The author makes a lot of sense. Too much for corporate consideration.
http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/best-radio-investment.html
http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2008/09/best-radio-investment.html
-
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.
Do you think any CEO's will read this?
- Thread starter Steven21
- Start date
Interesting reading.
What I found both amusing and sad is that the same people who bemoan the fact that radio is in trouble are the ones responsible for the position radio finds itself in today; declining listenership and the dismantling of personality radio after morning drive.
To answer your question, no I don't think any CEO will read the article. Why? Because they are too busy counting the money they rake in along with their nice bonuses. Besides even if they read the article do you honestly think they are going to do anything to make positive changes?
What I found both amusing and sad is that the same people who bemoan the fact that radio is in trouble are the ones responsible for the position radio finds itself in today; declining listenership and the dismantling of personality radio after morning drive.
To answer your question, no I don't think any CEO will read the article. Why? Because they are too busy counting the money they rake in along with their nice bonuses. Besides even if they read the article do you honestly think they are going to do anything to make positive changes?
Jerry is a pretty smart guy, I like what he has to say.
Speaking of recent events, I hate reading coverage of the NAB convention. All of the backslapping and speeches and rallying cries like "content is king" and "future is now".
The time is to stop talking and start doing.
Speaking of recent events, I hate reading coverage of the NAB convention. All of the backslapping and speeches and rallying cries like "content is king" and "future is now".
The time is to stop talking and start doing.
Would YOU Read These Posts?
Do you think that radio execs read these posts? Heck, would you come here, just to read a daily litany of how poorly you're doing your job?
I agree that Jerry is pretty smart, and he's not overstating the condition that radio finds itself in today. The dogfight is already in progress. Your cell phone provider is already pushing to add Internet access and music services to your plan. 3G systems will serve up enough bandwidth to make real Internet access practical, and prices will go down as facilities are upgraded and the number of users increases. Wi-fi/Wimax - coming to a car near you - will only make it the Internet that much more convenient.
Execs at the NAB all heard that "content is king" and "future is now". They're responding - with the Seacresting of America.
Do you think that radio execs read these posts? Heck, would you come here, just to read a daily litany of how poorly you're doing your job?
ThePickleReport said:Jerry is a pretty smart guy, I like what he has to say.
Speaking of recent events, I hate reading coverage of the NAB convention. All of the backslapping and speeches and rallying cries like "content is king" and "future is now".
The time is to stop talking and start doing.
I agree that Jerry is pretty smart, and he's not overstating the condition that radio finds itself in today. The dogfight is already in progress. Your cell phone provider is already pushing to add Internet access and music services to your plan. 3G systems will serve up enough bandwidth to make real Internet access practical, and prices will go down as facilities are upgraded and the number of users increases. Wi-fi/Wimax - coming to a car near you - will only make it the Internet that much more convenient.
Execs at the NAB all heard that "content is king" and "future is now". They're responding - with the Seacresting of America.
Re: Would YOU Read These Posts?
CEO's could care less what the peons have to say. As for destroying broadcasting, another "who gives a damn!" All they want is their money. I truly feel bad for people who are trying to make radio viable again.
It's fighting a losing battle unless a new administration comes into office on January 20th and reverses deregulation of the broadcasting industry and tears up the TelCom Act of 96. But that's as likely to happen as Ralph Nader winning the presidency.
SirRoxalot said:Do you think that radio execs read these posts? Heck, would you come here, just to read a daily litany of how poorly you're doing your job?
CEO's could care less what the peons have to say. As for destroying broadcasting, another "who gives a damn!" All they want is their money. I truly feel bad for people who are trying to make radio viable again.
It's fighting a losing battle unless a new administration comes into office on January 20th and reverses deregulation of the broadcasting industry and tears up the TelCom Act of 96. But that's as likely to happen as Ralph Nader winning the presidency.
Progress in Congress?
The only good news is that there appears to be considerable concern regarding "localism" in Congress. Ultimately, Congress, not the Executive branch, will determine the future of broadcasting. Laws carry far more weight than rules, and the precedents set when laws are challenged in the courts are far stronger than when a decision is issued about a governmental agencies rules.
The Voice of Reason said:It's fighting a losing battle unless a new administration comes into office on January 20th and reverses deregulation of the broadcasting industry and tears up the TelCom Act of 96. But that's as likely to happen as Ralph Nader winning the presidency.
The only good news is that there appears to be considerable concern regarding "localism" in Congress. Ultimately, Congress, not the Executive branch, will determine the future of broadcasting. Laws carry far more weight than rules, and the precedents set when laws are challenged in the courts are far stronger than when a decision is issued about a governmental agencies rules.
Re: Progress in Congress?
You are correct. However it wouldn't hurt to have an administration in the White House who wants to see the end of regulating not only broadcasting, but other industries as well. We will see after January 2009 who the real reformer is.
SirRoxalot said:The only good news is that there appears to be considerable concern regarding "localism" in Congress. Ultimately, Congress, not the Executive branch, will determine the future of broadcasting. Laws carry far more weight than rules, and the precedents set when laws are challenged in the courts are far stronger than when a decision is issued about a governmental agencies rules.
You are correct. However it wouldn't hurt to have an administration in the White House who wants to see the end of regulating not only broadcasting, but other industries as well. We will see after January 2009 who the real reformer is.
You are correct. However it wouldn't hurt to have an administration in the White House who wants to see the end of regulating not only broadcasting, but other industries as well.....
.....like the financial sector, perhaps?
Re: Progress in Congress?
You seriously want further deregulation in the broadcast industry? What, you want more consolidation because the limits on the number of stations that one corporation could own in a market would be lifted? Or, you want to go back to the "Roaring 20s" with a Wild West of radio - whoever can afford the biggest transmitter wins?
The Voice of Reason said:You are correct. However it wouldn't hurt to have an administration in the White House who wants to see the end of regulating not only broadcasting, but other industries as well. We will see after January 2009 who the real reformer is.
You seriously want further deregulation in the broadcast industry? What, you want more consolidation because the limits on the number of stations that one corporation could own in a market would be lifted? Or, you want to go back to the "Roaring 20s" with a Wild West of radio - whoever can afford the biggest transmitter wins?
Re: Progress in Congress?
No, if you read what I wrote I said that I want to see "the end of regulating not only broadcasting but other industries as well." All deregulation has done is make the greedy even more greedier. It has eliminated thousands of jobs in the broadcasting industry, and allowed a few major companies to gobble-up most radio stations in a market making competition almost extinct.
SirRoxalot said:The Voice of Reason said:You are correct. However it wouldn't hurt to have an administration in the White House who wants to see the end of regulating not only broadcasting, but other industries as well. We will see after January 2009 who the real reformer is.
You seriously want further deregulation in the broadcast industry? What, you want more consolidation because the limits on the number of stations that one corporation could own in a market would be lifted? Or, you want to go back to the "Roaring 20s" with a Wild West of radio - whoever can afford the biggest transmitter wins?
No, if you read what I wrote I said that I want to see "the end of regulating not only broadcasting but other industries as well." All deregulation has done is make the greedy even more greedier. It has eliminated thousands of jobs in the broadcasting industry, and allowed a few major companies to gobble-up most radio stations in a market making competition almost extinct.
Re: Progress in Congress?
After re-reading what I wrote, you are correct that I made a mistake. I thought I wrote the end of deregulation. Instead I wrote regulation. Sorry for the mistake.
SirRoxalot said:You seriously want further deregulation in the broadcast industry? What, you want more consolidation because the limits on the number of stations that one corporation could own in a market would be lifted? Or, you want to go back to the "Roaring 20s" with a Wild West of radio - whoever can afford the biggest transmitter wins?
After re-reading what I wrote, you are correct that I made a mistake. I thought I wrote the end of deregulation. Instead I wrote regulation. Sorry for the mistake.
--=+?
Voice, I thought for a minute that I had entered Bizarro World, and that you were advocating an end to regulation.
So, since you're already of the opinion that "Broadcasting is the equivalent of Bizarro World", I was entering "Bizarro Bizarro World". That would be two negatives, which I guess add up to a positive if my old-skool math is correct. Which I guess would bring us to the real world?
OK, now I've confused myself!
Voice, I thought for a minute that I had entered Bizarro World, and that you were advocating an end to regulation.
So, since you're already of the opinion that "Broadcasting is the equivalent of Bizarro World", I was entering "Bizarro Bizarro World". That would be two negatives, which I guess add up to a positive if my old-skool math is correct. Which I guess would bring us to the real world?
OK, now I've confused myself!
J
JohnGault
Guest
"the Seacresting of America." Nice phrase.
Roxalot:
I have been too busy to read blogs recently, so I just caught up today. Even though all the suits responded to Satellite and Internet threat questions by saying Radio would be more local, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I expect to see more voicetracking, more automation on weekends and overnights, more syndicated sports, and right wing nutz, and of course "the Seacresting of America.".
Oh yeah, how come every radio stations website is a cookie cutter platform with no LOCAL creative input...
ANSWER: There is no budget for actual product development, only lies to Wall Street. Guess we can all see where that eventually leads.
I am starting to think that Pandora or Itunes are going to do a great job replacing most music stations, a soon as solid reception is the norm. Reminds me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wicked witch flips over the hourglass and tells Dorothy "This is how long you have to live, and it's not long!"
Roxalot:
I have been too busy to read blogs recently, so I just caught up today. Even though all the suits responded to Satellite and Internet threat questions by saying Radio would be more local, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I expect to see more voicetracking, more automation on weekends and overnights, more syndicated sports, and right wing nutz, and of course "the Seacresting of America.".
Oh yeah, how come every radio stations website is a cookie cutter platform with no LOCAL creative input...
ANSWER: There is no budget for actual product development, only lies to Wall Street. Guess we can all see where that eventually leads.
I am starting to think that Pandora or Itunes are going to do a great job replacing most music stations, a soon as solid reception is the norm. Reminds me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wicked witch flips over the hourglass and tells Dorothy "This is how long you have to live, and it's not long!"
Live 'n Local
We really do hammer the local angle here, with good reason. I'd like to hear jocks who had the lattitude to say a few things every so often. Liners have their place and they're important to radio stations, but it'd be good to hear a jock who had the flexibility to turn a phrase. I'm not saying it has to be funny... or topical... or a long drawn out story. It also would be good to hear a jock be able to play a few songs of his/her choice within the format from time to time. Some of the stuff the jocks do on the Lake can be interesting, but more often than not, it sounds like a professor lecturing his/her Art History class about 16th century Italian artists... who painted only in oils... and were commissioned by the pope... but sold their art only to the Beluzzi family... until some members of the Beluzzi family were ex-communicated by the pope... then they sold their painting to the ruling class in Britain, who prefered portraits... of their children... and mistresses.... argh! OK. Enough.
We really do hammer the local angle here, with good reason. I'd like to hear jocks who had the lattitude to say a few things every so often. Liners have their place and they're important to radio stations, but it'd be good to hear a jock who had the flexibility to turn a phrase. I'm not saying it has to be funny... or topical... or a long drawn out story. It also would be good to hear a jock be able to play a few songs of his/her choice within the format from time to time. Some of the stuff the jocks do on the Lake can be interesting, but more often than not, it sounds like a professor lecturing his/her Art History class about 16th century Italian artists... who painted only in oils... and were commissioned by the pope... but sold their art only to the Beluzzi family... until some members of the Beluzzi family were ex-communicated by the pope... then they sold their painting to the ruling class in Britain, who prefered portraits... of their children... and mistresses.... argh! OK. Enough.
Websites
Just a comment on websites...
Most major corporations force their stations into cookie-cutter website templates, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for local content. Unfortunately, there are a lot of programmers who aren't comfortable updating their websites, and there isn't room enough in the budget anymore for a local "webmaster" to handle that duty for them.
The biggest reason that the corporate honchos forced use of templates is that there were plenty of really ugly sites out there produced by inexperienced and/or inept local webmasters that were either on the payroll, or worked for local hosting companies. Many of them didn't have some of the "behind the scenes" programmers that make sites really work well, offer more features, and keep the site secure. There's a lot more to it than making it look pretty. Unfortunately, the programmers seldom are into "pretty", and the "pretty" designers are seldom into programming. Templates often offer a better balance of both.
PS - I've tried to like Pandora. I've spent time building "stations", but find them to be too sterile for my taste. To borrow from Dow Chemical, I miss the "human element".
Just a comment on websites...
Most major corporations force their stations into cookie-cutter website templates, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for local content. Unfortunately, there are a lot of programmers who aren't comfortable updating their websites, and there isn't room enough in the budget anymore for a local "webmaster" to handle that duty for them.
The biggest reason that the corporate honchos forced use of templates is that there were plenty of really ugly sites out there produced by inexperienced and/or inept local webmasters that were either on the payroll, or worked for local hosting companies. Many of them didn't have some of the "behind the scenes" programmers that make sites really work well, offer more features, and keep the site secure. There's a lot more to it than making it look pretty. Unfortunately, the programmers seldom are into "pretty", and the "pretty" designers are seldom into programming. Templates often offer a better balance of both.
PS - I've tried to like Pandora. I've spent time building "stations", but find them to be too sterile for my taste. To borrow from Dow Chemical, I miss the "human element".
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.