• 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

CC'S PITTMAN DEFENDS CORPORATE RADIO

"Jay Leno is better than the local guy."
No doubt. HOWEVER, Jay won't be LOCAL. Hasn't radio always prided itself on being local?
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120222/BUSINESS/302220150/Clear-Channel-CEO-defends-corporate-radio?odyssey=nav|head
 
austingeezer said:
Hasn't radio always prided itself on being local?

First of all, not really. The golden age of radio wasn't built on local radio. It was built on great programming fed nationally by radio networks. At the same time, with fewer radio stations, listeners in small towns DX'd stations in bigger towns. It wasn't unusual for someone in Nebraska to listen to a station in Chicago. Not much localism there.

Second of all, in terms of the actual physical facility and the decision-making involved in the station's programming, that actually is all very local. There are local residents staffing those facilities, and deciding how to adapt the programming to suit the local audience. When you compare it to satellite or internet streaming station, OTA radio is still very local.
 
TheBigA said:
The golden age of radio wasn't built on local radio. It was built on great programming fed nationally by radio networks.

The so-called golden age of radio was the golden age of NETWORK radio. That golden age ended as network radio lost its biggest stars and programmers to television.

What followed was the golden age of LOCAL radio. Locally programmed stations with locally-researched playlists and hot local personalities zoomed to the top of the ratings in the 60s and 70s. Each town's top 40 had its own published "Top 40 Survey" culled from actual listener requests and what what was selling at the local record shops. The stations were interactive before there was a word for it.

Top 40 radio was never a network success. ABC tried. Remember Superadio? The closest they've come is AT40, just one show relegated to a weekend slot, often Sunday morning.

Is the answer today more network radio? Thanks to smart phones, territorial exclusivity is a thing of the past unless you have something no one else has. The answer is once again local programming from local people.
 
fredcantu said:
The answer is once again local programming from local people.

There are too many stations for that to be practical. The talent pool is too thin. Like having an NFL team in every town, regardless of size. We need to focus on quality. On providing the BEST talent on radio, regardless of where they are.

By the way, SuperRadio was over 25 years ago. It was way ahead of its time. ABC owned radio stations refused to support it, and that's why it failed. Not because of the quality of talent.
 
Have to disagree about the talent pool being too thin. There's a ton of talent out there, it's just that companies don't want to or can't pay the cost of bringing in that talent. So they're trying to do more with less.
 
CTHank said:
Have to disagree about the talent pool being too thin. There's a ton of talent out there, it's just that companies don't want to or can't pay the cost of bringing in that talent. So they're trying to do more with less.

As I said, there are too many radio stations. Stations HAVE to do more with less because there are too many stations. Hiring more local talent won't help declining ad budgets. Companies ARE spending money on talent where it's practical. Lots of six figure salaries being spent on morning shows. Paying for the morning crew means the 7-midnight shift gets cut.

But I also believe the talent pool is too thin, and radio needs to concentrate on the great talent, and promote them to a larger audience. This idea of local staffing at 14,000 radio stations is obsolete. Even the government can't support that kind of staffing.
 
TheBigA said:
By the way, SuperRadio was over 25 years ago. It was way ahead of its time. ABC owned radio stations refused to support it, and that's why it failed. Not because of the quality of talent.

Ahead of its time? Has the concept succeeded since?
 
fredcantu said:
Ahead of its time? Has the concept succeeded since?

The concept of SuperRadio was to take all the air talent of WABC and put it on the satellite. I don't think that concept, as it was done, was attempted again. The reason it was done was WABC was shifting to talk and Rick Sklar wanted to retain his DJs. ABC had just bought a transponder on this new thing called a satellite, and thought other stations might want to share these incredible talents. They built beautiful state of the art studios at 1700 Broadway, and never occupied them. But radio was very different then.

Several companies offer 24/7 formats today. Those services have been available in various ways from various companies for 50 years. But the quality of talent doesn't compare to that WABC line-up. And even though Citadel/Cumulus is one of the companies that offers 24/7 formats, it's never used them to program their owned stations. At least not yet. But in that way, the concept has succeeded and somehow managed to exist even though stations would have a lot more control, and be able to keep all of the money, if they just voicetracked fringe dayparts.
 
As much as I would like to disagree with satellite, commputer automation and non-local and not live programming TheBigA makes some very valid points.

The entry into broadcasting is dictated by the highest bidder on new frequencies or multiples that were once a bit lower. The money saved in operating tends to go to paying off the initial investment. It might take fewer real dollars to run a station today than the pre-1980 heavily regulated days, but the initial investment is bigger.

The talent pool has moved from the deep end with high dive to the kiddie pool. The trend began in the 1980s when small market training grounds found they could put up a dish and have a smoother operation. The operators, especially in small markets, always complained about jocks breaking format, having a party at the studio or trying to smooth over the situation where the 22 year old jock was dating the biggest client's 15 year old daughter, not to mention the constant search for replacements when a job would get a 'can you be here tomorrow' from a larger station.

The lack of new entry positions meant eventually mid-range talent got the squeeze as satellite and computers replaced jocks. It now is going on in major markets in most dayparts. The number of live and local talent in the pool is now small although many talented people had that painful choice of taking a job outside radio.

There are too many stations. I think that is not an across the board statement. Sure a town of 8,000 might have 5 stations owned by 2 companies, but for the most part, many areas have not seen such an influx. I know of several growing markets where stations are leaving because a major metro is less than an hour away. The dial is just too crowded to gain more stations.

Radio has worked hard to find the common denominator. Think of radio as an ice cream store. They have 75 flavors. Some are decadent concoctions and others are pretty mass appeal. In our effort to find the larged audience without alienating anyone we found ourselves content to only offer one flavor, vanilla. Everybody likes vanilla. It's what you add to vanilla that creates the hot fudge sundae or banana split or float or milkshake. In short, radio ended up losing that special status. Before you call me on this, let me ask you if a burger is a burger no matter who makes it or a steak a steak whether it's a family restaurant or steakhouse? Radio used to be much like restaurants...they had their special 'flavor' that people claimed as their own. Now, not so much.

Is there the money for live and local and investment dollars to try something different? No. Radio is not a good investment. My Dad sheds light on radio by saying why would someone want to pay such a high price or tie up so much money for so many years before you can earn any cash? Why would anybody want to operate some business so tightly controlled by the whims of a Federal Agency that can change the rules at any time.

Will any of this change? I think so. Everything changes and evolves with time. At this moment, radio is off stage in the dark looking for a way to jump in the spotlight.
 
Keep in mind that Pittman was the founder of the first TV equivalent to radio, in MTV. MTV was a true tastemaker in terms of defining the musical tastes of a generation back in the early to mid 80s. I'm sure Pittman looks back on those days fondly and they color his view of the radio industry.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom