Buffalo's Radio Future

[Steven21]

What does it look like?

Music:
More niche? Less niche? (Despite all the niches, I actually enjoy "Jack". Refreshingly un-niched)

Newstalk:
Forever niched conservative and never challenged? (I remember the battle between WBEN and WGR years ago. I thought it made both better.)

Will Buffalo radio continue to become more lazy and lame as time carries on? Is this it? If the companies that run these clusters don't seem to care all that much, I can't imagine that listeners will for too much longer either. A lack of loyalty can be contageous.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Probably the watershed moment in the future of Buffalo radio will be when WBEN's programming moves to FM. People under 50 simply don't have AM radio on their daily radar. Yes, they'll tune in during a storm or other major news event, but they have to understand that there IS a major event to punch up the AM band.

What frequency will they move to? Beats me. It will be an interesting scramble if Citadel goes bankrupt. Entercom would definitely be in the bidding for another Buffalo FM, even if it meant divesting "The Lake".

Then again, an Obama controlled FCC could push for less media concentration, not more, and put rules in place to prevent such a move.

One thing's for sure. Neither Citadel nor Regent is likely to make a major format change that will increase their costs. If either group goes down, the game could get a lot more interesting.

 

[Steven21]

Probably the watershed moment in the future of Buffalo radio will be when WBEN's programming moves to FM. People under 50 simply don't have AM radio on their daily radar. Yes, they'll tune in during a storm or other major news event, but they have to understand that there IS a major event to punch up the AM band.

But how many under 50 would really be interested in the far right wing political blather you hear throughout the day?

 

[Jay F]

Probably the watershed moment in the future of Buffalo radio will be when WBEN's programming moves to FM. People under 50 simply don't have AM radio on their daily radar. Yes, they'll tune in during a storm or other major news event, but they have to understand that there IS a major event to punch up the AM band.

But how many under 50 would really be interested in the far right wing political blather you hear throughout the day?

WPGB/Pittsburgh is right wing and they have a large under 50 audience. All talk stations on FM get younger demos than their AM counterparts. I don't think it has to be all conservative though, just as long as it's not dumbed down Hot Talk like the failed FREE FM stations were.

 

[Bob1370]

Talk that will pull ratings in younger demos will not necessarily have to be FM-based. Issues of audio quality which mean the world to music listeners aren't that big a deal for fans of spoken word programming. If the signal's clear and listenable, people will find spoken word programming they like and stick with it wherever it is on the dial, AM or FM. We know this from repeated studies done by ABC both before and after Disney owned it, right up to the time a few years ago that they sold off their station group to Citadel.

But wherever you put the programming, AM or FM, the CONTENT will have to appeal more to younger listeners on two levels.

One (and I hate to say this as a 50-something myself but must acknowledge it), it will have to be presented by younger hosts. The most recognizable names in talk radio today both locally and nationally are all 50+, and that even includes Howard Stern, who does have an ability to get 20-something men in his corner because of his more free-form attitude but is almost unique in that regard. We need to find a new generation of hosts. Since they aren't being heard on large market stations today and aren't being trained on the mostly automated or syndication-fed medium market stations that used to be radio's Double-A and Triple-A leagues, they'll have to be pulled from the ranks of disk jockeys, standup comics and stage actors and actresses, and convinced to try radio because it's steadier and more reliably-paying work.

Two, it will have to reflect the values of the 18-49 crowd. They continue to be the core of Barack Obama's support, not John McCain's or Sarah Palin's or the Bushes'. They're more liberal economically and culturally, more libertarian in terms of their views of government's role in people's personal lives, and more suspicious of any attempt by authority figures to tell them how to live--very much out of phase with Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or Hannity, who not only don't embrace those values, they're outspokenly intolerant of them and insulting toward people who think differently from them. There aren't too many right-of-center hosts out there who don't insult those who disagree with them. You have to credit Sandy Beach in that regard; any time I've listened to him he's been civil and courteous when he disagrees with a caller or guest, even though he's outspoken and passionate about his own views. That's fine, that works. A guy like him can reach out and appeal to people across the ideological and cultural divide, and succeed in any social and political climate. But I don't think most of his contemporaries can.

What does this mean for heritage stations llike WBEN? I can tell you what worked 30 years ago, the last time WBEN hit a watershed moment in its history, when Larry Levite and Bob Wood rebuilt it. They brought in a new generation of talent drawn from their target audience (which at the time was people born between 1930 and 1960). I was there. It worked, spectacularly, took WBEN back to the top. Nowadays that station still connects with that generation and dominates it. But the audience, and the talent, are aging out of the group advertisers want. The new core demos don't connect with it any more, unless there's a raging snowstorm. This is happening at heritage stations all over the country. Time for a reboot...and refreshing the talent roster and the station's content and tone may be a hell of a lot more important than any thought about leaving 930 and moving to 102.5 (which is probably unnecessary)...

 

[SirRoxalot]

It would be hard to imagine Entercom pulling the plug on Magic - a very successful station in its own right - and plugging in WBEN's talk format. More likely might be a simulcast with the terminally-challenged "The Lake".

The next big change at WBEN is likely to be when Sandy finally hangs up the headphones. That might be the catalyst for a shift toward a younger demo. It will be interesting to see what persona Bauerle pops up with. Will he soften his right-wing whack-job presentation for something a bit more palatable to a younger - although not necessarily liberal - audience?

Beyond 'BEN, 97-Rock has some decisions to make. Their audience is aging, and they'll have to face a shift in their music. There are also rumors that Larry Norton is looking to further reduce his role on the morning show. If Citadel goes bankrupt, new owners could come in with "sure-fire" ideas for "improving" the market. If Citadel doesn't go bankrupt, there may not be enough money to keep everybody on the payroll.

 

[Steven21]

You have to credit Sandy Beach in that regard; any time I've listened to him he's been civil and courteous when he disagrees with a caller or guest, even though he's outspoken and passionate about his own views. That's fine, that works. A guy like him can reach out and appeal to people across the ideological and cultural divide, and succeed in any social and political climate.

?

The guy who often shuts down and hangs up on people who disagree with him before they can even lay out and/or defend their argument? That guy? Beach has taken on the ultra far right wing crazy talking points (birther, death panel, communist Obama, Hitler Obama, etc.) since before the election. That guy is to bridge some generational or demographic gap?

Really?

 

[Mike Sheridan]

One (and I hate to say this as a 50-something myself but must acknowledge it), it will have to be presented by younger hosts. The most recognizable names in talk radio today both locally and nationally are all 50+, and that even includes Howard Stern, who does have an ability to get 20-something men in his corner because of his more free-form attitude but is almost unique in that regard. We need to find a new generation of hosts. Since they aren't being heard on large market stations today and aren't being trained on the mostly automated or syndication-fed medium market stations that used to be radio's Double-A and Triple-A leagues, they'll have to be pulled from the ranks of disk jockeys, standup comics and stage actors and actresses, and convinced to try radio because it's steadier and more reliably-paying work.

Bob I usually agree with you but I haven't heard any younger talent who could create stimulating talk. When I hear some young guys doing a talk show it often sounds like vulgar locker room talk that's on maybe a 7th grade level. If radio wants to attract young fresh talent they better provide more money, creative freedom, and job security. Then they need to promote the people on the air.

WBT has a youg girl on the air. To my ear she doesn't have the chops to work on the Mighty 1110 WBT and she is very conservative in her views.

Keep in mind too stand up comics, actors and actresses often crash and burn on the air. Radio somehow is a different animal. Just ask Micky Dolenz!

 

[Savage]

Or "Wake Up With Whoopi." Or David Lee Roth. Let's face it - (successful) radio is a lot of hard work. A lot harder than other denizens of showbiz are used to. I have to give kudos to Dennis Miller and Fred Thompson in that regard...but then again, these guys are used to working multiple gigs, and Dennis does his show from his dining room.

 

[Bob1370]

Mike Sheridan comments, "Bob I usually agree with you but I haven't heard any younger talent who could create stimulating talk. When I hear some young guys doing a talk show it often sounds like vulgar locker room talk that's on maybe a 7th grade level. If radio wants to attract young fresh talent they better provide more money, creative freedom, and job security. Then they need to promote the people on the air."

Points all well taken, as is Bob Savage's point about the poor performance of some of the people who've tried to do radio as a sideline to their other show business activity. All of this just makes it all the more urgent for the process of talent development to begin. Radio has no choice. The talent was needed yesterday. The people we're depending on now are people who are a decade or less away from retirement, and some of them are already eligible for Medicare. The people we'll need when they go away aren't in the pipeline. Radio can offer a degree of stability and security no other branch of entertainment and media can, if it's well run. We could give an emerging talent a chance to grow and create in a stable and supportive environment--hey, that's what the great radio stations of the past did (and those that remain great today still do). We all need to do business that way. It's a matter of survival.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Bob, I you have a good point. Radio needs to invest and develop young talent. Right now there is a lot of pressure toward short term profit instead of investing in the future. Also who is around that can guide these new talk hosts.

The good talk hosts that come to mind have always been people who are 45+. Many of them are former jocks who evolved from full service music and news stations. The Full Service music and news stations are rare these days.

I'm sure Bob Savage at WYSL does as much as he can. From his posts here anyone can tell he loves radio. More needs to be done by the big groups who are now turning to satellite shows to cut costs. Developing talent no longer has the luxury of working on their act on the overnight show.

 

[oaktree]

convinced to try radio because it's steadier and more reliably-paying work.

... and then, you'd be telling an un-truth to your future employees. Sorry, it's a fact. Ask the several thousand, including talk hosts under contract, who got axed by a poor economy, poor economic condition, poor management, easy to get syndication, voice tracking and a lack of "need" of serving local issues in the last four months alone.

Don't think the horror stories of "minimum wage" in chains like Cumulus, Citadel, Clear Channel, etc. are true? You'd be mistaken, I'm sad to say.

 

[TheBigA]

Bob, I you have a good point. Radio needs to invest and develop young talent. Right now there is a lot of pressure toward short term profit instead of investing in the future. Also who is around that can guide these new talk hosts.

The issue with younger talk show hosts is credibility. You don't want a 25-year-old brain surgeon, and you don't have much faith in the words of a 25 year old talk show host.

But if a station wants to cut costs, the easiest way is to get rid of the aging talk hosts, and hire a bunch of college grads. Radio, for the most part, has resisted that temptation. Instead they hire and rehire even more veterans, and continue to drive the average age upward.

 

[Element9]

Bob, I you have a good point. Radio needs to invest and develop young talent. Right now there is a lot of pressure toward short term profit instead of investing in the future. Also who is around that can guide these new talk hosts.

The issue with younger talk show hosts is credibility. You don't want a 25-year-old brain surgeon, and you don't have much faith in the words of a 25 year old talk show host.

But if a station wants to cut costs, the easiest way is to get rid of the aging talk hosts, and hire a bunch of college grads. Radio, for the most part, has resisted that temptation. Instead they hire and rehire even more veterans, and continue to drive the average age upward.

But mostly they sat cast with an equally same cast of characters that have come to represent "old" radio: Baby boomer white guys for the most part, fanning the flames yapping about the same ol' tripe that's wholly disinteresting to anybody under 35 or those with at least half a brain. BTW, as to Dennis Miller, he must be an acquired taste. He's way too hip for the room and he's a better comedian than radio talk show host. His show on WECK ain't exactly "killin'," if you hear what I'm sayin'.

 

[TheBigA]

But mostly they sat cast with an equally same cast of characters that have come to represent "old" radio: Baby boomer white guys for the most part,

I agree. For several years, I've been advocating that radio MUST begin replacing the grey hairs with new blood. I look at pictures in the trades of air talent, and it looks like a retirement village. I mean, I understand that when you get old, the hair starts to turn grey, but they sell products for it, so you at least look like closer in age to your target demo. I understand Paul McCartney is almost 70 and he still makes the young girls swoon. But even he colors his hair. I just feel that it's hard to be a Morning Zoo when everyone on the staff is concerned with how much fiber they get in their diet. Are you listening to me, Scott Shannon?

I believe that one of the reasons why radio isn't attracting more listeners in their 20s and 30s is because that demo has no one on the air they identify with. Ryan Seacrest is one of the youngest guys in radio, he's in his 30s, and a lot of the vets resent him because, in their opinion, he hasn't earned his success yet. How long does one have to apprentice?

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Bob, I you have a good point. Radio needs to invest and develop young talent. Right now there is a lot of pressure toward short term profit instead of investing in the future. Also who is around that can guide these new talk hosts.

The issue with younger talk show hosts is credibility. You don't want a 25-year-old brain surgeon, and you don't have much faith in the words of a 25 year old talk show host.

But if a station wants to cut costs, the easiest way is to get rid of the aging talk hosts, and hire a bunch of college grads. Radio, for the most part, has resisted that temptation. Instead they hire and rehire even more veterans, and continue to drive the average age upward.

I'd have no problem listening to a 25 year old talk show host if it was an interesting show. Spare me the political windbag talk, we already have enough of that. If it was a lifestyle oriented show that had some good intervews with interesting people I'd listen.

So on one hand you're saying stations need to hire younger hosts and on the other you say younger hosts don't have credibility? Age really isn't a guarantee of intelligence.

 

[TheBigA]

So on one hand you're saying stations need to hire younger hosts and on the other you say younger hosts don't have credibility?

Yeah I know. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? There are no easy solutions.

I was reading an article today from media critic Howard Kurtz who was saying that people aren't paying attention to the serious journalists in the health care debate. The facts don't really matter. Instead, they're following what the talk show hosts say, even when it's wrong.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I was reading an article today from media critic Howard Kurtz who was saying that people aren't paying attention to the serious journalists in the health care debate. The facts don't really matter. Instead, they're following what the talk show hosts say, even when it's wrong.

Talk show hosts are free, more easily accessed, and get more publicity than "serious journalists". When you have an administration that can't agree on what their proposal is, and a panoply of "serious journalists" who have a host of indecipherable proposals to wade through, what do you expect?

In short, you have an incredible demonstration of the power of radio - and the power of persuasive talent, both local and national.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

I was reading an article today from media critic Howard Kurtz who was saying that people aren't paying attention to the serious journalists in the health care debate. The facts don't really matter. Instead, they're following what the talk show hosts say, even when it's wrong.

Talk show hosts are free, more easily accessed, and get more publicity than "serious journalists". When you have an administration that can't agree on what their proposal is, and a panoply of "serious journalists" who have a host of indecipherable proposals to wade through, what do you expect?

In short, you have an incredible demonstration of the power of radio - and the power of persuasive talent, both local and national.

NPR reports this morning that Michael Jackson's death received more coverage by "the media" than the war and elections in Afghanistan. In so many ways, I'm not surprised. Not at all. "We have found the enemy, and they is us." -Pogo

 

[TheBigA]

NPR reports this morning that Michael Jackson's death received more coverage by "the media" than the war and elections in Afghanistan. In so many ways, I'm not surprised. Not at all. "We have found the enemy, and they is us." -Pogo

"The Media" today is far more than traditional journalism. Certainly with 3 24/7 cable news channels, they have a lot of time to fill. And truthfully, the Afghan elections would be a bad example for comparison. The health care story is getting as much coverage as Jackson's death.

Like "radio," this thing called "the media" has become far more than a handful of newspapers. I'm sure the folks at TMZ see themselves as part of the media. Same with Perez Hilton. Even Twitter and various blogs have become part of the media. It's all of that which has depressed the value of traditional media, and thus the price of advertising, and why we are in the place we're in.

Back to Jackson's death, the criteria on how stories are chosen for coverage aren't totally within the realm of serious journalists. Not everyone works under the same pressures as NPR. That's the purpose of non-commercial broadcasting...to operate without commercial pressures.Same with Bob Smith at WXXI. He doesn't have to cover stories like this reality star murder. So good for them. All those who disliked the Jackson story had a place to go for coverage of more pressing news like what's happening in the Punjab.