Elvis Duran Says Radio Isn’t What It Used To Be...

[TheBigA]

I certainly don't have any studies to cite. I am reacting to what seems to be a recent tilt in comments all across the forums,

Regarding the people making those comments: Are ANY of them under 50? The boomers want radio to be what it was, and so much has changed in the last 40 years, in terms of music, in terms of the marketplace, in terms of advertising, and mostly because of the internet.

those creative people should be allowed to experiment and come up with a combination that CAN do battle with phones and web music stations.

People have been trying for 20 years, and I'm here to tell you that there is NOTHING any PD can do, no format he can create, no people he can hire, no ideas he can try, that will compete with the internet. Why? Because as a country we are becoming MORE segmented and less consensus. That's bad for something like radio. So what's happening at radio companies like Cumulus and iHeart is they're focusing their creative attention on going after the audience where it is, which is in podcasting and other platforms.

Among the younger demos, radio seems to have lost its mojo.

Don't you think the internet has anything to do with that? This isn't a recent development. It's been going on for 25 years. It's affected the retail business and the music business. Radio is dependent on BOTH of those businesses. So it's bound to affect radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I disagree here... How is Twitch interactive? Largely through commenting. Radio can be interactive, too - phone lines exist for a reason. Many online streaming options also have comment sections.

Twitch and social media is immediate. I'm reacting to you NOW in real time. I'm not waiting for a call screener to select my call. I'm speaking one to one to you. That's very different from calling a request line or emailing a station website.

They used to be a common occurrence. Today? Not really at all. Personalities used to MC concerts and whatnot - also interactive. Once again, this largely no longer exists.

Not the same thing. You're talking one-to-many. I'm talking one-to-one. Two very different processes.

Saying that radio isn't interactive is just not true. Lazy and cheap radio isn't. But with a bit of effort, it definitely can be.

Once again, not the same thing. People want individualized service. Not mass media. Two different things.

 

[davideduardo]

Here's what blew my mind recently: local station, morning show, mostly interviews health doctors, local vet, government official, officials/team members from various pro sports teams, local coaches from high schools, various other "famous" people, not many yuck-yucks.....and then an hour and a half later they're re-running the interview of whomever they had interviewed earlier! Almost EVERY day they do that! Are they so short of ideas, things to talk about, etc. that they have to do THAT? Then throughout the day ads for "if you missed our morning show, we talked to [name of whomever] and you can log onto our website and listen to the podcast of the morning show to hear what you missed."

The morning show I had at WPRM and its network in Puerto Rico in the 90's was live from 6 AM to 8 AM. From 8 AM to 10 AM we reran the first two hours. And the next day, from 5 AM to 6 AM we reran the second hour of the day before.

In a market with 130 stations, we had around a 28 to 30 share in 18-34 and about 24 shares in 18-49.

Research showed that about 95% of the second two hour audience was different. And among the longer time per day listeners, they liked hearing the same things over because "I usually miss some of it".

 

[Yabadabado1]

The morning show I had at WPRM and its network in Puerto Rico in the 90's was live from 6 AM to 8 AM. From 8 AM to 10 AM we reran the first two hours. And the next day, from 5 AM to 6 AM we reran the second hour of the day before.

In a market with 130 stations, we had around a 28 to 30 share in 18-34 and about 24 shares in 18-49.

Research showed that about 95% of the second two hour audience was different. And among the longer time per day listeners, they liked hearing the same things over because "I usually miss some of it".

To each their own. I'd rather hear something new rather than a repeat of something that had already played. As they promote, you can also listen on their podcast by going to their website if you missed it. And about every other ad break throughout the day and night, they are promoting the podcast. I don't know when they started doing that but any station I was at and even the ones I didn't work at, the morning show, heck, any show never repeated something that had already aired. About the only time was when they started doing "The best of" shows on Saturday mornings.

 

[b-turner]

That's just it! The person hearing it at 6:15 is not tuned in at 9:15. It is all fresh each play because people do not listen to radio that way.

 

[MassMusicMan]

how can radio make a show that is fun and interactive - maybe with a quiz format.

You've suggested this twice now. I can tell you as a 19-year veteran of pub quiz hosting that the people most interested in trivia games are people who listen to indie alternative, and/or to public radio.

Contemporary formats mean nothing to them. Maybe the all-Christmas AC has some sentimental appeal, but that's it. The future of American commercial radio isn't in serving people who make good decisions with money, it's in serving people who make bad decisions with money. And those people largely listen to country, and to properly delineated classic rock (Guns n' Roses, not Dire Straits).

 

[boombox4]

Radio is interactive, or it CAN be interactive. It's always had that capability after radio stations had phone lines available for playing callers' voices over the air -- which I think dates back to the 1950's or early 1960's, at least. Of course, talk radio is an example of that -- except most of what passes for talk radio these days is just the guy or woman behind the mic.

After the internet and texting on phones hit in the 90's and 00's, Radio had the capability to use those interactive services as well. Social media pages for stations and shows also have capabilities for listeners to interact, not only with the people on air, but also with each other. I don't know how often that is done, but the tech has been around for as long as there has been social media.

I listened to Ben Maller Monday night / Tuesday a.m. after the MNF game. I hadn't listened to his show in a while. He had callers, and I think he also had a few texts that he read. There was a certain amount of interaction. I know he has a decent social media presence. Sure, it's sports talk radio, but it's an example of how a show can have lively interaction with listeners.

But it has to be a live show, obviously, to be as interactive as the live content creators on the internet, where there's a live stream and you see the posts / comments scrolling down the side of the screen (like they do on YT).

As for Mr. Duran's contention that radio companies ditched personalities for music, maybe he has a point. How many airstaff get laid off by the big companies every year? And how many of those laid off airstaff ever make it back to Radio? During one major RIF a couple years ago there were popular, highly rated airstaff who were axed. Perhaps that's what Duran was referring to.

Of course, the 'suits' are dealing with the economic realities of the business these days. Mr. Duran didn't seem to mention that reality. You can't pay people if the money is getting scarcer.

The internet, the smart phone -- they've changed everything.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Twitch and social media is immediate. I'm reacting to you NOW in real time. I'm not waiting for a call screener to select my call. I'm speaking one to one to you. That's very different from calling a request line or emailing a station website.



Not the same thing. You're talking one-to-many. I'm talking one-to-one. Two very different processes.



Once again, not the same thing. People want individualized service. Not mass media. Two different things.

I was comparing to Twitch and streamers like that specifically from an engagement perspective... Twitch is one-to-many. So is a social media post.

People commenting on a radio station's online stream in real time is pretty much the same as Twitch... except there's usually someone on the other end of Twitch - not automation like radio.

Twitch is about as much "mass media" as radio is.

Sure, radio isn't as personalized as a Spotify playlist... but then again, neither is a Twitch stream!

 

[TheBigA]

After the internet and texting on phones hit in the 90's and 00's, Radio had the capability to use those interactive services as well. Social media pages for stations and shows also have capabilities for listeners to interact, not only with the people on air, but also with each other. I don't know how often that is done, but the tech has been around for as long as there has been social media.

But Twitch and YouTube are video sites. The main attraction for social media is user-generated content. Radio is top-down media. We pick the songs, you listen. Yes you can phone in requests, or call in questions, but the format is based on our playlist. Nothing wrong with that. It's worked for 90 years. Lots of people are fine with that kind of media, and in that way, we still have a business. But if the question is: where are the under-40s, they're creating their own playlists and content and interacting with their friends. In the world of Elvis Duran, radio was his friend. There was no option. Today, people have options.

I was comparing to Twitch and streamers like that specifically from an engagement perspective... Twitch is one-to-many. So is a social media post.

My local sports station streams its show on Twitch. But it's video, not radio. Twitch is also user-generated content. Lots of people play video games on Twitch. It's how they play against each other without being together. It's a very different thing compared to radio.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Radio is interactive, or it CAN be interactive. It's always had that capability after radio stations had phone lines available for playing callers' voices over the air -- which I think dates back to the 1950's or early 1960's, at least. Of course, talk radio is an example of that -- except most of what passes for talk radio these days is just the guy or woman behind the mic.

After the internet and texting on phones hit in the 90's and 00's, Radio had the capability to use those interactive services as well. Social media pages for stations and shows also have capabilities for listeners to interact, not only with the people on air, but also with each other. I don't know how often that is done, but the tech has been around for as long as there has been social media.

I listened to Ben Maller Monday night / Tuesday a.m. after the MNF game. I hadn't listened to his show in a while. He had callers, and I think he also had a few texts that he read. There was a certain amount of interaction. I know he has a decent social media presence. Sure, it's sports talk radio, but it's an example of how a show can have lively interaction with listeners.

But it has to be a live show, obviously, to be as interactive as the live content creators on the internet, where there's a live stream and you see the posts / comments scrolling down the side of the screen (like they do on YT).

As for Mr. Duran's contention that radio companies ditched personalities for music, maybe he has a point. How many airstaff get laid off by the big companies every year? And how many of those laid off airstaff ever make it back to Radio? During one major RIF a couple years ago there were popular, highly rated airstaff who were axed. Perhaps that's what Duran was referring to.

Of course, the 'suits' are dealing with the economic realities of the business these days. Mr. Duran didn't seem to mention that reality. You can't pay people if the money is getting scarcer.

The internet, the smart phone -- they've changed everything.

Yup - this is what I was trying to get across with interaction. Radio can be very interactive - with some creativity and leveraging other tech. Radio instead chooses not to be, and makes excuses not to be (some of which are valid). BUT - you can't be interactive real-time with a voice tracked personality in another state and a jukebox in the closet - whether on AM, FM, or an online stream. That's just the truth...

 

[TheBigA]

Yup - this is what I was trying to get across with interaction. Radio can be very interactive - with some creativity and leveraging other tech. Radio instead chooses not to be, and makes excuses not to be (some of which are valid). BUT - you can't be interactive real-time with a voice tracked personality in another state and a jukebox in the closet - whether on AM, FM, or an online stream. That's just the truth...

Most online and satellite music radio is voice-tracked or unhosted. People are fine with that. They know what they're getting. It's one-way top-down media. No problem. As I said, there's an audience for that. But there's a whole 'nother world in social media, and we see it right here on this message board. That's why radio audiences are down. Some people want that kind of interaction, and it's different from what's available with radio, whether on-air or online. That wasn't caused by radio companies, and several companies are getting into that business as well.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

But Twitch and YouTube are video sites. The main attraction for social media is user-generated content. Radio is top-down media. We pick the songs, you listen. Yes you can phone in requests, or call in questions, but the format is based on our playlist. Nothing wrong with that. It's worked for 90 years. Lots of people are fine with that kind of media, and in that way, we still have a business. But if the question is: where are the under-40s, they're creating their own playlists and content and interacting with their friends. In the world of Elvis Duran, radio was his friend. There was no option. Today, people have options.


My local sports station streams its show on Twitch. But it's video, not radio. Twitch is also user-generated content. Lots of people play video games on Twitch. It's how they play against each other without being together. It's a very different thing compared to radio.

Well... yeah, that's worked for 90 years. But that doesn't mean radio shouldn't change and should keep doing the same thing they have for the last 90 years. This board is full of folks who say radio shouldn't be run the way it was 50 years ago.

"User generated content," whatever the heck that means (and I know what it means, but it can be defined a few different ways), is an excuse... There's no reason why a professional can't create content that's just as good if not better. That's a cop-out. Engaging content doesn't have to be created by some guy in his basement who also holds another full-time job. Just sayin'. It can be created in a professional capacity, too. The difference is... professionals are now competing against a lot more people in those squares because of user generated content. Radio doesn't "hold the dashboard captive" anymore and professionals don't get de-facto status simply because they are professional. They actually have to compete - and need to innovate to do that.

People sure do have options today. Which is why it's important to engage them.

A lot of people on Twitch are playing games for an audience to watch - not to play together. People are tuning in there not just for the game but for the personality of the person creating the media. Sure, there's video there - guess what? There is no reason why radio can't incorporate video into their product as well. Look at Howard Stern. He does that. The fellow I worked for who streamed his online radio show online was audio - and video. He created a very engaging product. But... streaming video of an empty studio with NextGen playing voice tracks... yeah, not really engaging, is it?

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Most online and satellite music radio is voice-tracked or unhosted. People are fine with that. They know what they're getting. It's one-way top-down media. No problem. As I said, there's an audience for that. But there's a whole 'nother world in social media, and we see it right here on this message board. That's why radio audiences are down. Some people want that kind of interaction, and it's different from what's available with radio, whether on-air or online. That wasn't caused by radio companies, and several companies are getting into that business as well.

Sure, people are fine with that... but they are increasingly older and that age number just keeps going up... Radio can't use the same strategies to reach people of my generation (I'm in my early 20s) that it used (and still uses) to reach people in their 50s. Who will be in their 60s in a decade...

There's no reason why radio stations can't take advantage of social media and leverage that as a revenue source along with traditional broadcast (aside from not wanting to invest or being lazy). The stations I work for leverage their website and stream and make money off of both of those...

 

[TheBigA]

Well... yeah, that's worked for 90 years. But that doesn't mean radio shouldn't change and should keep doing the same thing they have for the last 90 years. This board is full of folks who say radio shouldn't be run the way it was 50 years ago.

Which is why radio companies are diversifying. Which is why talk and morning shows are now shooting video and streaming live video of their radio shows. What people on this board want is the songs they want when they want them without commercials. That's not what radio does.

"User generated content," whatever the heck that means (and I know what it means, but it can be defined a few different ways), is an excuse... There's no reason why a professional can't create content that's just as good if not better.

It's NOT an excuse. Radio stations create content too. Unprofessional videos are what go viral. We see it every day. That's competition for eyeballs, and once again why radio numbers overall are down. Same with news. News sites post verifiable information, and it competes with rumor, gossip, and everything else on Twitter and social media. People don't all want quality or facts. That's the real world.

There is no reason why radio can't incorporate video into their product as well. Look at Howard Stern.

As I said, they do.

There's no reason why radio stations can't take advantage of social media and leverage that as a revenue source along with traditional broadcast (aside from not wanting to invest or being lazy). The stations I work for leverage their website and stream and make money off of both of those...

As I said, THEY DO.

The main complaints from younger audiences are about commercials and specific songs. Not about interaction. We hear the complaints because we DO interaction. Ratings and research are part of that interaction.

 

[kwthom]

This needs to be at the top of the 'Can AM radio be saved?' thread...

The future of American commercial radio isn't in serving people who make good decisions with money, it's in serving people who make bad decisions with money. And those people largely listen to country, and to properly delineated classic rock (Guns n' Roses, not Dire Straits).

Deep wisdom in those two sentences.

 

[AMRadioGuy]

Which is why radio companies are diversifying. Which is why talk and morning shows are now shooting video and streaming live video of their radio shows. What people on this board want is the songs they want when they want them without commercials. That's not what radio does.


It's NOT an excuse. Radio stations create content too. Unprofessional videos are what go viral. We see it every day. That's competition for eyeballs, and once again why radio numbers overall are down. Same with news. News sites post verifiable information, and it competes with rumor, gossip, and everything else on Twitter and social media. People don't all want quality or facts. That's the real world.



As I said, they do.



As I said, THEY DO.

And it's good that companies are diversifying and exploring that sphere more. I used to think that radio companies should just to radio and focus on radio. This board has led me to change that opinion - radio companies need to diversify and work to meet people where they are.

True - radio can't offer the songs people want when they want them. I acknowledge that and always have. We're on the same page there. But - that doesn't mean radio (and associated mediums when combined creatively) cannot be interactive with listeners.

True that unprofessional videos are going viral. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for professionals, too. I mean, if it's all about unprofessional stuff now... why not just pull the plug and give up? A lot of these "unprofessionals" are... personalities. The pros on radio (that are left at this point) don't really have personality anymore. A lot of them aren't allowed to. I bet a lot of those old morning zoo type shows could actually have some success today with an online stream with video and whatnot and proper promotion.
Also - it's not all about "going viral." Because a lot of those creators going viral are essentially one-hit wonders and they don't live a lavish life of luxury after that. The creators I follow don't go viral, but have big, loyal audiences through hard work and dedication. I'd absolutely say they are professionals, but self-made professionals who started out filming on their iPhone in their bedroom (much the same way as many radio hosts I know started out with a low-wattage pirate station and home-brew setup as a teenager). I watch almost all of what they produce, not just because of what the video is about, but for their personality. I know a lot of other people my age who would say the same.

I'm sure that in the early days of the top-40 format, a lot of the old time radio personalities and actors would have thought that a lot of the top-40 talent was quite unprofessional and devoid of quality and talent. It was a different animal, and radio rethought. Lest we forget that in those days, FCC chairman Minnow called TV a desolate wasteland devoid of quality (I forget the exact quote). People haven't wanted objective quality in a long, long time - if ever.

I absolutely acknowledge that there's competition for eyeballs. But to just sidestep that competition and keep going down the same road is not going to be productive long-term. Radio needs to figure out a way to compete for those eyeballs if it wants to be sustainable long-term. That's really what I'm trying to say. In a dog-eat-dog world, adapt or die is the reality.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio needs to figure out a way to compete for those eyeballs if it wants to be sustainable long-term. That's really what I'm trying to say. In a dog-eat-dog world, adapt or die is the reality.

I think everybody knows and understands that, including all the DJs who just got laid off.

There's a kind of freedom that comes with being laid off. You can now be as creative and as interactive as you want without having to depend on the company or the boss, because now you're both. But you also have to pay the bills.

 

[b-turner]

Also, we are not free to do something different with somebody else's money. We are hired and keep a job by doing what our boss tells us. A pioneer format typically fails several times before it has a chance of success. I agree radio must change but that will come via baby steps that are found to be tried and true by those who have their own money and a conviction to pioneer the untested format. At this point in radio, listeners say they want music and seem irritated by anything else.

 

[TheBigA]

I agree radio must change but that will come via baby steps that are found to be tried and true by those who have their own money and a conviction to pioneer the untested format.

A big part of the reason why is because of the employees. Some have contracts that need to be rewritten to include new activities such as podcasts and social media. An employer can't just dump a new bunch of responsibilities on people without warning. Elvis Duran blamed radio companies, but how open was he to doing new things? It sounds like his head is back in the 80s. That's what I've found. The on-air people are the ones who are resistant to change. They want the world to stay the same. A lot of them are the ones who are now looking for work. Elvis is lucky. They surrounded him with a bunch of millennials who know all the new stuff he doesn't. They save his bacon every day.

 

[ILOVERADIO]

What's the basic difference between Twitch and broadcast radio? One is INTERACTIVE. That's the difference between radio and all social media. Between radio and sites like this one. They're all interactive, and radio is not. Radio can't be interactive. It doesn't matter how many personalities you hire and what you let them do. Unless you are interactive with your audience, you're not going to engage with them. Period. Give any child an interactive toy and one that isn't, and see which one he plays with. The interactive toy. The one that directly responds to the touch of that child. Radio can't do that.



You just spent your entire post explaining in detail why young audiences use social media rather than radio, and now you blame it on radio execs? Really? What could radio execs do to change everything you just talked about? How is Elvis Duran competing with Twitch or TikTok or any sites that you can name? He isn't because he can't. Look, I get it. You don't have to lecture me about social media. I see how it works and I use it to my advantage every day. But it's not radio and radio can't duplicate that experience regardless of how much local personality a station has. It's not the same thing or the same experience. Not because radio execs didn't let them exist, but because they AREN'T the same thing.

You're blaming the horse because no matter how much hay you feed him, he'll NEVER be as fast or look as good as my Porsche. Never. Why blame the horse for that?

In a "Captain Obvious" moment...

https://barrettmedia.com/2024/12/02...er. Why blame the horse for that? [/QUOTE]

http://

Why does McDonalds still sell the Big Mac? You hate his calls. Other people love them. That's the reality today. Everybody has an opinion.

I thought I just posted the difference between radio and social media.

Interactive radio still sometimes has an important function. For moths WWNC Rafdio in Asheville, NC provided a place to call and publicize the life and death struggles of the local community. Lives were saved. I know this is the exception, but Thank God traditional local radio is still around when fires, shootings, earthquakes, and flooding endangers a community. It may not be cost feasible, but interactive local radio is still variable.