Cumulus puts the final nails in WFNC's coffin

[quadraphonic]

Sounds impossible, but Cumulus cuts it closer to the bone at WFNC.

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/05/14/998792

Down to one full-timer?

 

[tothedj]

I had the pleasure of meeting Victor Dawson many years ago before his passing, he was a fascinating man who loved to talk
radio and when he said talk radio was the future of the industry, he was right, but it's sad to me, as a former Cumulus employee, to see a legendary station like WFNC to cut out local news and information, let alone not covering the primary,
listeners at times depend on local content, and now Cumberland County will have one less place to turn, i'm sure the Dawson
family regrets selling their stations.

 

[ncscradiogeek]

I like the way the article treated this.
It is a shame!
God help NC if we get another floyd or Fran like hurican this summer.
who are we going to turn to?

 

[B Lewis]

I worked there for a while. In fact, I filled in for Jim Cooke on vacation/sick days, etc on 'Fayetteville's Morning News". WFNC's morning show (especially the morning show) had a strong following and Jim Cooke and Jimmie Lewis, Jr. (the producer) are really great guys. How many more positions is 'C' gonna cut? That's a great 10Kw signal that will lose one of it's only real attractions. As someone mentioned, Rush, Hannity, etc are great for a national perspective (whether we agree with their political stand or not)... There are lots of ways to get Rush...but, "Fayetteville's Morning News" only had one home. As it stands, WFNC doesn't have a news department, at all...just a news room! Up to now, the producer got to the station around 3:30 AM...pulled the news (state/regional/and even local) from a wire service. Cut and pasted it...and read it! So, they have managed to pull it off quite well with only two people!

It would be a great idea for Beasley to try to pull of something similar on WAZZ 1490. It's a much weaker signal, but it may pull many of 'FNC's current morning audience. There is also WFAY (ESPN) on 1230. They actually have a really cool, store-front studio in the Capitol building in downtown Fville. 'FAY could try it as well. WFNC was doing it with two people, Jim and Jimmie. I really hate this for the two guys involved and for WFNC's audience. It does not make much sense for WFNC, but it does not surprise me!

 

[tothedj]

I look at the Fayetteville radio landscape and often wonder if one of the lowered rated FM's should attempt to go against WFNC and go to something that is driven on being "live and local", i'm surprised awhile back WFNC didn't move to 106.9 after the signal upgrade, the current "Urban AC" format isn't getting the ratings Cumulus was hoping for.

 

[DToTheJ]

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/05/14/998792

Down to one full-timer?

"In place of "Fayetteville's Morning News," WFNC will broadcast conservative talk show host Curtis Wright... [Jim] Cooke will stay on, reading the news in the mornings..."

Translation: He'll basically be "babysitting" Curtis Wright...

Quoting Jeff Thompson from the above article: "I join the chorus of those who look back at what WFNC was and what it has become... and I cry over it."

Actually, you can replace WFNC in the above sentence with any other cookie-cut station, and the same thing rings true.

 

[firecop947]

As a former Cumulus PD. This is NOT surprising. Very sad to see Cumulus destroy some great radio stations! It's happening in just about all of Cumulus' markets. The BIG question? Will radio ever return as it was???? I wonder!

 

[tothedj]

Kris, until something is done with "Corporate Radio", more and more great stations will be at the mercy of those who think eliminating jobs and programming is the answer, when you and i first got into radio, the emphasis was "live and local", when
Cape Fear Broadcasting owned the Wilmington and Fayetteville stations, that was their philosiphy, which is why they were
successful for many, many years, and treated their employees, like me, with respect, those days, i'm sad to say, are gone.

 

[jtudor]

Kris, until something is done with "Corporate Radio", more and more great stations will be at the mercy of those who think eliminating jobs and programming is the answer, when you and i first got into radio, the emphasis was "live and local", when
Cape Fear Broadcasting owned the Wilmington and Fayetteville stations, that was their philosiphy, which is why they were
successful for many, many years, and treated their employees, like me, with respect, those days, i'm sad to say, are gone.

Blame the FCC, and Congress for all of the above at every radio station in the country which has become part of a major group owner.

The only hope for change is if some form of ownership rules and limits are brought back to the industry. I do not think it needs to go back to the 7-7-7 rule but it needs a significant reduction from being wide open like it is today, so that local ownership can once again become dominant.

"Corporate Radio", which had turned radio stations into a commodity and made profit the only concern in all decisions must be stopped, or Radio as we have known it for all our lives will cease to exist.

 

[TheBigA]

"Corporate Radio", which had turned radio stations into a commodity and made profit the only concern in all decisions must be stopped, or Radio as we have known it for all our lives will cease to exist.

Sorry, but radio has been run by corporations for profit since the 1920s. That's the American system. The issue in this thread is that some companies are better than others. A lot of people are grumpy about Cumulus or Clear Channel. But I've seen what happens when a big company sells its stations to a small local company. Nothing. The new owners run the place just like the previous out of town corporation. That's what's happening. Getting rid of corporations isn't going to change that.

 

[w00t]

"Corporate Radio", which had turned radio stations into a commodity and made profit the only concern in all decisions must be stopped, or Radio as we have known it for all our lives will cease to exist.

Sorry, but radio has been run by corporations for profit since the 1920s. That's the American system. The issue in this thread is that some companies are better than others. A lot of people are grumpy about Cumulus or Clear Channel. But I've seen what happens when a big company sells its stations to a small local company. Nothing. The new owners run the place just like the previous out of town corporation. That's what's happening. Getting rid of corporations isn't going to change that.

EXACTLY. This is the Eastern NC board - everyone here knows how the IBX Media stations (not counting the talk stations) sound. They had more on air people employed when Archway ran it.

 

[quadraphonic]

It seems like at least the involvement of different people, and different voices on-air, makes radio "more exciting."

 

[XTalker]

While corporations have owned radio stations since the 1920s, it is a pure fact that the large radio conglomerates have ruined the business. It was the deregulation of ownership in 1996 that began the spiral. When you could only own a dozen stations, it meant for lots more owners, and lots more jobs, and lots more localism.

With consolidation of ownership, and the advance of technology, the radio business is NOTHING like it was prior to 1996.

The proliferation of satellite delivered programming and voice tracking has take virtually all of the localism out of the business. In large markets, there are still hundreds of stations with lots of local content and they are all doing well. Problem is in medium and small market (and even some large ones) the availability of around-the-clock syndicated programming has resulted in cookie cutter stations.

I hate to say it - i even pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming or in some sort of trance cause I hate big government - but we need to return to the day of regulation that did two things: 1) limited the number of stations someone could own (thus more jobs) and; 2) a requirement of a certain percentage of local content in all dayparts.

I would define "local content" as a period of time during which the a live voice and the other content originated from within the premises of the local facility. So, an hour of music programming would be considered local as long as the DJ was in the studio, and music was that was played was controlled by that person or another live human being in the same facility. I would give 1/2 "local content" credit for voiced tracked shows using local talent (like weekend shifts) using a locally based automation system.

In the case of talk shows, only those that originated from within the coverage area of the station and controlled from within the stations studio/control room could be considered local content. The exception would be a show, hosted by local talent that was originating from a remote location for a limited amount of time (like a week in DC or the state capitol).

Imagine what you might find on local radio today if you had the ownership groups of the 80s (even the 60s and 70s) and early 90s, applying the digital technology to the medium.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with corporate profits. There is even nothing wrong with a big profit! It IS the American way! Radio stations have to be profitable in order to continue to exist. That is where the content comes in. If corporate radio would hire local people, give them the tools and let the do their jobs, the could be profitable. The trouble with the industry today is that the way of increasing profit seems to be to cut expenses. They don't put much stock in delivering a better product.

 

[TheBigA]

While corporations have owned radio stations since the 1920s, it is a pure fact that the large radio conglomerates have ruined the business. It was the deregulation of ownership in 1996 that began the spiral. When you could only own a dozen stations, it meant for lots more owners, and lots more jobs, and lots more localism.

All that was starting to disappear in the mid-80s. More owners were looking to cut costs and cut employees. The first line of attack was technical. That started when the FCC dropped the 3rd phone requirement. Then the automation of transmitters. Owners fired the engineers. Localism was built on greed. Rather than run network programming, the owners hired local staffers for low pay, and kept all the advertising for themselves, rather than split it with a network or content supplier. Once salaries started to rise in the 90s, the economies went in the other direction. Voicetracking was invented in 1993, long before deregulation, and would have continued to grow regardless of ownership changes.

So you're pointing to these things as cause and effect, and I'm here to tell you, as one who saw it first hand, that the results were going to happen regardless of what happened in 1996.

I hate to say it - i even pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming or in some sort of trance cause I hate big government - but we need to return to the day of regulation that did two things: 1) limited the number of stations someone could own (thus more jobs) and; 2) a requirement of a certain percentage of local content in all dayparts.

First of all, broadcasting was built on national network programming. From 1926 until the explosion of TV in the late 40s, local radio stations were largely programmed by the national radio networks. And we call that period the Golden Age of Radio. Then, as I said, the owners got cheap, hired local people for no money, and kept all the revenues. Limiting the number of stations someone could own will not mean more jobs. It will mean terrible radio, done on the cheap, with fewer people. It will mean a return to cinderblock studios with no air conditioning. You can't legislate an owner into poverty. All your two rules would mean is that no one would own stations any more. What's the point? There are other ways to reach people without regulation.

Imagine what you might find on local radio today if you had the ownership groups of the 80s (even the 60s and 70s) and early 90s, applying the digital technology to the medium.

I know exactly what we'd have, because I know a lot of those people, and I know their motivation. They would apply digital technology, fire staff, and economize. If they couldn't own stations, they'd own syndication, and provide syndicated hosts to radio stations, in the way Bonneville, Schulke, and the other tape syndication companies did before satellite. You have a romantic view of local radio in the 80s. At that time, I worked at the cinderblock studios with no health insurance and no air conditioning with equipment from the 1940s. Sure we had localism, but we couldn't wait to get out and go someplace bigger with better facilities and insurance.

You can't recreate the past. In order to do that, you have to bring back the same people, make them the same age, and have them live and work in the same circumstances. Right now, the same creative content people who MIGHT have gone into radio 30 years ago would go into some form on online radio. Why? Because they could do it without regulations. They could do it without overhead and a lot of baggage from the past. They could create the future, instead of attempt to recreate the past. Hiring more people and spending more money at a time when advertisers can pick and choose where to spend their money is not going to work/ Thirty years ago, they had three choices: Newspaper, radio, and TV. Now, they have unlimited choices, with far better return on investment in other places. Increasing costs will simply increase the cost. It won't lead to more money. It will lead to more bankruptcies faster. Better programming doesn't mean bigger audiences, bigger audiences don't mean more revenues, and spending more doesn't mean you make more. I've tried it both ways, and I know it's true.

One last thing: Hiring local staff doesn't mean squat to the public. The public doesn't care about jobs for broadcasters. All they know is they want to hear their favorite songs with fewer interruptions, and fewer commercials. How broadcasters get there is their problem. But hiring more people with better content doesn't matter to the audience as much as giving the public the content THEY want without broadcasters controlling it. The proof of that is to see the quality of the content that has become the most popular on the web. It's awful. Lot of it is very dirty too. Poor taste. And it's attracting bigger audiences than a lot of live & local talent types pontificating to no one.

 

[smedge2006]

Once salaries started to rise in the 90s,

Unless you mean a handful of morning shock jocks, salaries were stagnant in the 90's. Especially in radio news -- that can be shown in the RTNDA reports from the time.

First of all, broadcasting was built on national network programming. From 1926 until the explosion of TV in the late 40s, local radio stations were largely programmed by the national radio networks.

This is an overgeneralization. Many larger cities had independent stations in the '30s and '40s (WNEW in New York is an example). Many smaller cities couldn't get networks to come to their little Class IV operations -- not even Mutual. Network advertisers did not buy every hour of programming in every city on the network line. Cities in the West and South often got left off buys in those days, when many advertisers were more regionally than nationally focused (Blue Coal, for example). Which created programming holes that had to be filled with local or syndicated product. Syndication had a stigma because it came in on scratchy transcription discs.

Hiring local staff doesn't mean squat to the public. The public doesn't care about jobs for broadcasters. All they know is they want to hear their favorite songs with fewer interruptions, and fewer commercials.

There's a device that does that better than any radio station could. It's called the IPod. Which means radio had better do something else. And you accuse others of ignoring technological change!

You can't recreate the past.

But entertainment modes can be revived. A great example is animation. When the big studios dissolved their cartoon studios in the 1950's, animation spiraled down into a long period of non-creative, churn it out sludge (voicetracking), led by Hanna-Barbera (insert corporate radio name here), and generally stank. That turned around in the 80's, and now blockbuster movies and many long-lived TV shows are animated, not to mention a whole cable channel devoted to cartoons. Radio could have a near-death experience, or just die, like vaudeville did. A lot depends on those who keep the flame alive during this current Dark Age.

 

[TheBigA]

Once salaries started to rise in the 90s,

Unless you mean a handful of morning shock jocks, salaries were stagnant in the 90's. Especially in radio news -- that can be shown in the RTNDA reports from the time.

Not a handful, not necessarily "shock jocks." Hundreds of morning teams saw huge 6 and even 7 figure salaries in the 90s. Many at a company people call "cheap channel." News has been in decline at radio since the 80s. Also not as a result of corporations or consolidation.

This is an overgeneralization. Many larger cities had independent stations in the '30s and '40s (WNEW in New York is an example).

Thanks for mentioning WNEW, because that’s a perfect example of what I was talking about. In the 30s, radio stations hired their own live bands to play music. WNEW was one of the first to get rid of live music and replace it with recordings. It got them in trouble with the Musicians Union, which took them to court. But they won, and it allowed them to save a lot of money in staffing. You don’t like voicetracking? It had its foundations when WNEW switched from live music to recordings in the 40s.

There's a device that does that better than any radio station could. It's called the IPod. Which means radio had better do something else. And you accuse others of ignoring technological change!

What do you suggest? Hiring more people? That’s why people use the iPod: To get away from chatty DJs.

But entertainment modes can be revived. A great example is animation.

The thing that turned animation around was technology. Computer animation and new technologies replaced hand animators with computers, like Pixar, thus making it much cheaper and quicker. Emphasis on cheaper. Couple that with investment in high technology theaters, bringing up the sound and visual quality at theaters so that people had a reason to leave their homes and pay $10 or more for a ticket at a theater. I don’t see that kind of improvement happening for radios.

The thing about animation is that even with technology, it’s expensive. The only companies that can afford that kind of money is a big corporation. Disney, Dreamworks (funded by Universal), and other big corporations are why animation made a comeback. It takes money, lots of it, to do the kind of radio you want. As I’ve said elsewhere, the only negative about radio companies is they lack the deep pockets of the older radio owners, the electronics manufacturers like Westinghouse or GE. For a short time, they had investment money from Wall Street, but that’s mostly gone now. For radio to have a revival, similar to animation, the current radio-only companies must be bought by bigger, technology-based corporations that have the deep pockets needed to FUND this revival. It won’t happen by going in the other direction. The minute Apple, Google, and Microsoft start investing in AM/FM, you’ll begin to see the kinds of changes, in terms of content and technology, required for radio to change. But it won't be built around more local DJs. Those days are over.

 

[vchimpanzee]

What happened to WWTB? I was going to the links posted here and making sure Wikipedia had them, and fixing the information that was there so it met Wikipedia's guidelines. But WWTB is on 104.1 and The Big Talker no longer simulcasts on that station. Or do they? I even looked to see who owned WWTB and couldn't find anything.

 

[tothedj]

WWTB, which occupied 103.9 until a few years ago, was bought by Educational Media Foundation, the owners who bring you the
"K-Love" contemporary christian format, in the process, they moved to 104.1, and became WKGV now out of Swansboro.
As for whatever happened to the second frequency for "The Big Talker FM" based in Wilmington, it moved to 93.7, and became known as "WNTB", the format that was simulcasted there was discontinued when WBNE at 103.7 went to 35,000 watts.

 

[DToTheJ]

... now blockbuster movies and many long-lived TV shows are animated, not to mention a whole cable channel devoted to cartoons. Radio could have a near-death experience, or just die, like vaudeville did...

You just gave me an idea. Maybe radio should go the route of blockbuster movies and eventually cable TV and come out with a 3D model. You can hear the automation system click away as if it were in the room with you...

 

[jtudor]

XTalker, you are preaching to the choir here.

We need local radio, oriented locally, originated locally and with lots of local input, presented professionally.

I believe it can be done and can be VERY profitable.

When you talk about the Ipod etc being what the public wants, I am not so sure I agree. What I want from a radio station is:

1. Entertainment
2. Information
3. Local Content
4. A connection the the local community

There is more, but I can get exactly NONE of that from an IPod or a CD player.

What masquerades as local radio now offers two things:

1. Music I cannot choose
2. Commercials

If that is all I can get from a local radio station, I will choose an IPod or CD player over it any day.

I truly believe that is why many people turned away from radio, because radio stopped offering what they wanted. Owners were starting to cut expenses instead of trying to offer a quality product. They started to see that as the easiest way to increase profits and went the route of lowest resistance.

I truly believe it can be done if owners have the will to do it. It might hurt for a while to get there, but if it provides a worthwhile product in the end, isn't it worth it?