• 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

Corporate Radio-The Movie

DB, this sounds to me like the 2012 version of the 1978 movie/Steely Dan hit "FM" (No Static At All)...at least if Corporate FM adheres to the mindset put forth in the Urban Dictionary definition...

"Mainstream radio stations that throw the sh*t that record companies call good music at you. They say it is cool and attempt to brainwash you into thinking the same. The fact is corporate radio sucks and you would all be better off turning off your radio and driving to the cool sound of silence."

Hoo-kay fine.

Although I was just a wet-behind-the-ears teenager back during the glory days of who-know-who...wasn't Capital Cities a corporation? Or RKO/General? Or Hearst, Westinghouse, Malrite, Doubleday?

I know, I know, it's different now. One could only own 7 on each band back then...and only one of each in a market.

This isn't a defense of Corporate radio per se...but I'm of the mindset that consolidation and corporations aren't the boogeymen many make them out to be. In fact I'll argue that one benefit of consolidation has been the ability to streamline backroom operations. Computers and improved methods have made the office workplace more efficient...just the same way studio improvements such as carts eventually made the board-ops assisting music jocks obsolete back in the 70's.

Yes you can argue that tighter ownership limits would prevent CC/Cumulus from destroying the medium, and you'd be correct. But I'd argue back that no matter who owned those stations, many of them would still be in a tailspin...for the same reasons we had crappy radio before consolidation.

Incompetent/greedy owners/management, too much corporate control, laziness...lack of passion...all nothing new.

Maybe there are too many stations...too many choices fighting for a static or diminishing pool of revenue.

Can you blame someone for plugging in Ryan Seacrest when the "local content" they're replacing is THIS...

"In the car, on the job, it's the station everyone can agree on with more variety in the music...we play the best mix of upbeat and slower songs...we specialize in playing only the very best upbeat mix of the 70s, 80s, 90s and today without a lot of rap and very little talk"?

Oh, and get that in over this :05 intro.

I know that's a broad brushstroke...many talented people who were doing it right have been cut loose too. I cannot and will not defend that kind of indiscriminate slashing of local talent. What I am saying is that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 isn't all by itself to blame for the sorry state in which the industry as a whole finds itself.

DB, I remember a SOWNY Show featuring you, Jack Armstrong and if I'm not mistaken Jeff Kaye...I think you did two of them just prior to Jack's death and as I recall in one of them, Armstrong talked about how PO'ed he was when the liner cards came to CHUM, where he worked in 1969.

Mediocrity is nothing new. But people today have a myriad of entertainment choices and aren't just limited to radio. Radio needs more than ever to be about emotional connection and entertainment...when given the chance, that type of radio wins.

I've stated all this before but I think in this context it's worth reiterating. Emmis and CBS are corporations too and both have committed to live, local and compelling content. Worst thing I can do when I go into work tomorrow is not be aware of what my listeners are thinking...what's going on in my market and with their favorite artists. Worst thing I can do is not have fun sharing all that. In the same breath I realize how fortunate and blessed I am that my station is owned by people who, from Corporate to the PD's office, understand the connection between live/local/compelling and their bottom line.

CC and Cumulus represent the worst of the corporate mentality. Greed, short-term-only thinking...one-size-fits-all mentality. I have to believe that those who continue to do this business right will prevail in the end.

Oh well, my inbox is filling with studio work. Time to make the donuts...
 
And a lot of what these people seem to want disappeared from commercial radio long before consolidation--in fact, as soon as Lee Abrams started signing up clients for "Superstars" and ABC's "Rock 'n' Stereo/[City]'s Best Rock" stations started taking off in the ratings back in the 70s. Abrams and Allen Shaw realized that the audience that was turned off by AM Top 40 was juat as turned off by the electronic music/15-minute jams/obscure R&B/avant-garde jazz played by "free form" radio--not to mention the political raps, music lectures and "it's quarter after five, like if you're into time, man" of the DJs. They just wanted to hear the good cuts (that would eventually be the second, third and fourth singles) from the new albums by the biggest mainstream rock stars, with jocks who sounded intelligent and stayed out of the way. And that's what Abrams and Shaw gave them--and why AOR sent "free form progressive rock" off to non-com land, where it's stayed ever since.
 
You keep insisting that "people" want to bring back '70s free-form radio. Please cite ONE instance of that. What a lot of people - air talent and listeners - would like to bring back is a less structured format more similar to the '80s. The number of opportunities to reach an audience each hour has shrunk significantly. Generic promos and station imaging have replaced live breaks, and VT and syndication have replaced live jocks. Relatability has suffered, and audiences simply find radio less compelling.

Too many consultants and corporate managers wanted to reduce the role of pesky local talent. In the process, radio has ceded its place as the medium for music discovery and artist information. Many people turned to the Internet because of that, not vice-versa. Survey after survey indicates that people are still annoyed because there's a lack of simple information like song title and artist - yet corporate radio doesn't fix the problem. It's as silly as cutting the number of sales people, cutting commissions, increasing the time spent by sales people putting information into a "sales system", reducing the number of support personnel like copywriters and traffic people, then complaining because sales don't improve.

You call it "old-fashioned". Some people prefer the term "smart management".
 
SirRoxalot said:
Too many consultants and corporate managers wanted to reduce the role of pesky local talent. In the process, radio has ceded its place as the medium for music discovery and artist information. Many people turned to the Internet because of that, not vice-versa.

The surveys I've seen still identify OTA radio as the #1 source for music discovery. Meanwhile, the record labels are hell bent on forcing those same radio stations to pay billions of dollars in performance rights. This is why so many stations are flipping to formats where they own the content, rather than rent. Companies like Cumulus and Clear Channel recognize it's cheaper to hire local news and talk talent than pay billions in music royalties. If radio stations felt they had respect from the music industry, perhaps more companies would be interested in providing music discovery and artist information. But why should we in radio provide free commercials for an industry that is on the record campaigning for Congressional legislation that would turn billions of dollars from radio to foreign-owned record labels?

The focus of this movie is on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But no time in the movie was spent showing how many American record labels were sold to foreign conglomerates in the late 80s and early 90s. Those foreign conglomerates have been cutting local radio promotion staffs and budgets, so most radio stations today never get to interview artists, or even receive basic label services. I've spoken with PDs in small markets who have to buy music, because they don't get free promotional copies any more. Why wasn't that dealt with in this movie? How do Americans feel about the rights to American classics like Bob Dylan, Merle Haggard, Benny Goodman, and the Beach Boys being owned by the French and the Japanese? I think if they knew, they'd be furious.

As I often say, it's impossible to talk about music radio without talking about the music industry. Yet here's a documentary that only focuses on radio, without any mention of the context in which these radio stations operate. I think it's unfair to blame radio for not supporting music, when the music industry has done so little to help radio. Back in the 70s, radio was seen as a partner. The label rep was a trusted friend. Not any more.
 
You really don't have a clue about medium and small market radio, do you? Label service for stations outside the top 50 was very limited long before label consolidation. PDs in small markets have been buying music for at least 40 years that I know of. At stations in bigger markets, support was extremely variable. If you were a reporter to the trades, you got Cadillac service. If not, you got leftovers. Indy promoters were usually more aggressive and provided more music and services than the major labels.

Radio's defense for NOT paying royalties is that they ARE providing "free commercials" by playing the music of major record companies. And I'm not seeing much in the way of stations dumping music formats for LOCAL news and talk talent. I am seeing robot talk radio replacing fringe music formats, and FMs turned into simulcasts for AMs in an attempt to reach a younger audience.
 
SirRoxalot said:
And I'm not seeing much in the way of stations dumping music formats for LOCAL news and talk talent.

Cumulus dropped classic rock in Atlanta for 24/7 local news. Look it up. Same story with Radio One in Houston. One of the big issues in New York City is the number of FM music stations that have been replaced with local news or talk. WRXP was sold to Merlin for local news. Then it was sold to CBS for local sports. Emmis did an LMA to ESPN last summer, killing off an urban format station for local sports. It's also happened in Philly and DC. Why do stations prefer hiring local staff for news or sports instead of music? They own it.
 
TheBigA said:
SirRoxalot said:
And I'm not seeing much in the way of stations dumping music formats for LOCAL news and talk talent.

Cumulus dropped classic rock in Atlanta for 24/7 local news. Look it up. Same story with Radio One in Houston. One of the big issues in New York City is the number of FM music stations that have been replaced with local news or talk. WRXP was sold to Merlin for local news. Then it was sold to CBS for local sports. Emmis did an LMA to ESPN last summer, killing off an urban format station for local sports. It's also happened in Philly and DC. Why do stations prefer hiring local staff for news or sports instead of music? They own it.

The Performance Tax makes spoken-word formats more and more attractive. I understand there are owners drawing a line in the sand and saying "never". Not everyone's following CC on this one.

I shudder for what that means for smaller-market operators who haven't seen revenues go up - in real dollars - in decades, suddenly having to decide between paying a performance tax to keep playing music or take on the overhead of a spoken-word format done right.

SirRox, I've only worked at one small-market station for whom record-company service was iffy. Usually there was a way to get it. FMQB, Gavin, MAC Report...of course the R&R reporters got the best service but my experience had been that there were options if you worked the right channels.
 
SirRoxalot said:
I am seeing robot talk radio replacing fringe music formats, and FMs turned into simulcasts for AMs in an attempt to reach a younger audience.

I guess expecting you to read all the way to the end of a post was unrealistic. It's not like we're getting much in the way of new talk stations. We're getting old AM talkers simulcasting on the AM band. Even at that, I'm pretty sure that there are fewer people working in news/talk this year than were working in news/talk last year.
 
SirRoxalot said:
It's not like we're getting much in the way of new talk stations. We're getting old AM talkers simulcasting on the AM band. Even at that, I'm pretty sure that there are fewer people working in news/talk this year than were working in news/talk last year.

Actually, as I said, there ARE more new talk stations...and a few original ones on FM...just not around upstate New York. You may be right about news/talk, but not talk in general. Lots of other forms of talk besides right wing conservative talk. Just not in upstate NY.
 
I could point out that this is the Buffalo/Niagara Falls/Rochester board, which NYers outside of NYC would identify as WESTERN New York. "Upstate" is 250 miles east of here. And, I'm pretty sure, after the latest round of purges by Clear Channel and Cumulus, that there are fewer people working in talk radio of any kind, and those people are spread out over more stations thanks to simulcasts. For a moment, Merlin shifted a few people around, and there may have been a slight increase in the number of people doing talk and/or news/talk, but we know how that experiment turned out.
 
SirRoxalot said:
I could point out that this is the Buffalo/Niagara Falls/Rochester board.

If stations in Buffalo are owned by companies with stations in other markets, it's very very likely that what they're doing in other places will happen in Buffalo too. As I said, several of those companies have shifted away from music to locally-based talk. And one big reason is because they want to own the content.
 
Wait, aren't you the guy that said programming decisions are made locally, not by corporate whim?

Secondly, you're saying that there's a trend, but I'm not seeing the numbers to back it up. About the only people that have started new talk or news/talk stations on FM signals that were formerly music are the Merlin stations. The others were music formats dumped in order to simulcast successful AMs in an attempt to expand, or at least protect their positions from other FM simulcasts. Two or three other FM talkers started up because big players got a new signal, and they want a piece of the pie, but that's hardly a trend sweeping the industry.
 
SirRoxalot said:
Wait, aren't you the guy that said programming decisions are made locally, not by corporate whim?

I don't know. Did I? It's been my experience that it depends on the company.

SirRoxalot said:
Wait, aren't you the guy that said programming decisions are made locally, not by corporate whim?

Secondly, you're saying that there's a trend, but I'm not seeing the numbers to back it up.

I told you that Cumulus started a local FM all-news station in Atlanta, and Radio One did the same in Houston. I didn't even mention the new CBS all-news FM station in Washington DC. These are all on former music stations. What "numbers" are you looking at?
 
Three - by three different companies, in three different markets. Now there's a trend. I thought news/talk didn't count? Now you're saying that the trend is to all-news, and locally-produced all-news at that. Oh, yeah, that's going to be cheaper than music. You could have added the CBS purchase of the Merlin FM in NYC, but that's just an FM simulcast for their sports AM. Why? Because Merlin failed with all-news in NYC.

How about the Cumulus purchase of WFME-FM in NYC? Do you mean to say that will go news, talk, or some combination of both?

Sorry. You're not very convincing.
 
SirRoxalot said:
Three - by three different companies, in three different markets. Now there's a trend.

It's three I know about. Not including all the new sports talk stations that CBS is launching.

SirRoxalot said:
Oh, yeah, that's going to be cheaper than music.

The point is that when you own it, you can do more with it. And you don't have to pay royalties. The performance royalty the RIAA wants will cost more than local news staff.

SirRoxalot said:
Sorry. You're not very convincing.

Oh well.
 
Yeah, and when you "own it", you're also responsible for it. And for what your talk hosts say. Just ask affiliates who carried Rush Limbaugh, and suffered the consequences of his Sandra Fluke comments. I think that more advertisers are nervous about talk content - especially wingnut talk - than they are about music content.
 
SirRoxalot said:
I could point out that this is the Buffalo/Niagara Falls/Rochester board, which NYers outside of NYC would identify as WESTERN New York. "Upstate" is 250 miles east of here.

Respectfully SirRox, isn't this a little bit picky? LOL

Having lived in Niagara Falls (although on the Canadian side), Westchester and Onondaga/Cortland counties, and with my wife's family scattered all over CNY, WNY and up and down the Hudson...I've always taken "Upstate" is a relative term.

If you live in NYC, "Upstate" is anything north of the five boroughs.

Yes, you are WNY, and I once lived in CNY and from a CNYer's perspective Westchester is "downstate"...but if you live in another state, I say calling the part of New York that isn't NYC or Long Island "upstate" is fair game.

Ok that was fun...

SirRoxalot said:
How about the Cumulus purchase of WFME-FM in NYC? Do you mean to say that will go news, talk, or some combination of both?

Scuttlebutt is either Country or some variation of Rock.

TheBigA said:
The point is that when you own it, you can do more with it. And you don't have to pay royalties. The performance royalty the RIAA wants will cost more than local news staff.

I really think for some, it's a matter of principle.

Whether a performance tax costs more than local news staff may be secondary for some operators to the fact that they're not paying it now and don't want to ever have to pay it...just because. Like a 9-year-old. Sound business principles be damned.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom