Declining radio audiences

[AMRadioGuy]

Keep in mind that running classic ads might open you up to legal issues:

Are Commercials Copyrighted? | Bizfluent

Although the purpose of a commercial is to expose as many people to your branding as possible, you don’t want your ad to be used by another to make money for himself. Television and radio commercials are protected by copyright and in some cases may receive additional intellectual property...

bizfluent.com

There are potential talent fees and music licenses if the copyright holder finds out. It's one reason why you see recreations, rather than originals.

Yes... so the commercials I use are all "in the clear," through the folks at jingle samplers:

JingleSamplers.com | Home

 

[Hyrum]

I heard a PSA today with two women talking about the weather, Woman 1 and Woman 2. It was very confusing, and finally turned out to be about foster kids. It was annoying as hell, and I can assure you if I ever hear it again it will take less than 3 seconds to hit the next preset. In fact, I can't fathom why any station would play the spot it's such a turn-off. And then we wonder why people are using Spotify.

The PSA probably was inserted into the automated programming to fill a hole because they didn't have enough paid spots to insert into some network type program. When the stations employ one person to oversee eight signals, the overworked and under incentivized employee will take the easy way and plug in a crappy PSA supplied by the dozen by a million organizations. It takes work and a staff to create a less annoying local promo or even a PSA for a local do good group.

As far as turning to Spotify, why would anyone listen to the same old crap on the same old station that has put no effort in to attracting an audience. We all complain about radio's diminishing audience and radio continues to play the same crap with frequent overlength stop sets. Radio has to provide something people want in order to attract an audience. They need to make the advertising blend with the program to hold the audience through the revenue generating spots. They don't. As you pointed out it takes less than three seconds to hit the next present to sample the same kind of crap that no one wants to hear being provided on the next station. Don't respond with the "well if you're so smart what should stations program" comments. I'm not that smart. Yet I am smart enough to know that doing the same thing over and over and over, up and down the dial means the erosion will continue. At some point it will be a better decision (every high end AM station) to turn off the transmitter and sell the land the tower sits on. Radio is a business and the business is failing because it is not changing with the times. Music radio only exists because it is the cheapest way to program a signal. Better music selection is available from a million other sources and if radio wants to compete they need to find a reason to to make people use it instead of the million other music sources. They don't. That would cost more than having Phil, the guy running the eight signals do the same old thing everyday on all those stations.

​

 

[TheBigA]

As far as turning to Spotify, why would anyone listen to the same old crap on the same old station that has put no effort in to attracting an audience.

How much effort does Spotify put into what they do. Seems like you have different standards.

 

[davideduardo]

The PSA probably was inserted into the automated programming to fill a hole because they didn't have enough paid spots to insert into some network type program. When the stations employ one person to oversee eight signals, the overworked and under incentivized employee will take the easy way and plug in a crappy PSA supplied by the dozen by a million organizations. It takes work and a staff to create a less annoying local promo or even a PSA for a local do good group.

Excellent point.

When I was PD of news/talk KTNQ in LA over 25 years ago, we were live and local 24/7.

I developed a PSA policy where we did two PSAs live every hour, done by the talk talent and totally improvised from liner notes on cards. They had to take no more than 10" to 12", and were all for local community activities. We first focused on things like a fair ("Kermesse") at a church, a fund raiser like a car wash at a High School, a fund raiser for a person needing an operation and the like. The weekends that the Girl Scouts were at the entrance to supermarkets we would push that. Voter registration, with rotating lists of locations by neighborhoods in the HDHAs.

Sooner or later (generally "sooner") you would hear about something in your neighborhood. Something that related to you or your family. In a market of 12 million we were doing door-to-door PSAs. Everybody else took care of the Red Cross and the like; we tried to help the local community groups, schools, churches.

We loved ones like the days that kids could go to their local fire station and climb on the fire engines. We liked the kite contests in a park. And we liked having our talent say things in their own words about "everybody's neighborhood".

I never have seen that done elsewhere except small town radio. I learned about doing that when overseeing an AM in Lake City, FL (where is that?) where there was huge local involvement. I thought about how to do that in LA, and realized that I did not have to change anything... just do little live and local PSAs about stuff that touched listeners.

 

[b-turner]

Hyrum, there has never been a time in radio where research is as good as it is. Given radio stations are businesses and business owners want to make money, those hired to program do so with all available tools to amass the largest target audience as possible. You are likely excluded as well as me. In other words, the music played is more perfect today than at any time in radio's history.

As for commercials, radio stations sell time. The advertiser owns that time and gets the message they want. They don't have to buy your station and can achieve pretty much the same results in several different ways. So, you start making commercials blend with programming and you're going to lose business. I sell radio. I know the mindset. It is not unlike hiring an employee and that new hire tells you, their boss, how things are going to go. How fast do you say 'you're fired'?

 

[Hyrum]

Hyrum, there has never been a time in radio where research is as good as it is. Given radio stations are businesses and business owners want to make money, those hired to program do so with all available tools to amass the largest target audience as possible. You are likely excluded as well as me. In other words, the music played is more perfect today than at any time in radio's history.

As for commercials, radio stations sell time. The advertiser owns that time and gets the message they want. They don't have to buy your station and can achieve pretty much the same results in several different ways. So, you start making commercials blend with programming and you're going to lose business. I sell radio. I know the mindset. It is not unlike hiring an employee and that new hire tells you, their boss, how things are going to go. How fast do you say 'you're fired'?

Is it as good as the people who sell it say. I'll agree that the goal of any station is to create the largest possible audience in order to attract the advertisers. I'll also point out that research says radio audience is declining in about every demo. As far as music research, who cares? Radio's future is not going to be music. Music is available from a million other better sources who supply the tunes without 20 minutes of commercials.

I have also read some things that don't make a lot of sense to me. We've been told that the eighth spot in the long stop set doesn't suffer as much audience fatigue as any intelligent listener would guess it would. Maybe they're right. Or maybe the ad agency has manipulated numbers to indicate to the poor soul lost in the middle of the stop set that their money is still well spent and they should continue playing the freight so the agency can continue to extract their commission. My point is that radio has to be entertaining and it is not. The commercials have to become part of the entertainment value of the station or why would an intelligent person listen? Oh wait. See above comment about declining radio audience. Even something as simple as a live read by a competent personality with a bit of wit has to be better than the crap I hear for seven minutes at a time on the stations I no longer tune in, except in moments of curiosity. I don't think I would bet the farm on today's "better than ever" research.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I don't think I would bet the farm on today's "better than ever" research.

In that case, I'm glad you don't own stations, because with that attitude you'd go broke in no time.

(edited the rest of your quote because, quite honestly, we've already heard similar rants too often already)

 

[Hyrum]

In that case, I'm glad you don't own stations, because with that attitude you'd go broke in no time.

(edited the rest of your quote because, quite honestly, we've already heard similar rants too often already)

Or maybe I'd be ahead of the curve and everyone buying the research would all do the same things and sound the same and complain about the decline of ratings and revenue. Hey...that sounds like about 90 percent of the radio stations still surviving. But you keep doing what you're doing. It's bound to get better if you just do the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over. Good luck. If you need help counting your millions, I can loan you a calculator. ( is that a rant? or humor? or reality?)

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that radio has to be entertaining and it is not. The commercials have to become part of the entertainment value of the station or why would an intelligent person listen?

Those same commercials air on the free ad-supported streaming services. Do you judge the entertainment value of them based on those commercials or are you once again applying different standards to them?

BTW It doesn't matter to me if the people who listen are intelligent or not. Just as long as they listen.

 

[Hyrum]

Those same commercials air on the free ad-supported streaming services. Do you judge the entertainment value of them based on those commercials or are you once again applying different standards to them?

BTW It doesn't matter to me if the people who listen are intelligent or not. Just as long as they listen.

I don't think much about the seven people each who listen to the hundred and eight billion streaming stations. Aside from a few examples, they don't make a gigantic impact yet. Yes, the future, when they can be punch up easily in cars...I get it. Today I am concerned about broadcast radio. It sucks and has to change.

So far as listener IQ points, it only matters to me when considering what I'm trying to sell. If it's something no one really needs, I want the typical young and dumb. If it's something people will research like a car, expensive appliance, or investment, I want a smarter audience if it's a good product., or a dumber audience if it's a second tier product, or political ad.

 

[b-turner]

Hyrum, you need to get yourself a station. Station prices have never been lower than they are now. And you can lease a station to try it out. Seriously, there are lots of older radio station owners (mostly in smaller towns) that would love to pass the baton. Since you think all the research is wrong, this would be an opportunity to not just present radio in the way you feel it should be done, but perhaps change things as we know it. My advice would be a smaller city. You could buy for about the cost of a new home or lease monthly for $3,000-$4,000 over actual monthly operating expenses.

 

[TheBigA]

I am concerned about broadcast radio. It sucks and has to change.

"It" is not one thing. There are 16,000 individual stations. Each one is different. If you want to talk intelligently, you have to be specific.

There is no "minister of radio" who you go to and say: "fix radio."

 

[Hyrum]

Hyrum, you need to get yourself a station. Station prices have never been lower than they are now. And you can lease a station to try it out. Seriously, there are lots of older radio station owners (mostly in smaller towns) that would love to pass the baton. Since you think all the research is wrong, this would be an opportunity to not just present radio in the way you feel it should be done, but perhaps change things as we know it. My advice would be a smaller city. You could buy for about the cost of a new home or lease monthly for $3,000-$4,000 over actual monthly operating expenses.

Why would I invest in an industry in such decline? I put all that cash in buggy whips and the Ford came out with the Model A. I did radio for 25 or 30 years and have no interest in doing it now that it is nearly irrelevant. My comments are simply to say stations can't do the same thing and expect revenue to get better. I don't have the magic answer but what they are doing ain't magic. By the way, just in case the buggy whips business picks up, where are you going to find anything with $4k monthly operating expense. I don't see any one person working for that salary. With volunteer free labor, you get exactly what you pay for. We can hear them on their super good oldies internet stations.

 

[TheBigA]

My comments are simply to say stations can't do the same thing and expect revenue to get better.

They're not doing the same thing. That's why you say it sucks. They're changing because the way people use radio has changed. It changed 20 years ago. Radio is not a museum doing what it used to do. The companies that own radio stations are redirecting resources where the listeners are. That's not broadcast radio.

 

[boombox4]

Hyrum, you need to get yourself a station. Station prices have never been lower than they are now. And you can lease a station to try it out. Seriously, there are lots of older radio station owners (mostly in smaller towns) that would love to pass the baton. Since you think all the research is wrong, this would be an opportunity to not just present radio in the way you feel it should be done, but perhaps change things as we know it. My advice would be a smaller city. You could buy for about the cost of a new home or lease monthly for $3,000-$4,000 over actual monthly operating expenses.

Radio is indeed a business, and an expensive one to operate. So I get it.

But, that said, he brings up at least a couple valid points. Radio companies too often take whatever OTA listeners they have left -- the "product" that they have to sell, to advertisers -- for granted. Of course, the "product" is dwindling anyway, as listeners migrate to streaming sites like Spotify, Pandora, YT, Apple Music, etc. Increasing numbers of radio listeners aren't loyal to the platform anymore.

However, if Radio ends up doing the same thing it does on air, when Radio migrates online -- flipping formats like a flag in the wind, canning popular airstaff at the drop of a hat, etc. -- how many of those listeners are going to stick with your stream? They'll just go to the online jukebox channels on Spotify and Pandora, or their own playlists. I think there are some changes in business methods that probably need to be made if Radio wants to survive online, long term.

I don't envy the people running the Radio business. It's obviously a tough business to be in. Just like any other legacy media.

 

[TheBigA]

However, if Radio ends up doing the same thing it does on air, when Radio migrates online -- flipping formats like a flag in the wind, canning popular airstaff at the drop of a hat, etc. -- how many of those listeners are going to stick with your stream?

There are no ownership regulations in online radio. So there's no need to flip formats. The reason that happens is because a company can only own a handful of stations. If one underperforms, then you change it.

 

[Hyrum]

They're not doing the same thing. That's why you say it sucks. They're changing because the way people use radio has changed. It changed 20 years ago. Radio is not a museum doing what it used to do. The companies that own radio stations are redirecting resources where the listeners are. That's not broadcast radio.

Agreed. Yet the fragmentation of a million sources will mean the profits will be hard to find. The big-time radio days are over. But, just maybe if someone does something entertaining while there is still in car listening, there can be a reason to use valuable electricity to transmit a signal. If not, build the better mousetrap and hope someone finds you in the crowded Internet market. I wish you well

 

[michael hagerty]

Or maybe I'd be ahead of the curve and everyone buying the research would all do the same things and sound the same and complain about the decline of ratings and revenue.

In which case, everyone else would be responding to what the audience has asked for, and you'd be...what? Throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if something sticks?

Name me five---no, let's make it easier---three radio stations or formats that ignored research, came out of left field and were successful. This needs to be in an era when modern research existed, so there was something for them to ignore. And I'll let you know up front, there will be fact-checking.

 

[boombox4]

Agreed. Yet the fragmentation of a million sources will mean the profits will be hard to find. The big-time radio days are over.

I'll match you and raise you one. The big-time media days are over. 30-50 years from now, there will be platforms, yes, but no big media brands. Look at news, for example. Online news sites might have a few million subscribers, if that. But there aren't any modern news sites with the pull or gravitas of the 1960's New York Times or Washington Post.

When it comes to video content, look at YT or any other podcast platform.... Hundreds of content channels / podcasts, and many have followers in the hundreds of thousands, some in the millions -- not many, if any, have the pull or audience that Walter Cronkite had.

These YT channels are replacing big TV. They are small 'brands', but they seem to be the way it's all headed. For example, Rick Beato is one guy. He's a 'brand'. David Pakman is just one guy. He's a 'brand'. Heck, Russell Brand is just one guy, and he's a 'brand'. They've each cut out their own corner of the media matrix, but none of them have the massive influence that CBS had in the 1970's.

Fragmentation -- it's only going to increase.

We are entering an age where there really won't be 'mass' media -- it will just be media. We're probably closer to that day than most of us realize.

To bring this back to radio, I see the same basic trend. For those of us who worked in the field for 20 years or more, I suppose we should stop complaining and just be glad the Radio platform still exists. But it's gradually going in the same direction.

 

[TheBigA]

But, just maybe if someone does something entertaining while there is still in car listening, there can be a reason to use valuable electricity to transmit a signal.

Once again, specifics would help. What market are you talking about? There are LOTS of people doing entertaining radio. Not all of them may be playing the music you like. That's often the problem. What do YOU consider "entertaining?" A slick fast talking DJ? There are lots of them.