Business As Unusual (Not A Sexy Topic)

[Element9]

December's drop closes radio's worst year since 2001. Final numbers are still being calculated, but RAB projections say radio was down 2% last year - its worst decline in seven years. December revenues fell 5% - the industry's eighth consecutive declining month. Local revenues declined 4% and national revenues were down 12%. Where's the growth? Web-driven non-spot revenues - up 12%.

Radio stocks ride Wall Street's roller coaster.
Investors are hoping for a milder ride today. But Bank of America analyst Jonathan Jacoby advises clients to avoid buying radio stocks anytime soon. He says "Our checks indicate business in first quarter will continue to be weak." He's now estimating January revenues will be down 3% despite signs that political advertising could help soften the fall.

This, combined with the information in the "Records-TV-Newspaper" thread, doesn't bode well. Smoke 'em if (and while) you got 'em.

-9-

 

[JohnGault]

It' s going to be tough. Those responsible for bringing in the bucks are indispensable. Everybody else should be nervous,

One bright spot: there are some private companies, and some local managers with compassion who are clever enough to treat their (remaining) people with respect.

 

[Element9]

Signs of hope?

The Rustbelt remains radio's stronghold.
A study reveals that no other market spent more of its media time with the radio than Akron, OH. The average person spent 23% of their media day with the radio. Akron is followed closely by Minneapolis, Dayton and Buffalo. Media Audit analysis shows The Sunbelt city with the heaviest radio usage is Tampa, where the average person spends 21% of their media day with radio. More at InsideRadio.com.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Trends

Let's look at what's happened to radio since 2001 - or, really, 1996.

More voice-tracking. More syndication. More restricted formats. Less local content. More playlists concentrated on a narrow scope of songs that "test well". Fewer stations playing new music.

So, you tune in your "favorite top-tunes radio station" and you hear a canned guy (or gal) from Heaven-knows-where, talking about the generic "topic of the day" (which every other media is also yammering on about), playing the same 500 songs over and over and over, interspersed with 12 minutes of commercials in two 6-minute stopsets, timed to coincide with the 6-minute stopset on the "competition".

What is there for the listener? Is there any sense that "If something IMPORTANT happens, I'll hear about it on W/Kxxx"? Is new music introduced - either new songs from an artist I like, or music from an artist I've never heard of that I might like? Does anybody make smart-ass, snarky remarks about what's going on in my town, or what topics are really being discussed around the water cooler where I work? Are there any funny lines that I can steal and pass off as my own - only to get busted by one of my colleagues who also listens to W/Kxxx?

Nope. All I get is the same music, over and over, interspersed by liners, jingles, promos, and occasionally live jocks running contests trying to bribe me to listen with "fabulous prizes" that I have to compete with half the country for, or cheesy prizes that I have to jump through hoops for.

Talk radio still does well. Why? Somebody's actually building a relationship with the listener by supporting or challenging their view of the world. There's a human - love 'em or hate 'em - talking to me. I can call, maybe get through, and have my say - or get blasted an look like a fool. Either way, it's going to provoke a reaction.

Corporate radio reduced the entertainment factor of radio to that of dish water. Now, they wonder why the younger generation - with more music on their iPod than the average radio station has in its music library - doesn't bother listening. Why should they? Is there any compelling content - news, new music, new ideas, who's coming, who cancelled, who's in trouble, who got caught, what's going on today in town, where should I go tonight, what new place is cool, what old place now sucks, what new gadget really works as advertised, what new gadget is really a rip-off, etc. - that makes the radio more interesting than my iPod? Do I feel like I know the guy or gal on the radio, and that they "get" what's important to me?

Answer those questions, and you'll understand how radio has changed since it tossed in the t-shirt and went to buttoned-down collars.

The bean-counter answer? More syndication of the guys and gals who broke the rules and did entertaining, relatable radio in the first place. Of course, now they have to try to entertain and relate to the entire country, instead of a local audience that the mingle with, talk to, and understand.

Radio has "saved" itself into its own recession.

9/11 is a date that lives in radio infamy. It's the date that people realized that radio wasn't the primary source of up-to-date news, and couldn't capture the enormity of a life-changing situation. How many station had the tools to respond to the attack on 9/11 appropriately? How many programmers continued with business as usual on a day that was anything but usual?

My most likely scenario for radio is that corporate will finally grow tired of the medium and invest its money elsewhere. Some stockholders have/will lose their shirts in the process, but the price of radio stations will drop to the point where actual broadcasters can afford to get back in the game. If it doesn't happen with terrestrial radio, it will happen with Internet radio. The cost of infrastructure is greatly reduced for Internet radio,which may make it happen faster than in OTA radio.

The suspicious nature in me wonders if Corporate isn't trying to deliberately kill radio so they can recover the bandwidth - or at least a portion of it - and turn it into a more efficient digital delivery system with a far greater number of channels. The biggest problem with that idea is already evident in cable TV - 200 channels, with nothing to watch.

Content, people. Compelling content. Whoever can deliver that, using whatever means, will figure out how to profit - either using commercials, subscription fees, or download fees. One way or another, people will pay for content that they want to hear. "Free" ain't ever free.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

I would just like to respond to Rox's criticism of radio on 9/11. It's my contention that certain radio stations shined on 9/11. And because of the demands on the Internet that day, using that as a source of information was very hit and miss. Download times were horribly slow. Some sites wouldn't load. I'll go as far as to say the Internet was useless that day. Many Americans turned on their TVs for round-the-clock coverage. But if you weren't near a TV, there were radio stations in Buffalo that stepped to the plate that day. NPR's coverage was unparalleled on WBFO and WNED-AM. They had a rough start in the minutes after the initial attacks on the World Trade Center. But by 10am, no other radio network was offering the in-depth coverage that NPR was providing. WBFO dropped all music for the next 10 days and had 24 hour coverage. WNED-AM was already a 24 hour news and information station and actually introduced some evening coverage on 9/11 that has evolved into today's extremely well done "On Point" program. Of course, WBEN provided outstanding coverage. And I remember talking with Jim Pastrick about how he was filling in on the WHTT morning show that week. He told me he immediately changed direction and began securing interviews with local professors and other experts rather than playing music. I don't know what other music intensive stations did that day because I was obviously busy worrying about my station. There's something in the back of my mind I remember hearing that the CBS-owned stations in Buffalo were running audio from CBS TV coverage. Perhaps those of you who worked at these stations can tell us how you responded. The bottom line is that the Internet can come crashing down during emergencies because of heavy use or power outages. Not every office or workplace has a TV. But all you need is a small hand-held radio and a good battery, and you're in business. There are enough radio stations -- maybe not all but enough -- doing quality programming during times of crisis to keep people informed.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Phil, I agree that a few radio stations did a fine job on 9/11. WBFO, WNED-AM, and WBEN did the job. That left the entire (now) Regent and Citadel clusters either ignoring the situation, or (hopefully) relying on network feeds for information. In this case, the network feed - if they had one - was invaluable.

During The October Storm, the "usual suspects" once again performed admirably as long as they had backup power, or were outside the affected area. Once again, several stations were off the air for extended periods of time because they didn't have backup power at their transmitters, or a local staff to follow the story.

News is only one component. One big problem with radio news is the lack of manpower, and the resulting lack of competition. TV and newspaper are now using their websites to update between "deliveries", but radio still can be much more immediate and accessible if they have a mind to.