Clear Channel's Frightening Plans For 2010

[davideduardo]

what do you mean by budgets are laughable? Way High or Low?

It appears that there is one person on the planet who does not know how Clear runs its stations today.

Does the nickname "Cheap Channel" give you a hint?

 

[MisterRadio]

what do you mean by budgets are laughable? Way High or Low?

Way low. The engineering departments can't replace or upgrade any equipment, there is almost zero promotions budget and next to nothing for operations. They may be cutting expenses to service their debt but they are also making it impossible for the stations to actually make any money.

 

[TheBigA]

This may not make sense, but right now servicing the debt is more important than making money.

When you lose your job, the first thing you need to do is cut all your debts, which means pay off credit cards and mortgage. That's what they're doing. They're following very basic financial advice. Once the debts are controlled, then you can go back to normal. With the economy tight and ad budgets off anyway, they're going to have trouble making money regardless of how much they spend. So they might as well concentrate on the debt, and wait for the economy to improve.

 

[mmnassour]

But, but, but....

Do you know what the phrase "eating your seed corn" means? By the time the economy improves 1) there won't be any "station" there to improve on and 2) new technologies such as IPod, streaming, etc., will have won even more listeners.

The people in charge of CC and the other consolidators know nothing about this business. We are watching 80+ years of commercial radio in the country being dismantled. Something will take its place...but I don't know what it is.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you know what the phrase "eating your seed corn" means? By the time the economy improves 1) there won't be any "station" there to improve on and 2) new technologies such as IPod, streaming, etc., will have won even more listeners.

iPods and streaming don't feature live and local DJs. If that's what is attracting listeners, perhaps traditional radio should become more like streaming and iPods.

Look...five years ago, everyone was saying that satellite radio will kick terrestrial's ass. Howard Stern walked out because even he believed it. Where is he now? No one cares, and he's about to leave satellite, because it's a failed technology.

The fact is that with all the changes and all the new competition, there really hasn't been a significant loss of listenership in traditional radio, at least as far as FM stations are concerned. The only band in trouble now is AM, and it's been that way for 20 years.

The 80 year history of radio you're talking about has been filled with change, usually every 20 years or so. Radio is due for one of those major changes now. It will be as drastic as the 50s when radio had to compete with TV, or when AM gave way to FM. Once again, it won't be as it was in the past. That is freaking out a lot of people who don't like change. But it doesn't matter. Change is the natural evolution of things. It's going on now.

 

[Leebo65]

We are watching 80+ years of commercial radio in the country being dismantled. Something will take its place...but I don't know what it is.

Well if the value falls far enough corporations will walk away. Then we could turn over all that bandwidth to the pirates for next to nothing. That could be a great thing.

 

[TheBigA]

Well if the value falls far enough corporations will walk away. Then we could turn over all that bandwidth to the pirates for next to nothing. That could be a great thing.

What do you mean "we?" The FCC wants something for its bandwidth. They're not giving it away, certainly not to pirates. It's more likely that the government will find a way to take their airwaves back and disburse them out to operators who fit their agenda. That won't be pirates.

 

[wild949austin]

First post. I think its a little weird hearing 96.1 and 96.7 play the exact same music on weekends. I mean at least one of these stations could play something different from time to time.

 

[mmnassour]

Do you know what the phrase "eating your seed corn" means? By the time the economy improves 1) there won't be any "station" there to improve on and 2) new technologies such as IPod, streaming, etc., will have won even more listeners.

iPods and streaming don't feature live and local DJs. If that's what is attracting listeners, perhaps traditional radio should become more like streaming and iPods.

No. No. No. No.

The lack of a jock is NOT what sells IPods. What sells IPods is that people can hear what they want when they want it. How does radio compete with that? After all, we can't do requests 24/7 because 1) there isn't enough time and 2) all the jocks were fired! All we can do is local, local, local, local. And since we fired all the jocks, we can't do that!

Look...five years ago, everyone was saying that satellite radio will kick terrestrial's ass. Howard Stern walked out because even he believed it. Where is he now? No one cares, and he's about to leave satellite, because it's a failed technology.

Stern bailed because he was tired of screwing with the FCC and Sirius threw a boatload of money at him. Hell, he didn't believe in satellite. He would have done a show for a kid with two tin cans and a string for that kind of money.

The fact is that with all the changes and all the new competition, there really hasn't been a significant loss of listenership in traditional radio, at least as far as FM stations are concerned. The only band in trouble now is AM, and it's been that way for 20 years.

The 80 year history of radio you're talking about has been filled with change, usually every 20 years or so. Radio is due for one of those major changes now. It will be as drastic as the 50s when radio had to compete with TV, or when AM gave way to FM. Once again, it won't be as it was in the past. That is freaking out a lot of people who don't like change. But it doesn't matter. Change is the natural evolution of things. It's going on now.

I think you're right there. But those who are changing into jockless jukeboxes will be left behind because they cannot possibly compete with a device that allows a listener to take their music with them 24/7, music that's exactly what they want to hear.

To survive radio must play the music they can't hear on their IPods, that's the music that they haven't heard yet, and has to reflect their local community. If a friend of mine is playing tunes I haven't heard on the radio, hell, I'd listen to that. Jockless jukeboses 1) can't be my friend and 2) don't play anything I haven't already heard, in better fidelity and with no commercials, on my IPod.

 

[fredcantu]

To survive radio must play the music they can't hear on their IPods, that's the music that they haven't heard yet, and has to reflect their local community.

Oh, if it were that simple. But you'll notice the stations at the top of the local ratings are always the stations playing what's at the top of the national charts be it pop, country hip hop or any of the various Spanish language formats. Even the top-rated talk stations are the ones heavy in national topics.

 

[TheBigA]

The lack of a jock is NOT what sells IPods. What sells IPods is that people can hear what they want when they want it. How does radio compete with that?

You'd be surprised. The people want to hear what they want, and the DJ has become an impediment to that. They have become, to use the words in listener surveys, “annoying” and an “interruption.” That’s not the way to become endearing to an audience. Too many radio people are seeing the reduction of DJs as simply a cost-cutting move, but it’s more a response to what the public wants. And too many radio people think “local” is what the public wants, and it’s obvious that they don’t care about local. As you said, they want what they want when they want it. None of those things requires DJs or localism. There are lots of stations that thought live and local would give them ratings, and all they get is a 1 share. So these are mostly knee-jerk reactions to changes in radio that frighten longtime employees, who’re concerned about their own personal job security, but have nothing to do with what the public really wants.

To survive radio must play the music they can't hear on their IPods, that's the music that they haven't heard yet, and has to reflect their local community. If a friend of mine is playing tunes I haven't heard on the radio, hell, I'd listen to that.

Good for you. Then your station has an audience of one. Try selling that to an advertiser.

Your ideas have all been tried at numerous stations around the country, and haven’t resulted in any notable increase in audience. All you attract is the small percentage of serious music fans, who also dislike DJs and commercials. That is not the kind of listener who will be satisfied with the overall package.

The studies we’ve seen is that people with iPods don’t exclude radio from their lives. There is iPod fatigue. They just want radio to play their favorite songs when they tune in. Otherwise they go elsewhere. They’re not tuning in for a DJ, or a song they’ve never heard before. That is a myth.

Here’s something you need to understand: The listeners today know the radio DJ is not their friend. He works for the radio. They don’t see him. Even if he’s local, he’s not accessible. He doesn’t hang out at local places. And he’s not going to do what I tell him to do. Also, today, listeners have cell phone. If they need a friend, they can call one, and they can engage in a conversation. They can’t do that with a guy on the radio.


If you’re looking for a justification for a DJ, it isn’t to be someone’s friend or play songs they don’t know. If you want to justify a DJ, they need to be enablers. They need to be hosts who allow listener involvement. DJs who aren’t the show, but allow the listeners to be the show. That’s not what most traditional DJs want. They believe in top-down communication: I talk, you listen. That won’t work today. Right now, we need to cleanse radio of all the pukers and guys who like to hear themselves talk. They need to go away. Then maybe, after a while, bring in some younger, fresher people who know what communication means. People who can make radio a two-way device, even though it isn’t. People who are really entertaining, not just convenient because they happen to live in the same town. In other words, radio needs to be reinvented. But even then, if there are a few stations in town already doing the personality thing, you need to go for more music in order to counter-program.

In the meantime, radio is in a holding pattern. It’s not getting any bigger, but it’s not bleeding listeners either. As I said, even with all the new technology, we’ve only seen about a 3% loss in the last 8 years. That’s not bad. But to grow, radio needs to change, and that means focusing on what the listeners want, which may not necessarily be live or local.

 

[fredcantu]

If you’re looking for a justification for a DJ, it isn’t to be someone’s friend or play songs they don’t know. If you want to justify a DJ, they need to be enablers. They need to be hosts who allow listener involvement. DJs who aren’t the show, but allow the listeners to be the show. That’s not what most traditional DJs want. They believe in top-down communication: I talk, you listen. That won’t work today. Right now, we need to cleanse radio of all the pukers and guys who like to hear themselves talk. They need to go away. Then maybe, after a while, bring in some younger, fresher people who know what communication means. People who can make radio a two-way device, even though it isn’t. People who are really entertaining, not just convenient because they happen to live in the same town. In other words, radio needs to be reinvented. But even then, if there are a few stations in town already doing the personality thing, you need to go for more music in order to counter-program.

I like your thinking.

 

[mmnassour]

In the meantime, radio is in a holding pattern. It’s not getting any bigger, but it’s not bleeding listeners either. As I said, even with all the new technology, we’ve only seen about a 3% loss in the last 8 years. That’s not bad. But to grow, radio needs to change, and that means focusing on what the listeners want, which may not necessarily be live or local.

Well, all points well taken. My point is that local is what listeners want. If it's not that....then what else do we have to sell? Every kind of music can be had without commercials, from some other source. Are we to be sentenced to an eternity of sports-talk radio on FM? While I hope not, that might be the lot in life of commercial radio in the first part of the 21st century.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that local is what listeners want.

Really? How do you know that?

If it's not that....then what else do we have to sell?

That's radio's problem. Not the listener's. Don't confuse radio's problem with what the listners want.

 

[mmnassour]

My point is that local is what listeners want.

Really? How do you know that?

Because any music programming that's not local is done better by something other than radio, at least when it comes to the next generation of listeners. Have you been at a shopping mall lately? On a bus? At a high school? Count the radios versus other means of music distribution.

We're no longer giving them a reason to listen.

Look, I don't know what "local" programming wil attract people. But I do know what the 20-somethings and under are listening to...and it has nothing to do with frequency modulation.

 

[TheBigA]

Because any music programming that's not local is done better by something other than radio, at least when it comes to the next generation of listeners.

I asked how do you KNOW that. In other words, do you have some real facts? The next generation didn't elect you to be their spokesperson.

Music is music regardless of the distribution system. The quality is the same, the songs are the same, and none of the artists are local, so why do I care? Just play the songs I want to hear, and quit interrupting with all that damned local crap that you think I want to know.

Look...the next generation watches cable TV and it's not local. I think all this harping about localism is all inside baseball coming from a bunch of radio people who are just scared about their jobs.

 

[DominiqueRadio]

My point is that local is what listeners want.

Really? How do you know that?

If it's not that....then what else do we have to sell?

That's radio's problem. Not the listener's. Don't confuse radio's problem with what the listners want.

Excellent point!!!

 

[mmnassour]

Because any music programming that's not local is done better by something other than radio, at least when it comes to the next generation of listeners.

I asked how do you KNOW that. In other words, do you have some real facts? The next generation didn't elect you to be their spokesperson.

Music is music regardless of the distribution system. The quality is the same, the songs are the same, and none of the artists are local, so why do I care? Just play the songs I want to hear, and quit interrupting with all that damned local crap that you think I want to know.

Look...the next generation watches cable TV and it's not local. I think all this harping about localism is all inside baseball coming from a bunch of radio people who are just scared about their jobs.

Well, how radical! Industry professionals trying to figure out what their listeners want to hear. How dare they! ;D

If you think that people who are used to getting what they want on demand are willing to wait for four minutes of commercials in order to hear the next song, then go right ahead and keep doing things the same old way.

You said it yourself.

Music is music regardless of the distribution system.

So why would anyone volunteer to listen to commercials when they don't have to?

And the quality is not the same, given the crappy, compressed signals that now fill the corporate airwaves.

Well, it's obvious we're going nowhere here and that's fine. The next ten years will be a lot of fun for those on the the outside who like to watch radio, a lot of fun for those in radio who discover (whatever it is) will attract listeners, and no fun at all for those who are in radio that believe they have a right to the next generation of ears.

Mel K. did get one thing right during the debates over the Sirius/XM merger. He said something to the effect that the merged company couldn't be a monopoly due to the fact that technology has provided so many more channels for music distribution. I wonder if the owners of today's music-oriented stations were listening?

Probably not.

pax......

 

[Leebo65]

Are we to be sentenced to an eternity of sports-talk radio on FM?

Now there is a great idea. Lets getter done. The FM dial loaded with Sports Talk choices. Mans Radio.....Yeah.....