If you can’t find a business that can benefit from radio, you’re just putting money into a white elephant.
This is a key point those who complain about Docket 80-90 fail to acknowledge. Those additional stations provided small and midsized markets format variety that was previously lacking, and allowed more focused demographic targeting in larger markets. While existing operators hated it from a business standpoint, the listening audience appreciated having more choices. And it also lit a fire under some station owners who were content to run a crummy operation because “there’s no competition, so why should we bother with something better?”Many of those stations licensed in Docket 80-90 probably shouldn’t have been licensed. The problem is the cat has been out of the bag for going on 45 years, and the audience has spoken. People want the additional choice those stations provide. They don’t want to go back to the days of Top-40/CHR and AOR stations playing everything under the sun. Going back to the pre-1980’s era of radio will just guarantee even fewer people will bother with the radio.
Had technological change proceeded the same way without 80-90 we might have seen an even quicker demise of traditional radio, as the limited choices would have driven audiences to new platforms at a much more rapid pace.
I used to read that because it was easy, then I wanted to continue to read about commercials, especially Super Bowl commercials, but I finally ended up not being able to find actual magazines anywhere. What exactly do you get?The agency business is in a transformation period, with immense consolidation (I still get Advertising Age);
The business has thumbed its nose at the LOCAL audience, LOCAL advertisers and LOCAL communities in order to "do it on the cheap". What is the incentive for anyone to listen to their hometown radio station anymore?
Although there are some exceptions, large quantities of owners have always had the idea of doing it on the "super cheap". We've all seen them, those who will not replace aging equipment, getting rid of air staff and engineers has always been on their wish lists. Some have even farmed out sales to outside companies. When the possibilities of bringing in satellite fed programing combined with automated spot insertion, these owners were dancing and partying to no end. They could get rid of most everybody thinking they could replace them with the same old worn out, over done and repetitious left versus right diatribe and thus alienated their listeners who didn't want to hear this garbage on every station. No matter who the "host" is, the content is the same just as if you played the same song over and over. THAT opened the doors to thumbing their nose at everything LOCAL and that is why radio is now a resident of hospice today. LOCAL radio combined with internet could have been a great marriage but stupid ownership and management wouldn't go along because of doing it on the cheap. Again, there are a few examples where some stations are doing an excellent job of still being local and I'm sure many of those reading can cite their stories.It's beyond the scope of this board, but if those are the trends, it doesn't bode well for society. I happen to appreciate the unique and the local, and it's a pity more don't. No wonder we're becoming more disconnected, more socially inept, and less concerned about actual news and the suffering of others.
What live and local content is going to get the big box stores to start advertising on local radio? This isn't the 70s.Although there are some exceptions, large quantities of owners have always had the idea of doing it on the "super cheap". We've all seen them, those who will not replace aging equipment, getting rid of air staff and engineers has always been on their wish lists. Some have even farmed out sales to outside companies. When the possibilities of bringing in satellite fed programing combined with automated spot insertion, these owners were dancing and partying to no end. They could get rid of most everybody thinking they could replace them with the same old worn out, over done and repetitious left versus right diatribe and thus alienated their listeners who didn't want to hear this garbage on every station. No matter who the "host" is, the content is the same just as if you played the same song over and over. THAT opened the doors to thumbing their nose at everything LOCAL and that is why radio is now a resident of hospice today. LOCAL radio combined with internet could have been a great marriage but stupid ownership and management wouldn't go along because of doing it on the cheap. Again, there are a few examples where some stations are doing an excellent job of still being local and I'm sure many of those reading can cite their stories.
Although there are some exceptions, large quantities of owners have always had the idea of doing it on the "super cheap".
We've all seen them, those who will not replace aging equipment, getting rid of air staff and engineers has always been on their wish lists.
When the possibilities of bringing in satellite fed programing combined with automated spot insertion, these owners were dancing and partying to no end.
LOCAL radio combined with internet could have been a great marriage but stupid ownership and management wouldn't go along because of doing it on the cheap.
If you visit any Audacy station, you'll see lots of local programming, even after the bankruptcy. The demand for local isn't as great as you think it is. It's only relevant in news, talk, and sports programming.Again, there are a few examples where some stations are doing an excellent job of still being local and I'm sure many of those reading can cite their stories.