CLEAR CHENNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

[iused2bsomebody]

WITH ALL I'VE BEEN HEARING AND CLEAR CHANNEL CUTTING 400 MILLION IN COSTS. IS ANYONE THINKING WHAT I'M THINKING? GOING NATIONAL WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF TALENT FOR EACH FORMAT AND HAVING EVERY CLANNEL STATION BROADCASTING FROM ONE LOCATION? THIS COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO AND BASICALLY LEAVE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON AIR ON EVERY CLEAR CHANNEL STATION COAST TO COAST. WHAT DO YOU THINK? JUST A THOUGHT.

 

[icycool7227]

I think this would certainly make radio more limited and harder to get into by far. Anyone working at a large corporation company these days radio or not is more at risk for losing their jobs.

 

[arnoldevns]

(FYI - all-caps is considered yelling and somewhat rude on the internet.)

Clear Channel could do a lot of things to cut that much from the budget. I don't think what you're suggesting would be a wise move given the incomming administration. I think Clear Channel would be wise to sell off a bunch of their low performing stations.

In a perfect world, these stations would be programmed locally with live air talent 24/7. Clear Channel thought they could make more money centralizing programming and cutting down on talent. They're finding out that while they initially save money, they lose a lot more in the long run when listeners tune out due to programming that does not meet their needs or serve the local community.

With digital music becoming so ubiquitous, it seems to me CC needs to rethink radio as a whole. These days people seem to want music without a lot of commercials or chatter. Radio stations can provide something an IPOD can't: local news and weather, contests, and a connection to your local community. Clear Channel needs to balance the wants of the public with the benefits of radio.
Program the stations locally, cut down on the DJ chatter, reduce the length and/or frequency of spot breaks (and yes, maybe increase ad rates), add local news and weather, do contests, live remotes and public service events. Make radio entertaining again. Right now, it pretty much sucks.

 

[bossbill]

If listeners don't want "chatter", then why would we need a person sitting behind a microphone. If it seems that listeners don't want commercials and chatter, could it be because the chatter is not relevent and local? Commercials have always been a source of complaints, but maybe it's the 6 minute stopsets. We did 18 minutes and hour in bygone days, but never more than 3 at a time. Of course we also broke all the "new rules" and actually talked between almost every song. I suspect that more listeners would re-establish a relationship with the person on the radio if the person on the radio actually talked more than 3 times an hour.

 

[jeffdfw]

Personally, I prefer limited chatter and no commercials when I listen to music formats. That is why I prefer XM, HD2 or HD2 streams online when I want music. If I need a quick check of weather & traffic I flip it to XM 225 and get what I need in two minutes then it is back to music. If I am listening to talk like the Jagger Show I prefer local... Talk becomes too impersonal when it is not local in my opinion. Just my two cents...

 

[TheBigA]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

THIS COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

It's been done since 1926, when NBC started broadcasting national programming. Do you think Bob Hope was a local DJ? Do you think every town had live radio drama? Absolutely not. Radio stations have depended on national programming for 80 years. What they're talking about is being done right now on thousands of radio stations that carry music formats from Dial-Global and ABC, and talk formats from Talk Radio Network and Air America. Before satellites, radio stations carried music formats from reel-to-reel tapes mailed in from companies like Bonneville and Shulke.

Personally, I don't think CC will have all of their stations broadcasting from one location. they don't have one facility that could accomodate that, in the way XM & Sirius do. Perhaps they could buy the XM building in DC...I hear it's for sale.

I think it's much more efficient to focus on the highest quality talent in the company, and regionalize it. I think it's a good idea. We have too many no-name talents on the radio now. It leads to a lot of useless babble, as noted by others. Let's focus on giving people the best of the best, wherever they happen to be.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

I think it's much more efficient to focus on the highest quality talent in the company, and regionalize it. I think it's a good idea. We have too many no-name talents on the radio now. It leads to a lot of useless babble, as noted by others. Let's focus on giving people the best of the best, wherever they happen to be.

Gee, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps your paychecks are signed by the company in question. You've been going all over the board, telling us all what a great move it would be to go full syndication and eliminate all but about twenty talent jobs in radio altogether. Yet, your answer to the call to localize, re-regulate and deconsolidate is that those actions would result in the loss of even more jobs. Something doesn't really add up. I guess what you're saying now is that fewer jobs are a good thing for radio.

I do thank you for sharing the corporate mindset with the rest of us.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

Gee, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps your paychecks are signed by the company in question.

Sorry, you're wrong. If it was I wouldn't have time to visit message boards.

Something doesn't really add up.

You can't regulate companies into losing money. What you end up with is the US railroad system, where regulations chased out all the for-profit passenger rail companies, leaving us with Amtrak. The same thing could happen with radio, and if you think CC is "one-size-fits-all," consider how inflexible the US government is in its programs.

I guess what you're saying now is that fewer jobs are a good thing for radio.

I think radio got too big and bloated...too used to a certain level of income. Now the growth is slowing down, so it's time to focus on the fundamentals. So yes, fewer jobs done by better people, rather than just warm bodies to fill a chair.

 

[julesism]

IMhumbleO, CC (and others) have already changed the landscape of radio... I stopped listening years ago thanks to CD-R's (esp. filled with mp3's) and Sirius. Last time I recall listening to a station on a regular/daily basis was back in the Edge "hay-days" on 94.5, and the occasional turn to Z-Rock on 99.1

I'm in Austin now and even though I do not listen that often, I'm glad we have 107.1 KGSR.

And yes, I have HD in my car.

 

[julesism]

ugh... sorry i hit quote the first time instead of modify :-[

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

Gee, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps your paychecks are signed by the company in question.

Sorry, you're wrong. If it was I wouldn't have time to visit message boards.

Oh, believe me, you'd have plenty of time, just like some of the other CC middle managers that post here daily.

Something doesn't really add up.

You can't regulate companies into losing money. What you end up with is the US railroad system, where regulations chased out all the for-profit passenger rail companies, leaving us with Amtrak. The same thing could happen with radio, and if you think CC is "one-size-fits-all," consider how inflexible the US government is in its programs.

I'm sorry, my attention drifted on this one. I was reading the story about how Citadel and Entercom have both been threatened with delisting on the NYSE because their stocks must remain over a dollar for 30 consecutive trading days. Westwood One was delisted in November. Regent, Spanish Broadcasting System, and Radio One are also facing delisting. You're right, you can't regulate a company into dropping its stock value to 18 cents.

I guess what you're saying now is that fewer jobs are a good thing for radio.

I think radio got too big and bloated...too used to a certain level of income. Now the growth is slowing down, so it's time to focus on the fundamentals. So yes, fewer jobs done by better people, rather than just warm bodies to fill a chair.

From my experience, the only ones who are "used to a certain level of income" are the market managers who will cut every last soul in the building down to the janitorial staff rather than give up their own paychecks and perks. Growth for America means more jobs and less unemployment, so yeah, I guess it's slowing down.

We'll always disagree on what constitutes the fundamentals, however. I believe the fundamentals include serving communities of license and providing someone in the studio to let listeners know if a toxic cloud is drifting their way from a plant fire, for instance, while you believe the fundamentals of radio include massive syndication and eliminating most of the jobs in the industry. I'm sure it's just a difference of opinion, but I've also looked around and come to the realization that I'm not alone in my belief system. There are a lot of people connected to our industry who feel the same way I feel, that when we allowed Wall Street, the mortgage industry, and even companies like Enron to regulate themselves, well...look how well those all turned out.

We've got a new sitting chairperson for the FCC who has spoken positively about the issue of localism, and a new administration which promises change. I'll be quite interested to watch how things shake out in the coming months and years.

 

[12 In a Row]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

Gee, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps your paychecks are signed by the company in question.

Sorry, you're wrong. If it was I wouldn't have time to visit message boards.

Something doesn't really add up.

You can't regulate companies into losing money. What you end up with is the US railroad system, where regulations chased out all the for-profit passenger rail companies, leaving us with Amtrak. The same thing could happen with radio, and if you think CC is "one-size-fits-all," consider how inflexible the US government is in its programs.

I guess what you're saying now is that fewer jobs are a good thing for radio.

I think radio got too big and bloated...too used to a certain level of income. Now the growth is slowing down, so it's time to focus on the fundamentals. So yes, fewer jobs done by better people, rather than just warm bodies to fill a chair.

You are correct on all accounts.

Besides, could someone clarify "compelling content?"
It's not a one size fits all.

What I may find compelling, someone else will find annoying.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: CLEAR CHANNEL COULD CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF RADIO

You're right, you can't regulate a company into dropping its stock value to 18 cents.

I didn't say that. Those companies didn't drop their stock values. The marketplace did. Your attention drifted, and so did your comprehension of my point.

We'll always disagree on what constitutes the fundamentals, however. I believe the fundamentals include serving communities of license and providing someone in the studio to let listeners know if a toxic cloud is drifting their way from a plant fire, for instance

Those were the fundamentals in the 1930s, before the government came up with its own solution to local disasters. That's why the local government, after dozens of investigations, including ones by the US military and the Congress, ended up admitting that IT was responsible for the failure in Minot, and not CC.

But you're right...we'll always disagree on the fundamentals. Because I know that radio stations can either stay on the air 24/7, unmanned for overnight operation, or simply shut off the transmitters when they leave. Either way, the result is the same, no?

There are a lot of people connected to our industry who feel the same way I feel,

Great! There are about a thousand radio stations on the market right now. Feel free to buy a few and show us all how it's done. I've found it's easier to tell others how to spend their money than it is to spend my own.

We've got a new sitting chairperson for the FCC who has spoken positively about the issue of localism, and a new administration which promises change.

Forgive me, but I think the new administration has a few higher priorities than radio. Kevin Martin was a huge supporter of localism, and traveled around the country listening to comments from local groups in about a dozen cities. There still is a Localism Task Force at the FCC right now. I don't see how any of it matters.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

You're kinda cute. I'll keep my fingers crossed that your loyalty to the megaconglomerate business model is rewarded on Tuesday. :-*

 

[TheBigA]

You're kinda cute. I'll keep my fingers crossed that your loyalty to the megaconglomerate business model is rewarded on Tuesday. :-*

You can rest easy knowing that what happens on Tuesday will have no effect on me.

 

[nightfly61]

I'd much rather hear someone local say a :10 rap coming out of a song saying..."Seven minutes 'til 3 O' Clock & 25 degrees in the Motor City with a wind chill advisory in effect for all of the metro 'til 10:00 tonight, here's Gerry Rafferty on WXXX"
than some voicetrack reading how much $ & stabbings "Notorious" generated over the weekend. At least you know someone's "there".

Instead of cutting more of the common folk they should make Limbaugh voice track some syndicated music format shifts along with his usual 3 hour blowhard session or take a pay cut.

 

[qtpieislit]

It will change the landscape of radio, by pushing the listening public to the internet and portable internet protocol. 'Cause if you're stile stuck listening and languishing over terrestrial radio, then you're as stuck as listening to an eight track tape, with a learning disability.

 

[smedge2006]

It's been done since 1926, when NBC started broadcasting national programming. Do you think Bob Hope was a local DJ? Do you think every town had live radio drama? Absolutely not. Radio stations have depended on national programming for 80 years.

Let's not misrepresent the first two or three decades of radio here. Even in the glory days of Red, Blue and Mutual, local stations programmed hours of local shows a day. See, not every network program aired in every market. Shows were all sponsored by ad agencies then, and they bought market by market, depending on whether the sponsor's product was distributed there. In those days, many consumer products were only sold regionally. This meant that stations had to cover over shows that the agency didn't place in their regions. Most big network-affiliated stations had local musicians on staff, not to mention announcers, and yes, many DID produce dramas and other sorts of programming, not to mention news.

Let's note too that stations moved AWAY from network radio in the 1950's because it wasn't meeting their needs in trying to compete with television. Radio in the 50's through the 70's was in no way dependent on national programming save for news. About the only national show most of us heard before the Reagan era was Casey Kasem's countdown.

 

[12 In a Row]

Considering the state of the economy, a report of a couple thousand lost jobs won't even be a blip on the radar screen.

I can't imagine after the parade on Tuesday, President Obamas first briefing will be on the firings at Clear Channel.

Economy is in the tank, 2 million jobs lost and 2 wars.
Pretty sure local d.j.'s are way down on the food chain.

 

[TheBigA]

It will change the landscape of radio, by pushing the listening public to the internet and portable internet protocol. 'Cause if you're stile stuck listening and languishing over terrestrial radio, then you're as stuck as listening to an eight track tape, with a learning disability.

You wouldn't be a little biased there, would you?

The fact is that when most people turn to the internet for streaming audio, their first choice is internet streams of terrestrial radio stations.