TheBigA said:
Some advertisers absolutely DO want to reach 12 year olds.
Besides.....lot's of research showing the kids control the radio dial while in mom's soccer taxi.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cumulus vs Clear Channel
- Thread starter acheron1982
- Start date
Some advertisers absolutely DO want to reach 12 year olds.
Besides.....lot's of research showing the kids control the radio dial while in mom's soccer taxi.
taylorengineer said:Some advertisers absolutely DO want to reach 12 year olds.
But they don't use radio to do it. TV is more effective reaching 12 year olds than radio.
There was no demand for "reality" tv until someone came up with the idea for "Fear Factor."
To argue radio already provides "everything" people already want and expect from radio is only half true. It all comes down to....."can you build a better mousetrap?" (In this particular case the mice are peeps.)
I would argue there are indeed better "mousetraps" for radio....they're yet to be discovered. There will be new formats, songs, talent, and technology. And humans, being the clever sort that we are, will continue to experiment with and evolve the content/delivery mechanisms.
Better days are coming, Brent! The internet will allow every possible niche to be served.....it's already happening.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
Tom
To argue radio already provides "everything" people already want and expect from radio is only half true. It all comes down to....."can you build a better mousetrap?" (In this particular case the mice are peeps.)
I would argue there are indeed better "mousetraps" for radio....they're yet to be discovered. There will be new formats, songs, talent, and technology. And humans, being the clever sort that we are, will continue to experiment with and evolve the content/delivery mechanisms.
Better days are coming, Brent! The internet will allow every possible niche to be served.....it's already happening.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
Tom
TheBigA said:taylorengineer said:Some advertisers absolutely DO want to reach 12 year olds.
But they don't use radio to do it. TV is more effective reaching 12 year olds than radio.
You ever listen to Disney radio? Some, not all, of the commercial matter is aimed squarely at peeps 6-12.
taylorengineer said:You ever listen to Disney radio? Some, not all, of the commercial matter is aimed squarely at peeps 6-12.
Radio Disney is an extension of the other Disney brands. It's not a traditional radio station. It's a marketing tool for the rest of Disney.
My point is that advertisers aren't buying traditional radio stations to reach 12 year olds. They want adults.
TheBigA said:taylorengineer said:You ever listen to Disney radio? Some, not all, of the commercial matter is aimed squarely at peeps 6-12.
Radio Disney is an extension of the other Disney brands. It's not a traditional radio station. It's a marketing tool for the rest of Disney.
My point is that advertisers aren't buying traditional radio stations to reach 12 year olds. They want adults.
It's not just Disney marketing. The primary purpose is Disney products imaging/positioning but they sell spots, too!
I'm almost sure the pimple cream ads are for the 12 year old girls and thee Summer's Eve spots are for their moms......but today you can't be too sure.
Again....it depends on what you're peddling.
But I will agree that most products/services advertised on radio is targeting adults.
But I will agree that most products/services advertised on radio is targeting adults.
acheron82 said:Good Morning! I'm the moron that created this thread but you guys have taken it in the wrong direction.
Let's get one fact straight: Cumulus and Clear Channel ARE the reason for the state of radio in Atlanta. I'm not suggesting one group is better than the other so lets get that out of the underwear real quick like.
Here is the deal; Im wanting to know which company is quicker to make changes either by tweeks or complete format flips. I wanted to hear some of your opinons on that specific question but we have got side tracked with our hate of both companies (which is understandable mind you).
Let me answer my question based on what I see and tell me if you agree. If you have two CHR stations in Atlanta and one is owned by Cumulus and one is owned by Clear Channel, I would suggest that Clear Channel would be first to make tweeks, take more risk, and if needed, switch formats all together. Cumulus tends to play things safe and make conservative, calculative moves (not risks). In Atlanta, a perfect example would be the Power and Q war and in Macon, the current Q106 and Rock 1055 war. In both cases, Clear Channel seems to be the aggressor while Cumulus tends to be the more conservative player. See where I'm going with this or have I lost everyone.
This would be interesting discussion of the operating philosophies of the two companies, if anybody would join in with some examples. But I don't see that happening.
Sorry I Missed the Point
Apologies for being so quick to jump into the feeding frenzy on consultants and management-types.
I see the point of the different strategies of the two giants. In my mind, taking it "slow and easy" gives one the ability to ride out the sudden rushes, the impulse changes, the freakish trends. Keeps you from jumping from one horse to another in the middle of a stream. That's the way my wife TV channel surfs--instant anything comes on she doesn't want to see, she changes channels. You never get a chance to see if things are going to develop as they might. That would be Cumulus.
Clear Channel, right, is so afraid a single dollar is going to float away they'll sacrifice any, everything, to jump on a bandwagon (or, what they perceive as a bandwagon). Then, once they've made the jump, pride and money commitment keep them from backing down or reversing. They figure they'll be the leader and convince others what they've done is really right and proper.
For my money, and if I were in a management position, I would rather be the third station to flip a format that truly is successful than the first and to antagonize a lot of folks. Put my checkmark next to Cumulus.
Apologies for being so quick to jump into the feeding frenzy on consultants and management-types.
I see the point of the different strategies of the two giants. In my mind, taking it "slow and easy" gives one the ability to ride out the sudden rushes, the impulse changes, the freakish trends. Keeps you from jumping from one horse to another in the middle of a stream. That's the way my wife TV channel surfs--instant anything comes on she doesn't want to see, she changes channels. You never get a chance to see if things are going to develop as they might. That would be Cumulus.
Clear Channel, right, is so afraid a single dollar is going to float away they'll sacrifice any, everything, to jump on a bandwagon (or, what they perceive as a bandwagon). Then, once they've made the jump, pride and money commitment keep them from backing down or reversing. They figure they'll be the leader and convince others what they've done is really right and proper.
For my money, and if I were in a management position, I would rather be the third station to flip a format that truly is successful than the first and to antagonize a lot of folks. Put my checkmark next to Cumulus.
The companies have identical philosophies and goals. Cumulus and CC (Bain) see their companies as purely an investment and not too much different from any other service business. They will make their money when they SELL!
The problem is that while these guys well understand business fundamentals they haven't a clue when it comes to the "show biz" aspect of the radio business. Because they don't understand "show biz" they can't even hire competent people who do understand the "show biz" angle.
The people running radio today (exception - CBS) do not understand the fundamentals of the product they're offering. They understand P/L statements but are at a loss to explain WHY this particular product is profitable. And if you need a "consultant" to explain it to you the you shouldn't be in charge of a media company.
The problem is that while these guys well understand business fundamentals they haven't a clue when it comes to the "show biz" aspect of the radio business. Because they don't understand "show biz" they can't even hire competent people who do understand the "show biz" angle.
The people running radio today (exception - CBS) do not understand the fundamentals of the product they're offering. They understand P/L statements but are at a loss to explain WHY this particular product is profitable. And if you need a "consultant" to explain it to you the you shouldn't be in charge of a media company.
taylorengineer said:The people running radio today (exception - CBS) do not understand the fundamentals of the product they're offering.
The people running radio are different from the people OWNING radio. There's a difference. To the owners (Bain or Oak Tree), you're right, it's an investment. But to the people running radio, they're focused on the product. Two different groups of people. Bob Pittman is a legandary radio programmer, going back to the 70s. You can't BS him with "you don't know radio." He will eat you for lunch. The people Pittman and Dickey have hired to execute their vision are also legendary programmers. Anyone who has ever met Mike McVay knows that he understands "show biz." Same with Tom Pohlman or anyone at CC. These are very smart people who are trying to move radio into a new era. As I often say, the future won't look like the past. And if you've been watching CC and Cumulus, they've been spending a lot of money on lots of things regardless of their debt. As for the comment about consultants, everyone benefits from outside advice. Everyone. If it was your personal money on the line, you'd ask for outside advice.
Yep.....just like the legendary Randy Michaels and the legendary Walt Sabo built one helluva news operation in the nation's two largest markets. Right......
The people who do the hiring must understand show business and human behavior. How do you set the criteria for a new hire if you really don't understand the business? Track record.....? All I have to say is Randy and Walt.
I would like the opportunity to speak with Bob Pittman.....I promise you he will not eat MY lunch - maybe yours but not mine. What exactly has Tom McVay done for Cumulus that has made the industry better? Name ANY Cumulus station which is other than cookie cutter and making a difference in this industry. Name just one.......
We need new leadership in this industry. The current bunch are not getting the job done. I do understand your defense of the status quo - you're a "member" and see absolutely no need for any change.
The Dickies only have one vision.....that's the problem. Their marching orders to staff is to maximize profits.....that's their "vision." Same for Clear Channel. Now don't get me wrong.....profits are good and the reason we have commercial radio. But is it possible to make a station even more profitable by making a genuine commitment to the community it serves?
The people who do the hiring must understand show business and human behavior. How do you set the criteria for a new hire if you really don't understand the business? Track record.....? All I have to say is Randy and Walt.
I would like the opportunity to speak with Bob Pittman.....I promise you he will not eat MY lunch - maybe yours but not mine. What exactly has Tom McVay done for Cumulus that has made the industry better? Name ANY Cumulus station which is other than cookie cutter and making a difference in this industry. Name just one.......
We need new leadership in this industry. The current bunch are not getting the job done. I do understand your defense of the status quo - you're a "member" and see absolutely no need for any change.
The Dickies only have one vision.....that's the problem. Their marching orders to staff is to maximize profits.....that's their "vision." Same for Clear Channel. Now don't get me wrong.....profits are good and the reason we have commercial radio. But is it possible to make a station even more profitable by making a genuine commitment to the community it serves?
taylorengineer said:I would like the opportunity to speak with Bob Pittman.....I promise you he will not eat MY lunch -
If you know so much, why aren't YOU running Clear Channel?
taylorengineer said:What exactly has Tom McVay done for Cumulus that has made the industry better?
His name is Mike McVay. Not Tom. The fact that you don't know that says it all. You're criticizing people you don't know.
taylorengineer said:I do understand your defense of the status quo - you're a "member" and see absolutely no need for any change.
Huh? I'm saying radio HAS to change. It's not the 70s any more. That means a change from the kind of radio you once knew to something else. You don't like where it's going. Sounds like you're the one who sees no need for change.
Bob Pittman is a legandary radio programmer, going back to the 70s.
Bob Pittman is certainly legendary, but his legendary status didn't come as a radio programmer. Yes, he was PD of the #2 rock station in Pittsburgh and then of WMAQ/Chicago and WNBC/New York. But, he became legendary as the guy who invented MTV.
Changes within stations owned by Clear Channel and Cumulus have absolutely nothing to do with company philosophy. They have to do with the personal philosophies of the decision makers involved!!!
Take Clear Channel Atlanta as a perfect example. There are so many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to programming Power and Wild that I take pity on Rick Vaughn! You've got the regional VP, Tom Poleman, Rob Miller from KTU, Brian Michel the OM, the GM, Clay Hunnicut and a few others all contributing their thoughts and opinions on the stations! It's hard to do anything with a station when you're having to placate the requests of that many people involved! Especially when everyone is listening 24/7 and CONSTANTLY emailing the PD to "tweak this" or "do that!"
Cumulus is a different story. While many thought, and silently prayed, that Mike McVay would take a firmer handle on the programming reins... Jan Jeffries continues to destroy good stations one by one. His philosophy and his opinion is all that matters in that company. Take Q100 as a perfect example: it was the Top 40 KING in Atlanta before it was sold to Cumulus. A station that really had it going on... until Jan took control and it became another glorified Hot AC that still reports to the Mainstream CHR panel. Without The Bert Show the station would be out of business. Jan is a 69 year old white male that has no grasp on the current state of affairs in the Top 40 world!
Sometimes I wish deregulation had never happened. Less cooks in the kitchen and more independent operators with passion fostered and grew an incredible age in radio. However, time marches on and, yes, change is inevitable.....
-a
Take Clear Channel Atlanta as a perfect example. There are so many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to programming Power and Wild that I take pity on Rick Vaughn! You've got the regional VP, Tom Poleman, Rob Miller from KTU, Brian Michel the OM, the GM, Clay Hunnicut and a few others all contributing their thoughts and opinions on the stations! It's hard to do anything with a station when you're having to placate the requests of that many people involved! Especially when everyone is listening 24/7 and CONSTANTLY emailing the PD to "tweak this" or "do that!"
Cumulus is a different story. While many thought, and silently prayed, that Mike McVay would take a firmer handle on the programming reins... Jan Jeffries continues to destroy good stations one by one. His philosophy and his opinion is all that matters in that company. Take Q100 as a perfect example: it was the Top 40 KING in Atlanta before it was sold to Cumulus. A station that really had it going on... until Jan took control and it became another glorified Hot AC that still reports to the Mainstream CHR panel. Without The Bert Show the station would be out of business. Jan is a 69 year old white male that has no grasp on the current state of affairs in the Top 40 world!
Sometimes I wish deregulation had never happened. Less cooks in the kitchen and more independent operators with passion fostered and grew an incredible age in radio. However, time marches on and, yes, change is inevitable.....
-a
@BigA:
1. Making a "if you're so smart" statement does not address the issues raised.
I, along with millions of others, would love a shot at running (ruining) Clear Channel. History is ripe with examples of people who could have "done it better" but never got the chance. Some people, like the Mays and Dickie boys, got that chance to run companies through birth - not because of "qualifications."
2. OK....So I got the name wrong. If I misspell or put the comma in the wrong place does that invalidate my question?
Tell me.....what has MIKE McVay done that has made Cumulus such a great company? What is his "vision".....and how does that sync with the Dickies "vision?" How will their "vision" change the industry and make it a better product?
3. We seem to agree on this: Radio, like life, is all about change. Love it or hate it.....it's going to happen.
The question is what will be the genesis of these changes? I keep coming back to that same ol' question.....does radio programming reflect audience desires and wants or does it create them.
I will use the reality tv example again. There was no desire for reality tv until Fear Factor first appeared on television. The public did not write letters to the networks complaining that there was not enough reality programming on the air. But look what happened after Fear Factor became a hit.....there are now cable channels with nothing but reality tv. This is a perfect example of creation of demand in markets.
My argument has always been that we need guys who can create the next "Fear Factor" for radio and the bean counters are not them. Current programming management does not appear capable of rising to the occasion. We don't need 70 year old men pointing us towards the future....they are relics of the past.....we need new blood and new ideas.
Do you agree or disagree?
1. Making a "if you're so smart" statement does not address the issues raised.
I, along with millions of others, would love a shot at running (ruining) Clear Channel. History is ripe with examples of people who could have "done it better" but never got the chance. Some people, like the Mays and Dickie boys, got that chance to run companies through birth - not because of "qualifications."
2. OK....So I got the name wrong. If I misspell or put the comma in the wrong place does that invalidate my question?
Tell me.....what has MIKE McVay done that has made Cumulus such a great company? What is his "vision".....and how does that sync with the Dickies "vision?" How will their "vision" change the industry and make it a better product?
3. We seem to agree on this: Radio, like life, is all about change. Love it or hate it.....it's going to happen.
The question is what will be the genesis of these changes? I keep coming back to that same ol' question.....does radio programming reflect audience desires and wants or does it create them.
I will use the reality tv example again. There was no desire for reality tv until Fear Factor first appeared on television. The public did not write letters to the networks complaining that there was not enough reality programming on the air. But look what happened after Fear Factor became a hit.....there are now cable channels with nothing but reality tv. This is a perfect example of creation of demand in markets.
My argument has always been that we need guys who can create the next "Fear Factor" for radio and the bean counters are not them. Current programming management does not appear capable of rising to the occasion. We don't need 70 year old men pointing us towards the future....they are relics of the past.....we need new blood and new ideas.
Do you agree or disagree?
I thought Temptation Island was originally what started the chain reaction of reality tv shows.
KDM 7000 said:I thought Temptation Island was originally what started the chain reaction of reality tv shows.
Okay...getting off-topic, here. But, as far as I know reality tv started with the success of MTV's "The Real World" and "Road Rules".
Ahhh, the early 90's...good times! ;D
There should be a Real World show for radio broadcasting. It can show what the people of various positions and titles (everyone from the owner / upper management people to the on-air personality voice) behind the scenes must put up with and go through just to make a station work and show / explain the competitiveness and reasons for certain decisions made behind the scenes. Just like Hell's Kitchen or Beauty And The Geek or Airline or Operation Repo and similar shows, it can show the emotional stress, diligence, pressure, and decision making, etc. necessary to get the job done right in addition to showing the people who successfully make it in the end of the season (the winners) and the people/companies who end up failing and getting cut (the losers). During the second season of this reality show, they could see how the new format of the station that failed during the first season turns out to be when put up against a direct competitor. The winners of each season can be broken down by format categories, or broken down to leaders for each format category (example: two chr's battling each other within a same city), and (the grand finale could be judged by) overall ratings. I guess having a rhythmic battle with a top 40 and a variety hits format battle with an AC type of battle could work for cities that don't have two stations within the same format category.
Cumulus vs. Clear Channel would be a good start. Or even better, CBS vs. Clear Channel.
Cumulus vs. Clear Channel would be a good start. Or even better, CBS vs. Clear Channel.
Another off-topic post but for historical accuracy …
Credit PBS (Corporation for Public Broadcasting/Public Broadcasting Laboratory) -- first true, long-form, unscriipted, roughjly edited shows was a series called "An American Family" of a film (not tape) crew followed the Pat Loud family for several month, boiled down to eight weeks I believe. Came out during the shooting her husband was having an affair, her son was gay, her daughter was pregnant … a fine protent of what the format was to bring to American homes.
But on topic, to me it seems corporate culture pulls the strings for stations these days. Sure, there may be local PDs and GMs but they know if they step over the lines the suits in the ivory tower shrink back from, they are toast. So everyone plays it safe, just doing what brings in the money. The PPM numbers may be there, but I would venture if you did a strong intake interview with a listener, you'd find they don't really give a hoot about the station, just the music, and then only about the music for a short while, until it gets old and "boooorrrrriiiinnnngggg!!!."
And that formulaic mold is visible in TV too. There are very few innovations in the entertainment field now, and likely to be less, as devices are created whereby one can develop one's one play and view lists, and time shift galore. Someone else may have said it, but "AM is dead, FM is fying. Love live the Web."
Credit PBS (Corporation for Public Broadcasting/Public Broadcasting Laboratory) -- first true, long-form, unscriipted, roughjly edited shows was a series called "An American Family" of a film (not tape) crew followed the Pat Loud family for several month, boiled down to eight weeks I believe. Came out during the shooting her husband was having an affair, her son was gay, her daughter was pregnant … a fine protent of what the format was to bring to American homes.
But on topic, to me it seems corporate culture pulls the strings for stations these days. Sure, there may be local PDs and GMs but they know if they step over the lines the suits in the ivory tower shrink back from, they are toast. So everyone plays it safe, just doing what brings in the money. The PPM numbers may be there, but I would venture if you did a strong intake interview with a listener, you'd find they don't really give a hoot about the station, just the music, and then only about the music for a short while, until it gets old and "boooorrrrriiiinnnngggg!!!."
And that formulaic mold is visible in TV too. There are very few innovations in the entertainment field now, and likely to be less, as devices are created whereby one can develop one's one play and view lists, and time shift galore. Someone else may have said it, but "AM is dead, FM is fying. Love live the Web."
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.