Can Clear Channel Sink Any Lower?

[RonRoberts]

Their business model has been a failure from the day the dereg bill was signed; they've continually moved AWAY from relating to the listener and now that they've diluted their product, they find that they have to continue to diminish their station's programming to make ends meet. Ironic?

No, not ironic. Just untrue. Clear has, if anything, more solid market positions in most places than the sum-of-the-parts pre-consolidation or just after it.

IF Clear Channel's been doing so well all this time, then why've they had to down-size, spin-off stations after their rush to buy, voice-track from other markets to cut expense, and now, go private and make even MORE cuts? If, as you seem to assert, they've been doing SO well all this time, their finances should have been bolstered enough to overcome an economic slowdown, then, right?

What programmer in their right mind believes that regurgitated Seacrest bits are more compelling midday and PM drive listening than, say, oh I don't know, pop/top 40 songs and local interaction?

I would say so. Seacrest has talent, within the pop and CHR format, and huge name recognition and equity with his audience. He is a magnet, and most effective in drawing cume in this cume-important PPM era.

PLEASE...You know as well as I do that Americans would tune in to watch 'Idol' in their record numbers no matter WHO was hosting it; people have been compelled by the COMPEITION, not by the host, no matter who it is. And programmers not "indoctrinated" into the way CC works usually avoid going AWAY from a viable live and local talent, unless the budget gun is aimed at their temples. Ryan's nothing more than what EPITOMIZES the way people elevate in celebrity status...the right look, in the right place, at the right time. There are hundreds of guys and gals with his ability, with at least an equal wit and/or charm. The crux is, Ryan's cheaper to run, and to pretend that his "star power" or "talent" moves the needle is asinine at best.

Every time a station signs on to this ridiculous notion, you see a re-hashed quote from that statoin's PD talking about 'star power' and how just HAVING Seacrest on the air will draw people... who among us believes people are watching 'American Idol' because Seacrest hosts it? Anyone? Anyone? I. Don't. Think. So.

You totally miss the point... Seacrest came from radio, and was hugely successful in Atlanta, and then PMs at Star in LA. He's a good radio person who has, whatever you think, star power.

Seacrest was hugely successful, I dare say, in Atlanta, because he was THERE and FROM THERE. He was successful in L.A. because he was THERE, as well. Many jocks have lost their shifts who were doing well and entrenched in their markets, as well; they just cost more than FTP re-hash.

So we're to think that the typical CHR listener is clamoring, then, to hear Seacrest on the phone or in-studio with Dakota Fanning or Heidi from 'The Hills' while they're at work, rather than working with a pop song on their radio station in the background? Not buying it.

Since his and most CHR's target demo is 18-34 women, perhaps you don't get this, either. Yes, the listeners love Tinseltown tidbits from Ryan, and they like listening to stars, just like they like watching Oprah.

First off, mr. pseudonym, you see I post with my real name and resume... everywhere I've been on the air and programmed, I've been #1 females 18-34. Everywhere, so you can stifle you're questioning of "what I get" here. I also handle an afternoon shift and am just as capable of going over "Hollywood" headlines (and actually, my reports will be more updated since I'm not a replay of that day's morning show), but on top of that, me, and the local jocks who've been fortunate to not be replacd by the jock-in-the-box, can handle requests, do live appearances all the time, book interviews w/the celebs and artists, as well. Do all these things all the time, actually; there's something to be said for interaction, and Seacrest can do none of that. Period.

Clear Channel, and others, have been doing this, all the while, over the last 10-12 years, they've been lowering their spot rates to under-cut their competition, which means their competition has to cut rates, and then their competition has had to cut staff payroll, and so on and so on; is it just me, or is it bad business practice to go out and tell your customers that what they've been paying for all this time was worth LESS than what they'd been paying for all along, anyhow? Ridiculous.

And similarly untrue. When you have two CC stations billing about $60 million in LA ('07 of course) and nearly as much in NY with Lite, and being three of the five top billers in the US, they are not cutting rates.

That's funny; again, if their business model's been so successful all this time, then why all the down-sizing? Why even cluster stations in the same market if you aren't intending to streamline and better-position (aka "drop rates to undercut competition") your sales team to hit goals? I have a BIG hunch you're (still, anyhow) on the CC payroll, maybe?

 

[TheBigA]

That's funny; again, if their business model's been so successful all this time, then why all the down-sizing?

Do you think Google is a successful company? They are laying off staff. Why would a successful company lay off staff? The answer is because they want to REMAIN successful.

The broadcasting marketplace has changed since CC bought their stations. Their competitors are doing more with less. As a result, CC has to adjust in order to compete. He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

 

[thenetwork]

To those who claim that what the evil CC empire is doing now is exactly what radio was doing in the early days of radio (Nationally Syndicated Programming):

1) Most of that "nationally syndicated programming" were radio show or serials during the prime time hours of early evening & weekends. The majority of these stations were broadcasting local programs for the better part of their broadcast days. And it was VARIETY, LOCALIZED and PERSONABLE.

In CC's rose colored world, all stations under the same formats are just like McDonald's restaurants -- The food tastes and is all made the same from coast to coast, with the cheapest labor they can find.

2) In the old days, and up to the time when CC and their conglomerate cronies, stations were personable, they did not talk down to you like they do today. If the mood of the city was good, their delivery would reflect that. If the mood was down, they would be there to console and listen. If you live in a midwest city where a disaster or tragedy just occurred, is Ryan Secrest going to sound a little more somber to those folks -- hell no! Ryan will be "all sunshine & blue skies all the time". That's what makes a good station a GREAT station

3) Back in the old days, radio stations would treat their audiences with respect, graciously thanking them (in different ways) for their listenership & support, from Listener appreciation Concerts, to bigger contests, to boku personal appearances, and the listeners would come out in droves. And these stations would also be proud of their accomplishments by saying that they were #1 in their city for news, sports, song premieres, etc...

Today, as was mentioned earlier, CC just purged all of those rich ties to the past and now come across to the listeners as "This is what WE decide to play -- deal with it!!!"

As a former member of the business and a former listener to radio in general, I just wish nothing but the worst to the Mays family and their henchmen.!

 

[gr8oldies]

Hmmm..don't remember the TM Stereo Rock of Drake Chenault Hit Parade announcer on the automation reels changing their delivery when it rained or sounding particularly personable.

 

[KyDXIn]

Re: Out of Your Depth

There's no such thing as a format monopoly. In fact, CC itself has gone out of its way and challenged other companies who have had format monopolies...

So which is it? Are there format monopolies or not? You contradict yourself in a single sentence.

It's amazing how you can discount "format, heritage, and signal". It indicates your depth of understanding of radio programming.

Here in my area, CC went after the two heritage clear channel stations (WHAS and WLW) and have greatly reduced local programming and news content. These stations used to win awards like the Peabody and the Edward R. Murrow Awards for their news reporting. Now on WHAS there is no local news on the weekends! We had an award-winning local nightly talk show on WHAS that has been replaced by a tape delayed broadcast of Michael Savage's program! On the weekends we hear "Gary Sullivan" that if I wanted to, I could listen on WKRC. We heard "Dave Ramsey" reruns that are played on one of the local secondary stations twice during the week. We also heard "Bill Handel" who is also on dozens of stations over the weekend.

Bottom line is CC has taken 2 heritage stations that can be heard throughout the country at night and have programmed junk noise that can be heard up and down the dial on dozens of other stations! I had relied on them for local news, but that day is long gone! They no longer offer what I need more often than not. The cost of local news and programming is bottom line the cost of doing business! If you don't offer that, then you need to get out of the business. Sell the properties to some company who will offer what the listening public wants!

 

[TheBigA]

If you don't offer that, then you need to get out of the business. Sell the properties to some company who will offer what the listening public wants!

The fact is that WHAS was originally owned by the local Louisville newspaper. So they were able to spread the cost of covering local news between the paper and the radio station. Then the government decided that newspapers should not own radio. Too much concentration of media, they said. THAT single decision, forcing all these newspapers to sell off their radio stations, killed both radio and newspapers, and hurt local news coverage nationwide. And today, when the FCC brings up the idea of repealing the newspaper-broadcasting co-ownership rules, they get shouted down saying it will lead to further consolidation. But the fact is that the ONLY way you will get local news covered is if the costs can be shared. The companies that COULD provide local news coverage are prohibited from owning radio!

 

[TheBigA]

To those who claim that what the evil CC empire is doing now is exactly what radio was doing in the early days of radio (Nationally Syndicated Programming):

1) Most of that "nationally syndicated programming" were radio show or serials during the prime time hours of early evening & weekends.

I think you're confusing radio networks with nationally syndicated formats. They have been available since the 1960s, and are 24/7 formats that were used by thousands of radio stations. These are two very different things. As I said, this is something that has been done for over 45 years, first on reel to reel tape, and now on satellite.

After seeing the lists of names who have been let go from CC, I didn't see a lot of on-air people. I really don't think listeners will hear much of a difference on the air. The people who are left are professionals, and they'll do a great job regardless of how difficult it is.

 

[jh]

1) Most of that "nationally syndicated programming" were radio show or serials during the prime time hours of early evening & weekends.

I was just looking at a schedule from WHO, Des Moines from 1944. NBC programs on weekdays ran from 7-7:15am, 9-11am, 1-5pm, 6:45-10:15pm, 11-11:30pm, 11:45pm-12mid; a bit less on weekends. So most of the programming came from the network.

 

[gr8oldies]

WLW has not dropped local programming. The only syndicated shows they air are ones they originate. Even with the CC bloodbath, that will not change.

We seem to have folks who believe "some other owner" could come in and they'd have unlimited amounts of cash and credit to fill stations with warm bodies. Ain't happenin'

 

[davideduardo]

IF Clear Channel's been doing so well all this time, then why've they had to down-size, spin-off stations after their rush to buy, voice-track from other markets to cut expense, and now, go private and make even MORE cuts? If, as you seem to assert, they've been doing SO well all this time, their finances should have been bolstered enough to overcome an economic slowdown, then, right?

Clear got out of the smaller markets because margins are lower. When Randy was still at the company and its "pieces" there was an idea that synergy could be created by being in every significant market in a state or region and that is why they had some ver small town Ohio stations as one example. This never worked, even though they "persuaded" Arbitron to consolidate regional ratings to sell these groupíngs. Further, they bought larger AMs in markets as small as Chayanne, WY, with they idea they could sell the regional coverage of groupings of such stations. Buyers simply didn't and don't buy that way, so those stations went away, too.

Voice tracking often means putting better talent in a market than local scale permits. Various forms of this practice go back to the beginnings of radio with the networks and then the tape syndication decades where a higher percentage of US stations were voice tracked than even today. If technology permits a new way of doing things that is better, why not do it?

PLEASE...You know as well as I do that Americans would tune in to watch 'Idol' in their record numbers no matter WHO was hosting it; people have been compelled by the COMPEITION, not by the host, no matter who it is.

But Seacrest is on Idol and nobody else is. So he has the visibility, exposure and following to exploit on radio because he is good and also perceived as a Hollywood insider who can talk about all the fun stuff going on...

And programmers not "indoctrinated" into the way CC works usually avoid going AWAY from a viable live and local talent, unless the budget gun is aimed at their temples.

When non-local (syndicated, networked, etc.) is better than anything affordable locally, it may be the way to keep ahead or equal with the competition.

I've "networked" multiple stations since the 60's, bringing major market talent to signals in smaller markets. The audience response has never been negative.

Ryan's nothing more than what EPITOMIZES the way people elevate in celebrity status...the right look, in the right place, at the right time. There are hundreds of guys and gals with his ability, with at least an equal wit and/or charm. The crux is, Ryan's cheaper to run, and to pretend that his "star power" or "talent" moves the needle is asinine at best.

No, there are not hundreds of people with that ability, Idol aside. Seacrest got enormous numbers on Star in PM Drive in LA, way outperforming the station and ranking quite high in the total market. If he outperforms in LA, he certainly would outperform in a smaller market like Tucson or Las Vegas or Colorado Springs.

Seacrest was hugely successful, I dare say, in Atlanta, because he was THERE and FROM THERE. He was successful in L.A. because he was THERE, as well. Many jocks have lost their shifts who were doing well and entrenched in their markets, as well; they just cost more than FTP re-hash.

I think he was successful because he is good. There was little localization at Star, and he has propelled KIIS into probably the top billing station in America.

AM-only radios were well entrenched in the 50's and 60's... sometimes change has a chain reaction effect.

First off, mr. pseudonym, you see I post with my real name and resume...

I post with my first two names, sorta' like "Billy Bob" and not my last name... but anyone who clicks thelink below can see whatever they want, down to my baby pictures. So don't pull the "anonymous poster" line; it does not work.

everywhere I've been on the air and programmed, I've been #1 females 18-34. Everywhere, so you can stifle you're questioning of "what I get" here.

And what do you have today? Since radio is only as good as the last show, the last day, the last song, that's all that matters at this moment. The rest is experience and background and part of the learning process.

I also handle an afternoon shift and am just as capable of going over "Hollywood" headlines (and actually, my reports will be more updated since I'm not a replay of that day's morning show), but on top of that, me, and the local jocks who've been fortunate to not be replacd by the jock-in-the-box, can handle requests, do live appearances all the time, book interviews w/the celebs and artists, as well. Do all these things all the time, actually; there's something to be said for interaction, and Seacrest can do none of that. Period.

Since most of us don't actually play requests, I'm not sure that taking them does anything but irritate the listener. As to live appearances, we have to be rational: most are done for sales reasons and don't enhance listenership. I'd rather dress up a guy as a chicken and send him to have fun with the listeners... oh, right, they did that in San Diego for a while!

And a talent in a media center city is far more likely to harvest the good interviews, not the guy in Kalamazoo or Wichita.

Our listeners don't care where Pandora comes from... why would they care who does the car dealer remote?

[/quote]That's funny; again, if their business model's been so successful all this time, then why all the down-sizing? Why even cluster stations in the same market if you aren't intending to streamline and better-position (aka "drop rates to undercut competition") your sales team to hit goals? I have a BIG hunch you're (still, anyhow) on the CC payroll, maybe?[/quote]

Everyone, from Google to GE is downsizing. The economy is in a major recession that we don't want to call a depression yet...

As to clustering, I owned clusters back in the mid to late 60's, with one market having 4 AMs and 5 FMs. We used our position to hold rates, not drop them. We used our position to be able to offer less than #1 potential formats to round out our coverage of demos and lifestyles. "Streamlining" meant having an efficient back office, having an efficient collections department, the best production in the market, etc. We saved in some places, like one receptionist, but each station had to stand on its own or I nuked the format and tried again.

Frankly, I've never heard that the idea of clustering was to be able to lower rates. Generally, the strength of a cluster allows more rate integrity and agressive pricing within the components of the cluster.

 

[pocket-radio]

"Frankly, I've never heard that the idea of clustering was to be able to lower rates. Generally, the strength of a cluster allows more rate integrity and agressive pricing within the components of the cluster."

Clusters are far from perfect and so they have dogs.. They'll generally drop rates on dog stations and hold rate
where they can. If the stars align and everything is right, cluster selling can work. I saw time and time again where agency buys went to clusters that dropped rates.. and gave the most added value too.
During sellouts, we'd hold rates on our #1, but that drove up the CPP

Cluster doesn't work all the time. Trying to mash all the stations of different demos and strengths and meet a CPP is challenging. It forces you to drop rates just to meet a CPP.

Either way the rules that worked are old news. Just to get and keep the business today, you have give away the station and included added-value.

 

[thenetwork]

Hmmm..don't remember the TM Stereo Rock of Drake Chenault Hit Parade announcer on the automation reels changing their delivery when it rained or sounding particularly personable.

But how many stations in a single market DID Hit Parade automation? One??? How many stations in a single market today use the same automated/prerecorded voiceover talent? In the case of CC? As many as they can!!!

Apple, meet orange!

After seeing the lists of names who have been let go from CC, I didn't see a lot of on-air people. I really don't think listeners will hear much of a difference on the air. The people who are left are professionals, and they'll do a great job regardless of how difficult it is.

Maybe because they've already cut the majority of the on-air talent in the last few years. Ergo, since the Clear Channel (et, al..) regime dominated the radio market in the past years, percentage-wise, the majority of the cuts have been in-studio positions.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe because they've already cut the majority of the on-air talent in the last few years. Ergo, since the Clear Channel (et, al..) regime dominated the radio market in the past years, percentage-wise, the majority of the cuts have been in-studio positions.

"The majority?" I think that's an extreme exaggeration. There are entire CC stations that are live and local 24/7. Lots of them. Before and after the 20th.

Name one non-corporate competing station in any market that spends more on talent in that market than CC. Including NPR stations, locally owned stations, and government owned stations. Name one.

 

[RonRoberts]

Voice tracking often means putting better talent in a market than local scale permits. Various forms of this practice go back to the beginnings of radio with the networks and then the tape syndication decades where a higher percentage of US stations were voice tracked than even today. If technology permits a new way of doing things that is better, why not do it?

If we were talking about small (and usually non-rated) markets, I could see it; but jocks who've been recently let go in markets like Richmond, Va., Tampa, Columbia, SC., Madison, Wi, etc., weren't exactly po-dunk nobodies who hadn't a clue what they were doing. That argument doesn't wash.

PLEASE...You know as well as I do that Americans would tune in to watch 'Idol' in their record numbers no matter WHO was hosting it; people have been compelled by the COMPEITION, not by the host, no matter who it is.

But Seacrest is on Idol and nobody else is. So he has the visibility, exposure and following to exploit on radio because he is good and also perceived as a Hollywood insider who can talk about all the fun stuff going on...

...so can 'Entertainment Tonight' and 'Extra' and 'E!' "Fun" stuf can be found anywhere, the 'net, the tube; big deal.

I've "networked" multiple stations since the 60's, bringing major market talent to signals in smaller markets. The audience response has never been negative.

Haha. REALLY? "Never?" I can recall a CHR I worked at in Augusta that was KILLING, ratings-wise, when were fully live and local, then they went with a syndicated morning show and a voice-tracked night show, and within 5 years, that 100kw CHR blowtorch had to switch formats - leaving Augusta with ZERO Top 40s in a market that Top 40 OWNED for decades. Or how about the time I was touring a CC/New Orleans facility and sat in a 100kw classic rock studio in the 5pm hour and saw not one phone line lit up? Oh, and they had horrid ratings and changed formats not far after that, too.

No, there are not hundreds of people with that ability, Idol aside. Seacrest got enormous numbers on Star in PM Drive in LA, way outperforming the station and ranking quite high in the total market. If he outperforms in LA, he certainly would outperform in a smaller market like Tucson or Las Vegas or Colorado Springs.

There were (and still are) jocks who have garnered ratings that rival or outpace what the heralded Seacrest has gotten in his career where he's been. So again, it comes down to cost effectiveness in the minds of most. The jury's still out on this FTP venture, but my money's on some ratings decay where he's "slotted" in outside of L.A. on the whole.

everywhere I've been on the air and programmed, I've been #1 females 18-34. Everywhere, so you can stifle you're questioning of "what I get" here.

And what do you have today? Since radio is only as good as the last show, the last day, the last song, that's all that matters at this moment. The rest is experience and background and part of the learning process.

Well, just so you know, I had Justin Bruening of "Knight Rider" on promoting their season 2 premiere tonight on NBC. He has the lead role if you want to look that up. I also gave away Ringling Bros. tickets, talked with a local humane society p.r. rep about an upcoming event they're doing, and still managed to play 40 or more minutes of songs plus weather and traffic each hour.



It's REAL easy for you argue (whether you're right or not in the minds of others) that putting a big-market jock on a small-makret station via voice-tracking is preferred by the listener, but the thing that canNOT be argued down is that listenership to terrestrial radio is in decline, with the internet and personal mp3 players out there vying for their attention, and in my opinion, the loss of personal connection with said listener. Ryan Seacrest can be on 'Idol' all he wants, but there's nothing all that compelling about his work on the air that makes listeners clamor to want to hear him between songs.

Since most of us don't actually play requests, I'm not sure that taking them does anything but irritate the listener.

There's a TERRIFIC mentality... you're right. MOST "format heads" aren't playing requests. You're playing songs that garnered your company the bigger promotion from the label or what the regional programming guru has faxed to the local station to play. Meanwhile, I sit in-studio for 4 hours a day, and take requests (you think that IRKS listeners? When's the last time you sat in a studio and took requests, then???) from listeners, and thank GOD the younger end is still calling in wanting to hear a song played by us. Seacrest stations don't get to do that. And frankly, we answer - and pay attention to - our request lines because it gives a fairly good idea of what OUR listeners are digging, musically. Again, it's never failed me when the arbs come in. Ever.

You go ahead and trumpet the praises of "regional" PDs, re-hashed FTPs of Seacrest in middays and PM drive in every cookie-cutter market CHR all you want; radio has to COMPETE with the internet and the mp3 player, and we're gonna do it by being MORE homogenous than we were before, you say?

Brilliant.

But don't let me throw it ALL on CC... Cumulus is in there, too, with their "format heads" and THEIR lowering of ad rates (sorry, Eduardo, CC and Cumulus both have done it).

Everyone, from Google to GE is downsizing. The economy is in a major recession that we don't want to call a depression yet...

Then why has Clear Channel been VTing into markets, dropping on-air jobs and syndicating since deregulation, then? They were WAYYYYY ahead of this "recession."

 

[davideduardo]

If we were talking about small (and usually non-rated) markets, I could see it; but jocks who've been recently let go in markets like Richmond, Va., Tampa, Columbia, SC., Madison, Wi, etc., weren't exactly po-dunk nobodies who hadn't a clue what they were doing. That argument doesn't wash.

No, I am talking about syndicating LA talent to Chicago and Houston and Dallas, as an example.

I recognize that not everyone today plays the U-Haul game of moving up in market size, a broad generalization can be made that the personalites tend to move to the biggest markets. Like banks, that's where the money is.

While liner card jocks may be pretty much the same in nearly any top 100 market, the best "personalties" are going to be found at the higher levels; there will always be room for both syndicated shows for some audiences and local shows as well.

...so can 'Entertainment Tonight' and 'Extra' and 'E!' "Fun" stuf can be found anywhere, the 'net, the tube; big deal.

None of which can be viewed while in the car, or at work, or even in the daypar that Seacrest is on. Not that I want to make Seacrest my sole example, but he has a variety of elements that make him unique, starting with the fact that he IS on Idol and nobody else on radio is, and that he has successful radio experience.

I've "networked" multiple stations since the 60's, bringing major market talent to signals in smaller markets. The audience response has never been negative.

Haha. REALLY? "Never?"

Not in my experience. Every station benefitted from the "bigness" of a network or the wide coverage of a region (such as farm nets used to do) or the availablity of markedly different and good talents.

I can recall a CHR I worked at in Augusta that was KILLING, ratings-wise, when were fully live and local, then they went with a syndicated morning show and a voice-tracked night show, and within 5 years, that 100kw CHR blowtorch had to switch formats - leaving Augusta with ZERO Top 40s in a market that Top 40 OWNED for decades.

Ah, 1240 WBBQ and Harley Drew... But any good station can be screwed up by a bad manager, programmer or whole team. Any tool, whether it is a networked /syndicated show or research or contesting or whatever can be messed up by the terminally incompetent. I too know of bad experiences in such cases, but I have never had one myself. Maybe I'm just blessed with dumb luck.

[/quote]There were (and still are) jocks who have garnered ratings that rival or outpace what the heralded Seacrest has gotten in his career where he's been. So again, it comes down to cost effectiveness in the minds of most. The jury's still out on this FTP venture, but my money's on some ratings decay where he's "slotted" in outside of L.A. on the whole.[/quote]

Considering the niche format at KYSR in LA (female Alternative AC targeting 25-39) Seacreast significantly outperformed in a fairly competitive market. I don't know how well the "bits and pieces" format will wok, but there is enough name recognition to at least pull in large sampling cumes.

Well, just so you know, I had Justin Bruening of "Knight Rider" on promoting their season 2 premiere tonight on NBC. He has the lead role if you want to look that up. I also gave away Ringling Bros. tickets, talked with a local humane society p.r. rep about an upcoming event they're doing, and still managed to play 40 or more minutes of songs plus weather and traffic each hour.

And that sounds like it might make for the ideal quality of being "predictably unpredictable" as Bill Tanner, one of the great personality morning talents and PDs is known to say. Of course, the issue is not having the ingredients... its how you put them together.

It's REAL easy for you argue (whether you're right or not in the minds of others) that putting a big-market jock on a small-makret station via voice-tracking is preferred by the listener, but the thing that canNOT be argued down is that listenership to terrestrial radio is in decline, with the internet and personal mp3 players out there vying for their attention, and in my opinion, the loss of personal connection with said listener.

I think that many instances of powerful talent... not voice tracked, but whole programs networked... will retain better the audience than some lesser talent who only offers the advantage of the local temperature once in a while.

My example would be Dallas, TX. The #1 10-3 show in 12+, 18-34, 18-49, 25-54 and 35-64 is 100% networked out of LA. The talent on the show is truly good and otherwise unduplicated in the market. This is a case of where it makes sense to bring in someone who provides a discernably different and better listening experience, and who whould never move down-market and live in Dallas to do a local show. Some people are so good that they need to be shared.

Since most of us don't actually play requests, I'm not sure that taking them does anything but irritate the listener.

There's a TERRIFIC mentality... you're right. MOST "format heads" aren't playing requests. You're playing songs that garnered your company the bigger promotion from the label or what the regional programming guru has faxed to the local station to play.

Yes, the callers are listeners... most of the time. But I can certainly recall cases of requests for the song wwe just played, or even for the one we were playing at the time of the call. Many callers are modified prize pigs, and are the ultra-groupie active listener extreme... most of them are so flighty in listening that they are NOT our P1's (yeah, I've talked to those callers to ask about their radio listening, and had whole staffs ask a question set of such callers).

I've never had someone fax me a playlist, and have always used local research to determine play. Not priority lists from record ducks, and certainly not promotion-related spin incentives.

Letting a person whose only qualification is access to a telephone program your station, even for 4 minutes, seems to me to be bad programming outside of some kind of diary-related feature programming.

Meanwhile, I sit in-studio for 4 hours a day, and take requests (you think that IRKS listeners? When's the last time you sat in a studio and took requests, then???) from listeners, and thank GOD the younger end is still calling in wanting to hear a song played by us. Seacrest stations don't get to do that.

You mean they can't put a phone turkey in the studio, or use an 800 line or such for listener input? There are all kinds of ways of being accessable to the listener other than playing requests.

And frankly, we answer - and pay attention to - our request lines because it gives a fairly good idea of what OUR listeners are digging, musically. Again, it's never failed me when the arbs come in. Ever.

To me, the only thing a request line is good for is knowing that the ultra active segment is "over" a song when they QUIT calling for it. The rest is GIGO.

My favorite anecdote occured in the first month of a new format launch in market 13 some time back. We got huge call volume for contests, even for just T's. But we got no requests for days on end. We worried, briefly, that we had just assembled all the prize pigs in one place, but the rest of the world didn't care... until we realized that our music mix, rotations and formatics were so on target that nobody needed to call and ask for a song. The ratings done starting 20 days after we went on showed us with a 22.5 share out of over 30 stations, and 2 months later we had a 33.5 from that company that Jim Seiler founded.

radio has to COMPETE with the internet and the mp3 player, and we're gonna do it by being MORE homogenous than we were before, you say?

It's, in the end the blend... flow of music, and what the talent adds. A PD that really gets the flow and feel of the music and massages the log util it is perfect, combined with great talent will win no matter where it's put into the pipe.

Then why has Clear Channel been VTing into markets, dropping on-air jobs and syndicating since deregulation, then? They were WAYYYYY ahead of this "recession."

They use technology to improve programming.

 

[SirRoxalot]

First, kudos to Mr. Roberts for his eloquence. An observation: Mr. "Eduardo" will NEVER admit the possibility that he might be wrong. Go back through his nearly 15,000 posts and you'll find that this is a valid observation.

My greatest hope is the Clear Channel - and others - "improve" themselves right out of business. Thankfully, they seem to be doing a fine job moving in that direction.

With any luck, bankruptcy will reduce the cost of radio stations to a value that allows purchasers to spend some revenue on programming as well as interest payments to the banks and inflated salaries for a few high-level executives.

What is indisputable is that Clear Channel used the cover of the Obama inauguration to make serious staff cuts. Let's hope that the FCC, FTC, and others watch carefully to see if they live up to the promises that they made regarding severance.

 

[TheBigA]

With any luck, bankruptcy will reduce the cost of radio stations to a value that allows purchasers to spend some revenue on programming as well as interest payments to the banks and inflated salaries for a few high-level executives.

Cheap radio is cheap radio. I've worked for a lot of cheap outfits who got their licenses cheaply, and they NEVER extended ANY of the profits to anyone but themselves. I'm tracking a few companies like that right now, and I can tell you they are NOT taking the savings they got on their frequencies and pouring it into programming. That is what you have to look forward to. Mark my words.

What is indisputable is that Clear Channel used the cover of the Obama inauguration to make serious staff cuts.

Are you saying that no one covered the CC story? If that's what you're saying, then you're wrong.

Let's hope that the FCC, FTC, and others watch carefully to see if they live up to the promises that they made regarding severance.

Those agencies have nothing to say about severence payments. If the employees are in a union, THEY can ensure severence will be met. When I was in AFTRA and was fired, that was all the union was able to do.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Cheap programming generally doesn't garner stellar ratings, or stellar revenue. The idea that "it takes money to make money" has not been disproven, despite the "new economics" touted by dot-coms, real estate speculators, and corporate radio executives.

The Clear Channel Mass Firings certainly didn't get the attention outside of the trade press that they would have gotten on a "normal" news day.

The FCC, FTC, and others may not have anything to say about severance, but they have a LOT to say about the continuing licensing and operation of Clear Channel stations. They take a dim view of companies that promise one thing during hearings on topics like consolidation, then do something very different when those promises come due. Sooner or later, such practices will come back to haunt them.

 

[davideduardo]

Cheap programming generally doesn't garner stellar ratings, or stellar revenue. The idea that "it takes money to make money" has not been disproven, despite the "new economics" touted by dot-coms, real estate speculators, and corporate radio executives.

Good syndicated programming is cost effective, and gives smaller markets access to large market talent. It also tends to be more economical, so everyone wins.

The Clear Channel Mass Firings certainly didn't get the attention outside of the trade press that they would have gotten on a "normal" news day.

The layoff of about 850 people in radio (the rest were in otudoor and international) is a tiny amount. Warner Brothers, yesterday, laid off 800. Circuit City killed 34,000 jobs the week before.

The FCC, FTC, and others may not have anything to say about severance, but they have a LOT to say about the continuing licensing and operation of Clear Channel stations. They take a dim view of companies that promise one thing during hearings on topics like consolidation, then do something very different when those promises come due. Sooner or later, such practices will come back to haunt them.

Do you really think that any company that is suffering from declining income will be blamed if it has to adjust its staff size to that appropriate to the situation?

The FCC can not require a company to lose money.

 

[KyDXIn]

What is indisputable is that Clear Channel used the cover of the Obama inauguration to make serious staff cuts.

Are you saying that no one covered the CC story? If that's what you're saying, then you're wrong.
Those agencies have nothing to say about severence payments. If the employees are in a union, THEY can ensure severence will be met. When I was in AFTRA and was fired, that was all the union was able to do.

Who else has covered the story? I didn't see it covered on ABC, CBS, or NBC. I did have trouble logging on here though last night. I guess hits were overloading the server.