeners who have been let down by radio in the past when they sought information they deemed critical to them. I contend most people want a central location or clearinghouse of information and most want that to be radio. There have been many times in recent years I've looked to radio for information and found none. For example, as Houston flooded due to Alison, TV was in round-the-clock non-commercial coverage but the news station was running the Astros. The music stations were saying: Flash Flood Warning in effect, best to stay put, lots of flooding out there and another 8 in a row right here. It made for a fun drive home from work. When Rita caused the city to panic, it was KLBJ being live out of distant Austin that had the details Houstonians needed to hear...where the roads were parking lots, where there was food, water, gas, diapers, medical help for heat exhaustion, etc. I talked to a lady that left amid all of the chaos. It took 30 hours to reach Austin...a 2 hour drive normally. She had to defend herself with a gun a few times as society broke down. Radio in Houston did not step up to the plate. The Boston Marathon and Waco explosion are two more recent events. How'd radio do? More than likely they handed the keys to television. Why can TV step up to the plate but radio cannot? Radio is around when cell phone coverage goes out, when power goes out and internet is down. Many times in hurricanes radio is the only link and usually they're running TV audio even though the TV station is off the air. People still count on radio but does radio man up and do what the people expect? And using TV is not a bad idea but I have to question why TV is able to do it but radio cannot. Sure this is not typical and doesn't happen often but listeners expect radio to do iits job. It is my opinion that radio is still where we look to learn our world outside our door is safe. New technology is taking on the challenge but it is not in a central location and not a summary of all information as offered by radio/TV. I'd rather run my radio batteries rather than my computer or cell phone batteries (if either are working) in a time of crisis.

 

[TheBigA]

My view is you can't generalize. There are 14,000 radio stations in this country. Thousands of owners. Lots of stations that operate as though it's still the 1980s and nothing has changed. Not many people know about those stations because they aren't the obvious ones with big listenership. We have a non-commercial system of broadcasting in this country that isn't tied to ratings or advertising, and they're doing something completely different from what's being discussed.

From the audience perspective, people want radio stations to serve their individual and specific needs and tastes. That's not going to happen. Radio is not a personalized music service, and it never will be. So we need to weed out all the comments about "radio isn't playing what I like" or "radio doesn't do what I like." Radio will never be any of those things, and it never was.

Then we get to the geographical discussion. Regardless of ownership, a radio station is by definition a local service. There is a local tower and transmitter. If radio in one geographical area is operating one way, that's no reason to assume that's the way radio stations operate everywhere. If you scan the local boards here, you'll see high praise given to the local radio stations in Boston for their coverage of the Marathon shooting. So what's the problem here? Why all the complaining?

The real problem that I see is paying for it. We operate under the assumption that if we build it, money will come. What we've seen is that's a bad assumption. People who work in radio want to get paid, they want a certain level of benefits, and they want a workplace that has certain tools for doing the job. All that costs money. At the same time, we have a situation where ad rates have stagnated, where advertisers are demanding lower CPM and ways to reach audiences across multiple platforms, with better tracking for spots aired. If they don't get what they want, they will take their business elsewhere. This isn't a programming problem. It's a business problem. Any company that finds a way to reach listeners wherever they are will get more money than those who are only focused in OTA. More money means the ability to do more things.

But we have to look at what we do as being more than towers and transmitters, because the audience already does. What we do in radio translates very easily to other platforms. So then why aren't more radio people seeking skills in those other areas? Why is this discussion so focused on returning things to the way they were, when the audience has, for the most part, already moved on? And they didn't move on because of us...but because of new technologies that we didn't anticipate. There is nothing we can do on a programming level that will cause people to replace their cell phones with transistor radios. It's not going to happen. There is nothing we can do on a programming level that will cause people to go back to buying table radios rather than streaming through their computers. We need to go where the audience already is, and stop worrying about how things used to be. Leave that to the historians and museum operators.

 

[cspotrun]

but you STILL gotta have A Good Product ... and thats what is being talked about here... Radio can invade Every Platform out there, but if the product is Crap, it won't matter. in the end radio has to Entertain with personality, be fun to listen to and offer something a hand held jukebox cannot, or it will not survive.

Maybe. What Jerry Seinfeld and "Friends" proved is you can have a hit with a show about nothing. That's really been the entertainment story for the past 20 years. Take a look at the hits on TV. Take a look at what's popular in music. Would you call that great product?

i guess Somebody does, TV is grading on "The Curve", and music too. radio is losing audience, so WHAT is the attraction to radio these days? appearantly not much....

 

[TheBigA]

radio is losing audience, so WHAT is the attraction to radio these days? appearantly not much....

That's another one of those myths. "Radio is losing audience because it doesn't do what I like." The problem with that logic is that there's no proof that going back to the old ways is going to change anything. Rather than throwing around generalities, like "radio is losing audience," why not look at the successful stations. What are THEY doing? The fact is that 94% of the public listens to OTA radio. That's a lot of people.

 

[fredcantu]

The folks who relieve believe Seinfeld was a show about nothing are the same ones who buy into Bob FM & Jack FM being non-conformist, anti-establishment, anti-corporate radio. Bob & Jack are among the most tightly programmed radio stations of our time. There is a method to their "madness."

 

[TheBigA]

The folks who relieve believe Seinfeld was a show about nothing

FYI The people on the Seinfeld show themselves described it as "a show about nothing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI

 

[stan]

And the audience of radio from 40-50 years ago is much more fragmented today, because consumers have other choices for music and entertainment. This is no different than having 3 channels of TV selections decades ago, to be supplanted by cable or satellite offering hundreds of channels.

Radio is now competing with other platforms for music, and the ability of consumers to take their whole music library with them in the palm of their hand is something that wasn't available decades ago.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is now competing with other platforms for music, and the ability of consumers to take their whole music library with them in the palm of their hand is something that wasn't available decades ago.

The great things that radio does is it curates that collection, provides unique mixes of songs they like with other songs in their lifegroup, and helps introduce listeners to new songs they would not hear using other devices (providing they listen to formats that play new songs, CHR, Urban, and Country.)

 

[redrocket]

The great things that radio does is it curates that collection, provides unique mixes of songs they like with other songs in their lifegroup, and helps introduce listeners to new songs they would not hear using other devices (providing they listen to formats that play new songs, CHR, Urban, and Country.)

I'd argue that internet sites like Pandora do that far more effectively than radio does these days.

 

[fredcantu]

FYI The people on the Seinfeld show themselves described it as "a show about nothing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI

And Bob says "he" plays whatever "he" wants. All part of the positioning.

 

[TheBigA]

The great things that radio does is it curates that collection, provides unique mixes of songs they like with other songs in their lifegroup, and helps introduce listeners to new songs they would not hear using other devices (providing they listen to formats that play new songs, CHR, Urban, and Country.)

I'd argue that internet sites like Pandora do that far more effectively than radio does these days.

The problem with Pandora is it's built around your "likes." Most listeners don't like songs until they hear them. You'd be surprised how many people don't like songs by certain artists or in certain genres until they hear them in blind tests. What Pandora does is bring up songs that fit with a person's profile. Radio doesn't do that.

 

[DG]

I'd argue that internet sites like Pandora do that far more effectively than radio does these days.

I see your argument and raise you 2 disagreeing views:

1. Pandora isn't in most cars where most radio listening occurs. And as an Internet service, it isn't nearly as ubiquitous in all places as radio is. In the major markets, yes, you just might see Pandora compete effectively against radio, but in the hinterlands and flyover country, Internet service is still hard to come by, and even cellular is "iffy" in those places. But a direct music delivery service tailor-made to the tastes of the listener isn't what has Corporate Radio shaking in its boots.

2. The reason Pandora scares Corporate Radio (and Arbitron) so much is the fact that it can deliver real-time information on the effectiveness of its client's ADVERTISEMENTS. Pandora can track all of their ads and give their clients instant data on how well they worked. As an industry, radio cannot do that. And when budgets are very tight in a down economy, advertisers want to know just how big a bang they can get for each ad buck, and Pandora can tell them. Radio cannot.

 

[redrocket]

I just used Pandora as an example, but there are quite a few options with the same basic principle. My daughter watches music videos on YouTube. When she finishes with one she likes, there are about half a dozen suggestions for her next song.

And that's another problem for "real radio" making a comeback. The current generation has never really listened and needed radio, not to the extent that the previous generation have. They've never HAD to listen to the radio to hear the current big song. it's always been at their fingertips. It's just a complete change in the way the medium is viewed.

 

[TheBigA]

They've never HAD to listen to the radio to hear the current big song. it's always been at their fingertips. It's just a complete change in the way the medium is viewed.

Yet the songs that have an IMPACT are the ones heard on the radio. That's the role of people in radio picking songs and playing them, as opposed to a computer responding to a "genome" or a profile. The reality though now to have that impact, you need to have a lot of stations, because people are listening across multiple platforms. You're not just programming to a small town any more, and people in small towns aren't getting their information from one small local place any more. It's a lot more complicated.

 

[600kogo]

While it's true that we don't know Waller's financial situation, I have to say it seems plausible that he's not in debt.

Buying and selling stations aren't the only aspects of debt. It's been my experience that actual operating expenses generally exceed any debt payments. Lots of Americans are in debt because of credit cards or home mortgages. Yet they somehow manage to live normal lives. They have monthly payments, and they meet them. So debt has little to do with how a company operates.

Just for your information the Waller Stations ARE NOT in debt! they were completely debt free upon the sale to Access.1, and have remained as such since then! Their current formats are highly successful. The stations bill more than their expenses the last time I checked in debt meant you owe money on loans! Which Waller Broadcasting does not !

 

[cspotrun]

radio is losing audience, so WHAT is the attraction to radio these days? appearantly not much....

That's another one of those myths. "Radio is losing audience because it doesn't do what I like." The problem with that logic is that there's no proof that going back to the old ways is going to change anything. Rather than throwing around generalities, like "radio is losing audience," why not look at the successful stations. What are THEY doing? The fact is that 94% of the public listens to OTA radio. That's a lot of people.

if 94% listens to OTA radio why is this industry wetting its pants?
my point is, ok radio you play music....what else have you got to make me sit through a 5 minute commercial cluster? when i don't have to on over a dozen differnt platforms to hear "Music"... i think everybody knows what radio does better than any other form of media, and its been true since the beginning, but it has been lost over the past few years... do You Know What it Is??

 

[TheBigA]

my point is, ok radio you play music....what else have you got to make me sit through a 5 minute commercial cluster? when i don't have to on over a dozen differnt platforms to hear "Music"... i think everybody knows what radio does better than any other form of media, and its been true since the beginning, but it has been lost over the past few years... do You Know What it Is??

If you're talking about "live & local talent," the demand for that from the listeners isn't what it used to be. When the local station was the only way to hear The Beatles, listeners would sit through local DJs yelling and screaming. Not any more. Listeners have made it clear what they want from radio: Lots of well curated music without a lot of interruptions. People will sit through commercials because they turn the radio on, and keep it on, regardless of what it does. In many cases, they're listening to the radio, not the DJ. The ratings show that works just fine.