• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Can radio be fixed and regain it's dignity?

I love the business but, frankly, I think it's time for most folks in broadcasting to wise up and run for the hills. Radio will NEVER be what it once was because too many people who shouldn't be making any kind of monetary decisions have the control to do just that.

Radio is a business where technology no longer seems to "help". Put simply, to make money in radio, you have to spend money ON radio. The profit return is simply too small to make a decent profit (even with voicetracking) and stockholders want more bang for their buck. Radio stocks are not a good investment in my humble opinion.

Finally, any hope of ever putting decent, funny, sharp and talented people back on the air is gone as long as money, or the lack of it, is involved.

I'm going into pig farming.
 
Making any money in pig farming will be difficult.
The same economy of scale that has squeezed the viability ($) out of small radio, did the same for pig farming.
You may may make some money, but you stand a far greater chance to lose as small farmer.

Radio cannot regain its diginity while keeping company with folks who only see the financial side of things.
The job of management was to keep those people at bay. They failed, and now look. Stations may make money,
but the art has been disemboweled.

Radio should make enough money for those directly involved, but skimming money off for stockholders who have no
interest in the art of what they are investing in is highly detrimental to the art.

These investors should have put their money into commodities, not turned the art of radio into a commodity.
Radio cannot be fixed until it is free from those who would "pimp their gramma" if she made them money.
 
"Après moi, le déluge"

Radio - and many other industries - are the victims of "spreadsheetitis". The development of inexpensive and easy-to-use spreadsheet programs allow people to compile pages of numbers on virtually every aspect of business. The problem is that raw numbers don't offer context, and spreadsheets don't include all aspects of the performance that they puport to measure.

Radio - and other industries - suffer from "unintended consequencies". For example, a highly-rated morning team in a medium market pulls down $200K per year. A large broadcasting company is already paying $500K+ per year for a highly-rated morning team in a major market. Through the magic of synidcation, the major market team gets bumped to $1M+, and 5 medium market morning teams are replaced by a board-op making $20K. On paper, the savings are $400K per year:

500K+(200Kx5)= 1.5M
1M + (20Kx5) = 1.1M
Savings = 400K

Except, that part of that $400K is lost to avails that go to help pay the syndicater. And, you have to add a local traffic service, and a local weather service, or pay a board-op with enough talent to fill in that info during what was a commercial break. And, local advertisers who liked the old morning team cut back on their advertising during the morning show because they're uncomfortable with the raunchiness of the big-city guys. You lose two spots per hour, or 30 spots per week, at $100/spot. That's $3000/week, or $150K per year. Your savings are shrinking.

Experienced salespeople with established relationships and reputations in a market are making $100K+. Experienced market managers who are integrated into the local commmunity, and value employee relationships, make $100K+ per year. Both groups are a pain in the tookus to bottom-line oriented corporate types who see savings in replacing both groups with lower-paid, bonus-driven youngsters who have no loyalty to anyone.

Compensation rates are restructured, and anybody who doesn't like it is invited to leave. Experienced management and sales people get out, and kids are taught to sell based on numbers, not results. Since they don't have an established relationship with clients anyway, that's all they have to work with anyway. "Sales" becomes a game of offering the lowest cost-per-point, regardless of how well a station actually delivers results.

Background music stations get the same rate as stations with foreground personalities that actually engage listeners into active listening, which makes commercials more likely to be heard and understood. Background music stations offer large blocks of music, broken up by large blocks of commercials. Advertisers who buy on cost-per-point have no way to evaluate the effectiveness of commercials played 7th in an 8 minute set. Radio stations have 8 minute sets because the rate per commercial has dropped in order to meet lower cost-per-point demands. It's a vicious cycle that alienates listeners, and advertises end up less than pleased with the results.

In the meantime, the value of personalities who engage the audience and establish a relationship with listeneres is discounted. Those who advocate voice-tracking or syndication reason that ratings will be static, or increase, if big-city talent is brought in to replace live local talent. The voice-track talent costs a fraction of a live body, and "the audience will never know the difference". So you give up a few commercial avails as part of the deal - it's still cheaper than local talent & benefits. In truth, listeners come to realize that radio is no longer a source for "what's now, and what's cool", so it becomes little more than an iPod programmed with 300 songs interrupted by a bunch of commercials. Most people who own an iPod have more songs in "shuffle" mode than the average radio station.

As you can see, what we hear today is the result of a perfect storm created by corporate "spreadsheetitis". Radio's magic was always in its immediacy, and its position as the purveyor of "waht's new, and what's cool". When was the last time that you turned a radio on because you knew that they'd be first on the scene with breaking local news? When was the last time that you knew that new music from one of your favorite artists would be introduced on somebody's radio show?

What do we have now? Revenues are growing slower than ever, barely beating inflation. In many markets - like most of the northeast - revenues are actually shrinking. The "savings" are costing far more in revenues than expected. Another thing that "spreadsheetitis" seems to miss is the fact that the stations with the largest number dayparts populated by live & local talent almost invariably end up at the top of the ratings. Check Arbitron. That's true in market after market after market.

Listeners know the difference. Now, if only the guys at corporate, with their million-dollar salaries and $3K suits, would learn that the most important thing about broadcasting is listening...
 
Radio will NEVER be what it once was because too many people who shouldn't be making any kind of monetary decisions have the control to do just that.

First, radio is STILL what it once was. But you'll only find it where you find owner/operators in small and medium markets who know that you don't have to be a big conglomerate to be successful. See the article on the homepage about WWON.

You're right about those making the monetary decisions. These people are not making decisions based on being broadcasters. They're making the decisions based on ONLY one thing...and that's the bottom line. Now, don't get me wrong...there's nothing wrong with thinking about the bottom line. All of us who have owned and operated a station realize this. But, there are other factors to consider. That's where the true broadcast professionals come into the picture. Again, those owner/operators in small to medium markets who know that it's not the strength of your signal, but the quality of what you offer your listeners, your clients and your community.

What makes small broadcasters stand out among those big corporations is that they care about what they do and prove it each and every day. As a former owner/operator of a standalone AM, I was able to make decisons faster and take steps to make necessary changes long before any big coporate owned cluster could get the question to the next level of hierarchy.

I was in a position that I could tell clients, "If they called me at 11am to say they wanted to get a spot on our station that afternoon, I could have it written, produced and on-the-air within an hour." We, also, didn't charge and arm and a leg to reach people that would never be the client's customers, as some of the 50 or 100k FMs have to do.

Radio continues to be what it once was. In most cases, you have to leave the major markets to find what real radio should be.
 
If you must leave the major markets then the question begs to be asked..."Can you make any kind of a reasonable living in the business?" Don't small and medium-sized markets pay less? (Not that major markets are the place to go to get rich)
 
If you must leave the major markets then the question begs to be asked..."Can you make any kind of a reasonable living in the business?" Don't small and medium-sized markets pay less? (Not that major markets are the place to go to get rich)

Radio has made some drastic changes over the past few years...since the deregulation in 1996 opening up radio to what it has become today. Of course, we see the affects in, mainly, the major and medium markets where the big conglomerates get rid of DJ's, forget about the listeners, ignore their communities and keep reaching into their client's pockets.

We constantly see where stations are getting rid of their on-air staffs. It's the same as with the changes made that allowed stations to operate without full-time engineers. It helped the bottom line... but finding engineers 'worth their salt' these days is another challenge for a lot of broadcasters.

You're right...the major markets are still the place to be for the money, if you're looking at being an on-air personality. However, with fewer on-air talent needed, only the strong survive in those markets and if they happen to hit a bump, they're out, too! It's happening all too often these days as stations change formats in the larger markets. You see reports of it all the time on this website.

Radio is not for the weak. You have to love it or you'd be somewhere else making a living. There are those of us who want to enjoy what we're doing and be able to make a good living, knowing that we may never be rich. But, on the other hand, 'rich' is not always associated with money. Rich is the feeling you get from knowing that what you're doing is making someone else's day, is giving something back to your community, is doing the best you can for your listeners and clients. It's ending you're day feeling good about yourself and what you've accomplished. It's stations like WWON.

Then there are those who just want to end their day knowing they've done nothing more than squeeze another buck out of a client.

Radio survives due to the former...not the latter.
 
The short answer to the question posed originally in this thread is, “yes”. The real question though is “WILL radio be fixed and regain it’s dignity?” and the answer to that question is a resounding, “no”.

This thread is a breath of fresh air, because most people on this board simply defend terrestrial radio blindly and fail to see the burgeoning problems in the industry. I could write the list of problems and go on for days, but the big ones are easy to spot.

Music stations (CHR especially) have stifled local personalities to the point where listeners can no longer connect with a “show” or timeslot. Instead, a jock comes on, reads from a liner card and front-sells the song all in a nice 12 second intro. On a rare occasion, if the program director has decided to ignore the pleading of his consultant, they’ll allow a jock to do a phoner or two, but even these are contrived, easy pieces of innuendo that a 12 year old could easily think of. Of course, this assumes that a live jock is even on the air, voice tracking certainly is a significant possibility—and by the way, I’m not talking about small market stations here, I’m talking MAJOR (top 20) markets pulling these shenanigans. Example: Kiss 108 in Boston have a voice tracked midday host—don’t know if that’s still the case, but it was for a while.

Over produced and continuous imaging barraging listeners with fancy Chase Cuts and Killer Hertz noises while telling us how “we’re getting you back to the music faster” really breaks up the momentum of any music set, naturally, the pattern of 3 songs, spots, 2 songs, spots, 3 songs, spots doesn’t really do a lot for momentum either. Don’t get me wrong, I love well produced, fancy imaging—I make some myself, but at some point one has to rope in the 45 second top of the hour ID.

The recent situation at KDND in Sacramento is another fine example of what’s wrong with radio—and fits nicely into the category of the overall dignity of the medium. I wouldn’t come down too hard on the jocks in that situation however, middle management (including the program director and GM) are more responsible for the outcome of that disgrace than anyone. PD’s and GM’s feel enormous amounts of pressure and subsequently pass that along to the personalities… they tell them to push the envelope to any means necessary and if you don’t, you’re canned. Since everyone wishes to be a poor Stern imitator, they follow suit and low and behold, listeners get injured, defrauded on contests or die. Obviously, in the aforementioned case, the people participating in the contest do hold some of their own liability, but if stations weren’t in such a state of disaster, such a situation would never come about in the first place.

The FCC and special interest groups are the main contributors to the problems with radio today. When a station can be fined for “indecent” material and yet the FCC, nor stations themselves can identify what “indecent” even means, then there’s no doubt that trouble is on the horizon for free speech. A station being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for instances of arbitrary “indecent” material spells doom. Of course, the FCC is funded by congress and congress has individuals like Ted Stevens from Alaska who feel that we need to return to the 1950s and that any kind of ‘edgy’ radio is best left off the air.

Obviously I’ve left off the 800 pound gorilla in the room, other media competing with terrestrial radio. Satellite, internet and various portable devices (ipods, et al) are slowly eroding the TSL and audience from terrestrial radio. People are learning that the homogenized content they’ve been given on their radios for the past 10-15 years has many alternatives, and they are flocking to them.

This brings about another issue. While I am not against deregulation of the business entirely, I must say that it has certainly had profound (and mostly unfortunate) consequences for terrestrial radio. As stated earlier, formats are becoming homogenized, KISS FM being the greatest example, but other ‘concept radio’ ideas are also a big detriment to the industry. Some of these ‘concepts’ that homogenize markets include the ever present CBS Radio disaster that is FREE FM, where syndicated hosts give us the exact same show with different hosts (in most cases) 24 hours a day. Of course, they don’t even have enough of a 1) budget or 2) talent to fill 24 hours, so at least 1/4th of the day (at least here in Phoenix) on FREE FM is rebroadcast material. Of course, there are other failed concept radio models, such as JACK-FM, which is dead in most markets, New York being the primary example—although to be fair, Jack does pretty well in L.A. At any rate, you get the idea.

All of the above and much more contributes to why terrestrial radio is an empire that (while it will never fade away) will become as obsolete as the laser disc –IF- current trends are not reversed.
 
No one has ever been able to explain to me why it's OK if the exact same movies play everywhere, you can see all of the exact same TV shows everywhere (and the same news sets and graphics), but dammit, if there's a CHR station called Kiss in my town, the town 20 miles up the road better have a Z and the one 50 miles down the road better be a Q. Are the hits not subsatntially the same everywhere (especially with all of the instant communication available?)
 
Let me give it a shot....I've never heard people refer to a movie as "theirs" or a TV show as "theirs" but I used to hear people say "that's my radio station" or directly to you "you're my station" or "that's my station"...they literally take posession of the station in their heart and mind. The jocks have the same local accents, eat at the same resatraunts, go to the same PTO, etc. As jocks dissappeared so has the local identity. Listeners feel as though they've lost a well liked family member. As the growing impersonality of this world continues people will yearn for close family that they feel loves them. I like the line above on this thread about "speadsheetitis".
 
Stewie's Got It

As Stewy said, a radio station used to be more than just the hits.

Watch "American Graffiti" or "A Prairie Home Companion". In some places, and on some stations, that one-to-one relatability still survives. Radio is personal, not business to some people.
 
I'm certainly not unaware of the personal connection some have felt for their radio stations and personalities over the years. However, I worked in small markets in the 1970s and 80s and will tell you that almost none of my co-workers were born and raised in the hometown...they came from all over long enough to cut an aircheck and get on to the next bigger town. I had co-workers who got jobs in the south because the southern stations didn't want southern accents. My experience has never been owners who mortgaged their house and got into the business because they "loved radio".
 
Radio Lovers

Radio station owners rarely "mortgaged their house and got into the business because the 'loved radio'". If they did, it was because they were radio guys who made it big enough to be able to afford to buy their own radio station.

There was a time, however, when radio station owners valued and respected the work done by air personalities and good sales people. Jocks who delivered an audience were rewarded. Sales people who built long-term relationships with clients got to KEEP those clients, not have the client list shuffled, compensation rates restructured, and "old guys making too much money" pushed out because "we can hire two whiz kids for what we're paying him/her".

Big corporations looked at successful radio stations and determined that there was an opportunity to create economies of scale, and make even more money. They bought dozens, hundreds of stations around the country. Somebody (Randy Michaels?) came up with the idea of "clustering" - an attempt to buy control over a segment of the audience by purchasing all the radio stations service that audience. Sometimes, they paid ridiculous multiples for a specific station because it completed the cluster.

With the acquisitions came expenses. If corporate overpaid for the station in the first place, then expenses had to be reduced. Consultants sold their "magic programming" to owners, focusing on their "magic music mix" and devaluing both personalities and personality. Restrictive programming frustrated most personalities, and many left the business. Some prospered, actually being syndicated or voice-tracking multiple stations in multiple dayparts, even in multiple markets.

Thus began the decline - the removal of personality, and the loss of that personal connection between radio and listeners. Give listeners a jukebox, and you don't differentiate yourself from the next technological jukebox that comes along. And, technology being what it is, there will be another - maybe better - jukebox.

Isn't it strange that the last bastions of personality - morning radio, some afternoon drive programs, even some radio stations altogether - have the most listeners? Look in any market. The market leaders almost invariably are the stations that have the greatest number of live and local jocks, and often the stations with the least restrictions on the jocks themselves ("liner card readers need not apply").

If radio is to survive, it HAS TO BE MORE THAN A JUKEBOX. It has to offer added content - local information, local views, artist information, a "cool" factor, a variety of music including carefully selected new music that fits the genre - in short, a reason to tune in instead of putting the iPod on shuffle.

If radio doesn't provide it, Internet broadcasters will, and the day of widely-available, essentially free Internet radio reception is just around the corner.
 
Re: Radio Lovers

SirRoxalot said:
If radio is to survive, it HAS TO BE MORE THAN A JUKEBOX. It has to offer added content - local information, local views, artist information, a "cool" factor, a variety of music including carefully selected new music that fits the genre - in short, a reason to tune in instead of putting the iPod on shuffle.

If radio doesn't provide it, Internet broadcasters will, and the day of widely-available, essentially free Internet radio reception is just around the corner.

But if people are abandoning radio in droves for Ipods, webcasts, and other jukeboxes (which have NO local info, views, etc.), then why do you think radio will be a success re-doing what it did in 1972? It's like saying that if Ford brought back the Pinto, they'd regain the market share they've lost over the last 30 years. That was then, this is now. There are a whole lot more ways to get entertainment than there were even 10 years ago. Radio will survive...it's just not gonna dominate the way it did when there were no alternatives.
 
Re: Radio Lovers

SirRoxalot said:
Big corporations looked at successful radio stations and determined that there was an opportunity to create economies of scale, and make even more money. They bought dozens, hundreds of stations around the country. Somebody (Randy Michaels?) came up with the idea of "clustering" - an attempt to buy control over a segment of the audience by purchasing all the radio stations service that audience. Sometimes, they paid ridiculous multiples for a specific station because it completed the cluster.

Not quite. "Clusters" were common in many places in the world going back to the 50's and 60's. I had a 9 station cluster in Quito, Ecuador in the late 60's... and interned in a 10 staiton one in Mexico City in 1963!

In my experience, having multiple stations allows an owner to spread the fomrats around, so that different segments can be sold, and the need to be #1 is not as extreme.

Also, time has shown us that stations were not particularly overpaid for... as Clear Channel gets out of the markets that are not in the Top 100 and CBS sells everything outside the top 40 or so markets, we see that they are making money on these sales.
 
Jukebox Syndrome

The reason people are abandoning radio is because there is no compelling content to differentiate radio from iPods, webcasts, and other jukeboxes. Those radio stations who offer more than just repetitive music are generally thriving. Of course, that means live, local jocks, which cost more money than syndication.

Isn't it odd that corporate programmers pour so much money into drivetime shows which are very personality driven, then devalue personality for the rest of the day?
 
Re: Jukebox Syndrome

SirRoxalot said:
The reason people are abandoning radio is because there is no compelling content to differentiate radio from iPods, webcasts, and other jukeboxes. Those radio stations who offer more than just repetitive music are generally thriving. Of course, that means live, local jocks, which cost more money than syndication.

The problem with that argument is that people are not abandoning radio. Cume in the demos radio addresses is off less than 2% over the last 10 years, despite all the technology that has come in this last decade. And listening time has declined, as one would sucpect, but not in the double digit figures that get batted around.

Isn't it odd that corporate programmers pour so much money into drivetime shows which are very personality driven, then devalue personality for the rest of the day?

Perhaps the listeners tell us that in most cases, they do not want a lot of talk in other dayparts? Perhaps we spend tens of millions of dollars each year as an industry to find this sort of thing out (besides the couple of hundred million we pay Arbitron).
 
Fixed? Radio has Already Been Fixed - or is that Neutered

Thank you, David, for so concisely expressing the big corporate point of view. It is because of that point of view that this discussion began in the first place. Most of us understand that you don't think that there's anything wrong with radio. There are people who disagree with you, however.
 
Re: Fixed? Radio has Already Been Fixed - or is that Neutered

SirRoxalot said:
Thank you, David, for so concisely expressing the big corporate point of view. It is because of that point of view that this discussion began in the first place. Most of us understand that you don't think that there's anything wrong with radio. There are people who disagree with you, however.
It is pointless to argue with David as he 1) works within terrestrial radio and is clearly not objective, 2) even if you quote facts to dispute his point of view, he'll just dismiss them and tell you that you're not reading them properly and 3) fails to understand that radio has massive problems facing it... it's the 'put your head in the sand' attitude. He's entitled to his opinion... but it does sound like the corporate spin job--and believe me, I've heard a few of those.

I asked a friend of mine some time ago to ask her students a few questions about radio--if they listen at all, what stations, if not where do they find out about new music or hear content, etc. How shocked (/sarcasm) I was to discover that most of the high school aged kids said they don't listen to radio at all, with some only listening occasionally--citing the usual reasons for not doing so (too much 'blah blah' commercials, highly repetitive, etc). Radio is just not "cool" like it once was to the young generation... that being the generation that eventually becomes the 18-34 and 25-54 demo that we all crow about. Young people turn toward the internet, satellite and downloading content onto their mp3 players (ipods, etc) rather than listen to the radio. I realize that the aforementioned scenario is not scientific, but I hear this mentioned over and over again.

Is terrestrial radio doomed? Of course not. Just that other forms of media are already taking over... just like conventional television is going the way that terrestrial radio will... Bill Gates claims that TV as we know it, will be essentially dead in 10 years... by the way I watched that piece ON DEMAND at msnbc.com--which is exactly how people will be getting their TV to a larger extent as time goes on. God Bless the DVR and watching programs on-demand.
 
Re: Radio Lovers

DavidEduardo said:
SirRoxalot said:
Also, time has shown us that stations were not particularly overpaid for... as Clear Channel gets out of the markets that are not in the Top 100 and CBS sells everything outside the top 40 or so markets, we see that they are making money on these sales.

That's not entirely true as this quote from the Burlington Free Press proves:

"Great Eastern Radio, which operates one station in Manchester, N.H., is expanding. The company announced an agreement with Clear Channel on Jan. 16 to buy six radio stations in the Lebanon, N.H., market; the deal is pending FCC approval. Shapiro said he is purchasing the stations for less than the $13 million Clear Channel paid in 2001, but declined to be specific. About 20 people work at the half-dozen stations and there are no plans to change the stations' formats or staffing, he said."

And who knows how much more money CC will lose as it continues selling off its small market "clusters".

db
 
Re: Radio Lovers

dbdigital said:
That's not entirely true as this quote from the Burlington Free Press proves:

"Great Eastern Radio, which operates one station in Manchester, N.H., is expanding. The company announced an agreement with Clear Channel on Jan. 16 to buy six radio stations in the Lebanon, N.H., market; the deal is pending FCC approval. Shapiro said he is purchasing the stations for less than the $13 million Clear Channel paid in 2001, but declined to be specific. About 20 people work at the half-dozen stations and there are no plans to change the stations' formats or staffing, he said."

And who knows how much more money CC will lose as it continues selling off its small market "clusters".

There are exceptions to every broad situation. For example, CBS sold its 2-station combo in San Antonio for about half what they paid, but this is because the FM came under attack and had lost more than half its billings. So, since prices are set to a large part by billings and / or cash flow, they were worth less. On the other hand, Clear Channel just sold its Santa Barbara, CA, stations for about 50% more than they paid. In the vast majority of the cases involving the sub-100 market sales, Clear has come out nicely if not always considerably ahead.

As to the Lebanon sale, keep in mind that it is nearly impossible to determine the purchase price, as the indivisual stations were parts of multi-station transactions and individual station allocations of the package price are neither required not released.

The reason for these sales is simple, too. The nearly 500 staitons Clear is selling contributed less than 10% of cash flow, but took significant administrative time and were not a good fit for a predominantly major market operator. Selling them will increase the operating margins and pay down debt and make the company more manageable... just likes the spin-offs of Live Nation and the partial spin of CC Outdoor.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom