• 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

*ding* Bring out your dead *ding*

T

thebroker

It seems that we've gotten into a quite lively discussion in another thread about the death of radio. And although I can't say for certain, it seems that those screaming about radio's doomsday probably don't make a living owning or running radio stations. Well, I do, so I like to think I'm at least somewhat qualified to comment on the state of our industry.

Facts are facts, folks. In the past 50 years, radio has gone from reaching 95% of the American population on a weekly basis, to reaching about 93%. That's a drop of TWO percent, in FIFTY years. At that rate, radio will cease to have an audience in the year 4331, if my math is correct. If that's death, it sure is a slow one. Sorta like saying I'm just about to die when I've only pricked my finger. And look at the advances in technology in the past 50 years: CDs, computers, internet, iPods, CDs, Cassettes, cable TV, and satellite. All these things were supposed to bring death to radio. But guess what: they didn't.

I certainly don't think my head is stuck in the sand. If it were, my stations wouldn't be profitable, and I'd have no audience. Rather, I believe the sour-grapes crowd is diagnosing radio with a problem we simply don't have. The radio business evolves regularly, just like the computer business or the car business or even the widget business. It's just a process. We do not need to reinvent ourselves, but rather keep up with what our audience and advertisers need.

As I stated in another post, if you truly believe radio is on its deathbed, come on down to Kentucky when one of my stations does a remote at the local mall. I'll even put you up and buy your meals. You'll see that we fill up the concourse with people, all of whom listen to the stations. And, you'll also see the merchants cash registers working overtime. Why? Because radio is still a VERY viable medium. XM or iPod sure can't fill up the mall in Middlesboro, Kentucky. But I can. And so can broadcasters all over the country, in markets large and small.

Successful radio isn't about chasing numbers or trying to keep up with the Joneses. It's about serving your listeners and advertisers well. I could care less how many channels XM has, or that Howard Stern has a gazillion-dollar contract with Sirius. But I better be paying attention to what's going on in my own markets, in the lives of my listeners. That's what makes me a better broadcaster. I'm there when our Lady Yellow Jackets make it to the state basketball finals, and I'm up late answering the phone lines at the stations when it's snowing and none of the big-market TV signals we get seem to care whether or not the kids have school tomorrow. Why? Because that's where my listeners want me to be. Let's see an iPod make a personal connection like that.

One final note, then I'll crawl down off my soapbox. AM is not dead. And, as Mr. Eduardo so eloquently stated, it sure is billing like hell. My two AMs have a measley 1kW each, and each serves a market with fewer residents than the average major-market apartment complex. But they make money, hand-over-fist, every month. Why? Because I serve my listeners/advertisers with them. Sure, Tradio, obituaries, and extended local newscasts may sound hokie to some of you. But, it's what my audience wants to hear, and I am priveleged to be able to give it to them.

And with my closing remarks, I claim to represent nobody's opinion but my own. Those of you who chime in telling us how stupid we are for believing in radio need to go find another party to crash. If you have no more confidence in this amazing business than to predict eminent death, then you do not deserve to be a part of it. You should simply go away, and allow those of us who truly understand this business to discuss it intelligently. Period-paragraph.
 
Josh:

I agree with what you said 150 percent. Radio should be about the listeners. Radio is only dying because we let it.

By the way, I challenge anyone to visit Josh's stations in SE kentucky and tell me he isn't doing local radio. All of you corporate people should feel ashamed, I some day wish and hope I could do radio like Mr Wilkey. He's a fine example of what broadcasters SHOULD BE

The Dog Catcher has spoken..........
 
But I'm Not Dead Yet!

The radio of today isn't the same as the radio of 50 years ago. The radio of 50 years ago wasn't the same as the radio of even ten years before that.

History buffs will note that radio before the early '50s presented mostly live performances of both music and entertainment programs. Most of the big stations were part of a network that syndicated content to markets across the country.In fact, it was radio that created an "American" language and "American" accent, and helped to break down the regional barriers that led people to identify themselves as "Americans" instead of "Iowans" or "New Yorkers".

Local content provided important information to listeners, and helped define the ideas shared by local people.

TV changed the sound of radio, and replaced a lot of its programming. Records replaced studio bands. Radio adapted, reprogrammed, and continued as a medium enjoyed by virtually all Americans.

The consolidation and syndications of the last 20 years - yes, it started before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - have changed radio again. I don't think that satellite is as big a challenge to radio as low-cost, high-speed wireless Internet access will be in a few years. Either way, radio will adapt and survive in one form or another.

And, old guys will say "It ain't like the good old days" just as often as young guys will say "Get out of the way, old man."

If we're lucky, some of those bean counters will get spanked before they give up control to the next generation. I doubt it, because bean counters are as good at holding onto their beans as they are at getting other people to gather more beans for them to count.
 
I agree with everything you said.

Problem is, radio is facing a challenge like it hasn't before. TV has the same problem:

People these days can have it their way! Especially with the more technologically-advances younger generation, you don't have to listen to the radio anymore to hear your favorite new song. You just load up your playlist and you can listen to nothing but the black-eyed peas all day. Granted, CD's and tapes have existed for a long time but it hasn't been this affordable and so much technology available ever.

Radio doesn't necessarily need to be more local for the sake of being local, it needs to be relevant! We need to constantly be evaluating what it is we are offering our listeners that no other service can. If we can do things locally and it's things our listeners care about, then that's great! The music jukeboxes aren't going to make the cut in the long run.


> It seems that we've gotten into a quite lively discussion in
> another thread about the death of radio. And although I
> can't say for certain, it seems that those screaming about
> radio's doomsday probably don't make a living owning or
> running radio stations. Well, I do, so I like to think I'm
> at least somewhat qualified to comment on the state of our
> industry.
>
> Facts are facts, folks. In the past 50 years, radio has gone
> from reaching 95% of the American population on a weekly
> basis, to reaching about 93%. That's a drop of TWO percent,
> in FIFTY years. At that rate, radio will cease to have an
> audience in the year 4331, if my math is correct. If that's
> death, it sure is a slow one. Sorta like saying I'm just
> about to die when I've only pricked my finger. And look at
> the advances in technology in the past 50 years: CDs,
> computers, internet, iPods, CDs, Cassettes, cable TV, and
> satellite. All these things were supposed to bring death to
> radio. But guess what: they didn't.
>
> I certainly don't think my head is stuck in the sand. If it
> were, my stations wouldn't be profitable, and I'd have no
> audience. Rather, I believe the sour-grapes crowd is
> diagnosing radio with a problem we simply don't have. The
> radio business evolves regularly, just like the computer
> business or the car business or even the widget business.
> It's just a process. We do not need to reinvent ourselves,
> but rather keep up with what our audience and advertisers
> need.
>
> As I stated in another post, if you truly believe radio is
> on its deathbed, come on down to Kentucky when one of my
> stations does a remote at the local mall. I'll even put you
> up and buy your meals. You'll see that we fill up the
> concourse with people, all of whom listen to the stations.
> And, you'll also see the merchants cash registers working
> overtime. Why? Because radio is still a VERY viable medium.
> XM or iPod sure can't fill up the mall in Middlesboro,
> Kentucky. But I can. And so can broadcasters all over the
> country, in markets large and small.
>
> Successful radio isn't about chasing numbers or trying to
> keep up with the Joneses. It's about serving your listeners
> and advertisers well. I could care less how many channels XM
> has, or that Howard Stern has a gazillion-dollar contract
> with Sirius. But I better be paying attention to what's
> going on in my own markets, in the lives of my listeners.
> That's what makes me a better broadcaster. I'm there when
> our Lady Yellow Jackets make it to the state basketball
> finals, and I'm up late answering the phone lines at the
> stations when it's snowing and none of the big-market TV
> signals we get seem to care whether or not the kids have
> school tomorrow. Why? Because that's where my listeners want
> me to be. Let's see an iPod make a personal connection like
> that.
>
> One final note, then I'll crawl down off my soapbox. AM is
> not dead. And, as Mr. Eduardo so eloquently stated, it sure
> is billing like hell. My two AMs have a measley 1kW each,
> and each serves a market with fewer residents than the
> average major-market apartment complex. But they make money,
> hand-over-fist, every month. Why? Because I serve my
> listeners/advertisers with them. Sure, Tradio, obituaries,
> and extended local newscasts may sound hokie to some of you.
> But, it's what my audience wants to hear, and I am
> priveleged to be able to give it to them.
>
> And with my closing remarks, I claim to represent nobody's
> opinion but my own. Those of you who chime in telling us how
> stupid we are for believing in radio need to go find another
> party to crash. If you have no more confidence in this
> amazing business than to predict eminent death, then you do
> not deserve to be a part of it. You should simply go away,
> and allow those of us who truly understand this business to
> discuss it intelligently. Period-paragraph.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
The power is yours!</P>
 
There are lots of new technologies out there, yes, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the jukebox-with-liners radio stations won't make it. I have long believed that when we attempt to become an entertainment medium rather than an information medium, we are setting ourselves up to compete in a market we'll never be able to. Why would anybody listen to a radio station that plays twenty-four in a row when they could just turn on the iPod and listen to the specific twenty-four in a row that THEY pick? Answer: they wouldn't.

But, let's see an iPod give local news and weather, or broadcast a high school basketball game. It's a matter of offering what nobody else can. That's where we come in as traditional broadcasters.
 
> There are lots of new technologies out there, yes, and I
> think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the
> jukebox-with-liners radio stations won't make it. I have
> long believed that when we attempt to become an
> entertainment medium rather than an information medium, we
> are setting ourselves up to compete in a market we'll never
> be able to. Why would anybody listen to a radio station that
> plays twenty-four in a row when they could just turn on the
> iPod and listen to the specific twenty-four in a row that
> THEY pick? Answer: they wouldn't.
>
> But, let's see an iPod give local news and weather, or
> broadcast a high school basketball game. It's a matter of
> offering what nobody else can. That's where we come in as
> traditional broadcasters.
>
This is true, but here is another reason people listen to radio instead of their Ipods. So they can learn what they like. Most people still hear a song first on the radio, and yes they can surf the web to look for new music, but why not let the experts sift through the crap, and play new stuff that fits with the other old stuff you already like to listen to.
 
"at that rate"

I don't think radio is anywhere near dead, but I am a stickler for well-constructed arguments. Your fact below, which is technically true, does not make a particularly convincing argument.

Re: The present-trends argument. A newborn will grow at the rate of 2.5cm in his or her first full month. "At that rate" we can expect the little tyke to grow to over 20 feet by age 21.

At the turn of the century, there were more than 13 and a half million horses used for transportation in the US. By 1901, there was only a slight drop and buggy makers could have made the same argument: "We've only had a slight decline in horses in the last 50 years and everything is fine." But of course, by 1910, the horse was replaced in public transportation by motorized taxies, electric streetcars, and subways. Henry Ford incorporated in 1903. The first cheap Model T's went on sale in 1908.

Radio ain't dying, but I'll bet that the change curve is going to get steeper faster than many expect, not flatten.

> Facts are facts, folks. In the past 50 years, radio has gone
> from reaching 95% of the American population on a weekly
> basis, to reaching about 93%. That's a drop of TWO percent,
> in FIFTY years. At that rate, radio will cease to have an
> audience in the year 4331, if my math is correct. <P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
Not only that, but "do-it-yourself" radio on your iPod can be time consuming, and when you're late to work and still have to drop off the kids at day care, you an get your music and the news and traffic without the hassle.
 
> This is true, but here is another reason people listen to
> radio instead of their Ipods. So they can learn what they
> like. Most people still hear a song first on the radio, and
> yes they can surf the web to look for new music, but why not
> let the experts sift through the crap, and play new stuff
> that fits with the other old stuff you already like to
> listen to.
>

That may be the case in your market, but the last time I discovered a new song on the radio and rushed out to buy it was sometime in 1978.

There's good music, and then there's radio music. I gave up on the latter a LONG time ago, and you certainly won't hear the former on the AM or FM dial today. At least not in this market.

KL<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
> That may be the case in your market, but the last time I
> discovered a new song on the radio and rushed out to buy it
> was sometime in 1978.
>
> There's good music, and then there's radio music. I gave up
> on the latter a LONG time ago, and you certainly won't hear
> the former on the AM or FM dial today. At least not in this
> market.
>
> KL
>

There are no CHR, AC, Active Rock or Country stations in your market. Yes these formats may play the hits too often...but there is always a new hit right around the corner.
 
> There are no CHR, AC, Active Rock or Country stations in
> your market. Yes these formats may play the hits too
> often...but there is always a new hit right around the
> corner.
>

That's another thing that has put me off radio when it comes to discovering new music: the completely ridiculous sub-sub-subcategorization of formats. When I first became aware of popular music, it was either rock or it wasn't. Now we have more stations than ever before, all of them claiming to be "new" or "different", and to me it all sounds like the same homogenized drone. Regardless of whatever three-letter acronym is used to describe it, radio music is radio music, and I don't have time for it. It's just plain BORING, except for the very rare bursts of creativity between 88 and 92 Mhz.

Oh well, I guess they all can't be WFMU.

KL<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
... I'm getting better ...

> I don't think radio is anywhere near dead, but I am a
> stickler for well-constructed arguments. Your fact below,
> which is technically true, does not make a particularly
> convincing argument.
>
> Re: The present-trends argument. A newborn will grow at the
> rate of 2.5cm in his or her first full month. "At that rate"
> we can expect the little tyke to grow to over 20 feet by age
> 21.

You're right.

But he made an otherwise good argument, so I
declined to mention tha mathematical fallacy,
which I might have otherwise.

(Besides, I want that free lunch in KY.)

And you know how I like to point out fallacies.

73s from 954

In keeping with the theme: "I'm getting better!"
 
> Oh well, I guess they all can't be WFMU.

I always find it a bit disingenuous when a person who has rather eclectic taste thinks that all people have or should have the same varied or broad interests.

WFMU is tuned in by significantly less than 1% of the population. That means that for every 25 people, less than 1 of them even listens to the station. So it must not be doing what most people want. In fact, there are around 65 NY metro stations that do better.

I have no beef with WFMU. I do have difficulty understanding why people must apply their own taste to others.
 
> > Oh well, I guess they all can't be WFMU.
>
> I always find it a bit disingenuous when a person who has
> rather eclectic taste thinks that all people have or should
> have the same varied or broad interests.

Dave, just because some rap station has 5x the
ratings of WFMU, does that mean the station or
its content is 5x better?

No. All it means is that it may be more profitable.

No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating
the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
...H. L. Mencken
 
Re: ... I'm getting better ...

> You're right.

It's about time you agreed with me. What is that, about 1 out of 90?

> But he made an otherwise good argument, so I declined to mention that
> mathematical fallacy, which I might have otherwise.

That's just the way I am.

> And you know how I like to point out fallacies.

I had a girlfriend once who gave great fallacies.<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
> > Oh well, I guess they all can't be WFMU.
>
> I always find it a bit disingenuous when a person who has
> rather eclectic taste thinks that all people have or should
> have the same varied or broad interests.

I honestly don't care what other people listen to. I just want to hear a station take a chance and dare to be entertaining and surprising once in a while. That is entirely possible within today's commercial radio industry, but no one wants to rock the boat.
>
> WFMU is tuned in by significantly less than 1% of the
> population. That means that for every 25 people, less than 1
> of them even listens to the station. So it must not be doing
> what most people want. In fact, there are around 65 NY metro
> stations that do better.

I don't know anything about New York metro stations or their numbers. All I know is when I listen to WFMU online I find myself highly entertained, something that is rare indeed on today's dials. It is absolutely nonexistant here in eastern NC.
>
> I have no beef with WFMU. I do have difficulty understanding
> why people must apply their own taste to others.

Hey, whatever you listen to, more power to you. I'm sorry you percieved my post as "applying my own tastes to others". That was not my intention. And I know WFMU is a non-commercial station and therefore does not have to play by the "rules" that stifle creativity at most every station above 92.1. The independent stations in the UK are another shining example of creativity being allowed to flourish instead of being committeed to death. But I hope I live to see the day in this country when "talent" on the radio means something besides fart jokes, celebrity butt-kissing and "humor" based on someone's suffering on the morning show. True, such things may generate large numbers in the ratings books, but they have also chased off many listeners to NPR and other alternatives.

I have a bad habit of sticking my foot in my mouth and riling folks up when I try to be earnest and clear about something. Please understand the views and opinions expressed in this post are mine alone and are not meant to demean or minimize anyone else's.

KL
<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://home.nc.rr.com/gttyson/lastradio.html">The Last Radio Station<a></P>
 
> > > Oh well, I guess they all can't be WFMU.
> >
> > I always find it a bit disingenuous when a person who has
> > rather eclectic taste thinks that all people have or
> should
> > have the same varied or broad interests.
>
> Dave, just because some rap station has 5x the
> ratings of WFMU, does that mean the station or
> its content is 5x better?

No, it means that, for example, Hot 97.7 in NY has about 20 times the listeners of WFMU. In other words, more people like Hot than like WFMU.

As I said, I do not have any argument with WFMU or its programming. My issue is with people who think thier good taste is better than my good taste or that of other listeners. I do not listen to the radio to hear what others think I should listen to.
>
> No. All it means is that it may be more profitable.

Actually, is means exactly what the face value says: more people like it than they like the other station. Profitability is based on a station´s management to monetize the listener base. As such, it has nothing to do with taste but with business skills.
>
> No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating
> the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
> ...H. L. Mencken

As someone who talks with lots of listeners, I find they have a pretty clear and concise ability to recognize what they like and do not like. To criticize them for not liking what I like would be arrogant.
>
 
954 Ratings

> > You're right.
> It's about time you agreed with me. What is that, about 1
> out of 90?

Naw. I thought you had a better 954Rating<sup>TM</sup> than that.

Even Doc and Phil have 954Ratings<sup>TM</sup> of over 3%.

> > But he made an otherwise good argument, so I declined to
> mention that
> > mathematical fallacy, which I might have otherwise.
>
> That's just the way I am.
>
> > And you know how I like to point out fallacies.
>
> I had a girlfriend once who gave great fallacies.

Could you say that on the air?

If not, could you just send her over here?

73s from 954
Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, & McCormack
 
> I honestly don't care what other people listen to. I just want to hear a station > take a chance and dare to be entertaining and surprising once in a while. That > is entirely possible within today's commercial radio industry,
> but no one wants to rock the boat.

Everyone, including me, has all kinds of free advice for radio station owners. But there is nothing stopping anyone, you or me, from putting our ideas into a business plan and pitching it to investors. Would we be so confident if it was our money on the line?<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>
 
> That is
> entirely possible within today's commercial radio industry,
> but no one wants to rock the boat.


Frankly, we are not willing to rock the boat for a very good reason. I've spent my entire life working hard to own radio stations. There's no way on earth I'd risk what I've sacrificed so much to get by playing with a format which isn't "mainstream". In this market, I run three formats: Hot AC, Country and Oldies...between the three, I'm sure to appeal to the large majority of the folks in my market. That's why anybody you stop on the street recognizes my call letters: they listen because I play what they want to hear. Now, if I were to run AAA, Classical and Deep-cuts Rock, there's no way on earth I'd have as large a listener base, even if I supplemented the music with all the news, weather and sports I do. The risk just simply isn't worth the potential reward, because I see no possible reward by straying from mainstream. After all, mainstream is mainstream for a reason. You and I might not care for Hot AC, but it's popular for a reason: people listen.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom