*ding* Bring out your dead *ding*

[thebroker]

Re: A note on my math.

I belive my math is indeed fairly accurate, and here's why:

A baby might grow at the rate of 2.5cm its first month, and the Pony Express might have counted horses for 2 years, but these figures are not nearly as long-sighted as counting fifty years of history. There's a big difference in one month or two years versus fifty years. If a statistic is that steady for such a long amount of time, chances are good that it'll remain constant. And the point about Ford developing cars also isn't relevant here. In the history of radio, we've seen plenty of technological advances which where supposed to wipe us out but didn't.

Finally, as another point to bolster my argument, let's look at the price of a share of stock in a major publicly traded corporation. Using your logic, we can assume a company is headed for the moon simply because its closing price is substantially up for two days. But, over the course of ten years, these peaks seem unimportant.



And lunch is waiting, whether you agree or not!

 

[davideduardo]

> > 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.

This should be printed and framed. Great, direct and real.

All of us with some experience have tried the less travelled road, and learned not to do it again.


>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by David Eduardo on 02/14/06 03:39 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[Keith_Lake]

> 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?
>

You got some money? There's an open frequency in this market. Let's talk.

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

 

[Keith_Lake]

>
> This should be printed and framed. Great, direct and real.
>
> All of us with some experience have tried the less travelled
> road, and learned not to do it again.


These gentlemen make many valid points. If you look at it strictly as a business investment, it does indeed make sense to stick with the tried and true and familiar. If I had my money tied up in such a venture, I'd be mainstream all day long.

However, with respect to all that, I'm speaking as a listener, going by what I hear coming out of the speakers. It may be different in your neck of the woods, but around here we have an overabundance of jukeboxes with liners. I'm sure they make money for their owners, but they offer precious little actual substance for those of us seeking something more than mere sonic wallpaper.

The only place where the medium of radio comes even close to its true potential is "This American Life" from WBEZ in Chicago. When that show is on, I stop whatever I'm doing and actually LISTEN CLOSELY to the radio. I'm not aware of any commercial station offering programming anywhere near as compelling. If you've never heard the show, I highly recommend it. And then there's WFMU, which probably has more online listeners than OTA listeners, but they have their place.

Sooner or later someone *will* rock the boat enough to attract attention, and the stampede will be on. The format of the week will be all the rage. But the "Jack" fad will pass, just like Jammin' Oldies, all-80s, hot talk and all-disco all faded into oblivion. Then what? Me, I'm waiting for wireless internet to get established to the point where you can listen to webcasts in your car. That's when the real shakeout will happen.

KL

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

 

[Keith_Lake]

> > 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.
>

WFMU is actually on 2 signals: 91.1 and a 90.1 relay further up the Hudson Valley. *Somebody* is listening. There was an article recently that I wish I could remember the location of, where an electronic-store owner in lower Manhattan talked about the number of FM antennas he sold to people looking to pull in WFMU.

If they lucked into a spot on the Empire State Building for their transmitter, I suspect some of the commercial stations in town would take notice. The WBAI 99.5 frequency would be ideal, but that's just wishful thinking...

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

 

[thebroker]

The thing is, though, with extreme niche formats, they are only going to appeal to a relatively small number of people. This means that the service will HAVE to be national, or at least regional, in scope. And again, I still frankly view national radio, be it XM or another station's stream, to hold no tangible threat to me. And here's why: So long as I'm offering my listeners relevant information that they can't get anywhere else, they'll have to come back to me. I accomplish that with the 'stuff' I play between the songs, from news and weather to sports and even obituaries on the AMs.

The problem in my mind isn't so much the music, but what we do between the songs. And I'll be the first to admit that radio, in a whole lot of markets, has trouble with this. Somebody in one of these threads made a point yesterday which really hit home with me: You MUST be relevant to your listeners. Thank you for making that point...and I hope you don't mind my stealing it for my next staff meeting!

 

[Shawman]

> > > 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.
> >
>
> WFMU is actually on 2 signals: 91.1 and a 90.1 relay further
> up the Hudson Valley. *Somebody* is listening. There was an
> article recently that I wish I could remember the location
> of, where an electronic-store owner in lower Manhattan
> talked about the number of FM antennas he sold to people
> looking to pull in WFMU.
>
> If they lucked into a spot on the Empire State Building for
> their transmitter, I suspect some of the commercial stations
> in town would take notice. The WBAI 99.5 frequency would be
> ideal, but that's just wishful thinking...
>
> KL


If the format on WFMU can be more profitable than others on the commercial dial, someone will figure it out and program it. And yes, radio is a business, like any other business. Sometimes people get confused with businesses that rely on "the arts" to be their product. Movies, TV, Music ect. If someone shoots a film with no intention of making money off of it, then fine, the only thing that should be considered is it's artistic value, but as soon as someone puts money on the line expecting a return on investment, then it is expected that he artistic value will be "compromised" in order to maximize the ROI. Radio is no different.

 

[whyhellothere]

> The problem in my mind isn't so much the music, but what we
> do between the songs. And I'll be the first to admit that
> radio, in a whole lot of markets, has trouble with this.
> Somebody in one of these threads made a point yesterday
> which really hit home with me: You MUST be relevant to your
> listeners. Thank you for making that point...and I hope you
> don't mind my stealing it for my next staff meeting!
>


Heh, by all means! It's what works!<P ID="signature">______________
The power is yours!</P>

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: A note on my math.

> Finally, as another point to bolster my argument, let's look at the price of a share of stock in a major publicly traded corporation. Using your logic, we can assume a company is headed for the moon simply because its closing price is
substantially up for two days.

That would appear to bolster MY argument. Present trends do not necessarily predict the future.

> And lunch is waiting, whether you agree or not!

Lunch! At least you have your priorities straight! <P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>

 

[SaltyDog]

Not for you. But there are investors who do. Put your business plan together and pitch it to them. Be prepared to hit up your parents, brothers and sisters to lend you their life savings and mortage their houses. Before investors plunk down their millions, they like to see that you have some serious skin in the game. But if you're right and your plan works, you'll get it all back and then some.

> You got some money? There's an open frequency in this
> market. Let's talk.
>
> KL
<P ID="signature">______________
SD</P>

 

[scottclem]

This, my friends, is the "Post Of The Century". For all the doomsayers...."turn out the lights; the party's over"!




> 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.
>