End of local talk radio?

[Radio_Realist]

I guess radio - as a career -- is indeed dead. It's only about money.

Radio, as a career, is certainly not dead. And careers have always been about money. You've simply been whining about who gets the money. You don't like it when station owners or syndicated talk show hosts make money, because you'd rather see local hosts make the money. So don't get all high and mighty about money.

The simple truth is that certain jobs in radio will no longer be as plentiful. I have some history for you to consider. Once upon a time, almost every radio station had a sound effects man on the payroll, or at least on call on a free lance basis. When they'd produce scripted comedies and dramas, the sound effects man would have to knock coconut halves together to make the sound of horses' hoof beats. He'd have to slam fake doors, shoot guns loaded with blanks, and otherwise create the sounds that went along with the comedies and dramas that used to be the main thing on the radio. Guess what? They discovered that they could use taped sound effects (as soon as tape recorded became available), and then they decided to stop producing new comedies and dramas. All those sound effects men were out of work. But that didn't mean that there were no longer careers in radio. There just weren't careers for sound effects men.

Also, once upon a time, every station employed staff musicians. These musicians would perform live music for things like the theme songs of programs, musical beds for commercials, and so on. When is that last time you heard of a radio station that had any staff musicians?

One other thing you've never answered. What is the difference between hiring someone who lives in another town to conduct a talk show on your station via a satellite feed and hiring someone from a different city to move to your city and sit in front of a microphone in your local studio? Neither one is really local. So what's the big deal over where the talk show host sits?

 

[Don62]

One other thing you've never answered. What is the difference between hiring someone who lives in another town to conduct a talk show on your station via a satellite feed and hiring someone from a different city to move to your city and sit in front of a microphone in your local studio? Neither one is really local. So what's the big deal over where the talk show host sits?

Many of your points are well taken.
This last one, however, doesn't make sense.

Of course the latter is local. It's a locally-originated show. A host who can talk about local issues because he's there or isn't on a network where he can't alk about a specific area.

Most radio talent is from out of market.

The station I cited earlier, KMBZ-980- Kansas City, brought in a morning host from out of state, Darla Jaye. Though you wouldn't imagine Ms. Conservative came from elsewhere because she not only talks about local and national political issues, but local concerns, as I heard her discuss in a recent show.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Of course the latter is local.

Not really. It's only technically local. A bona-fide local talk show also has to feature local content. It has to have talk about local issues. A talk show that features some hired gun from out of town who doesn't know squat about the local scene, and who instead talks about the same national issues that the syndicated hosts talk about isn't really local. He's only pseudo-local.

Most radio talent is from out of market.

Of course it is! That's because almost no one cares about whether a talk host is local or not. Listeners don't care if a talk host is local or not. Station managers don't care if a talk host is local or not. Advertisers don't care if a talk host is local or not. Engineers and technicians don't care if a talk host is local or not. The only people who care about whether or not a talk show host sits in the local studio are the people who want to find jobs sitting in front of a mic in a local studio doing a talk show.

Though you wouldn't imagine Ms. Conservative came from elsewhere because she not only talks about local and national political issues, but local concerns, as I heard her discuss in a recent show.

How much of her show's content is local? How many local topics does she talk about, and talk about from a perspective of in-depth local knowledge? And how long did it take her to learn the local issues of Kansas City? I do give her credit for changing her career goals from being the next Barbra Streisand, with a better nose.

 

[hammondo]

Realist, one detail here; You said "Also, once upon a time, every station employed staff musicians. These musicians would perform live music for things like the theme songs of programs, musical beds for commercials, and so on. When is that last time you heard of a radio station that had any staff musicians?"

The last was about a near 40 year extension of the musicians careers. In Chicago in the 1940's Wm. Petrillo, President of the musicians union, (a really ruthless powerful guy) MADE the Chicago radio stations (who were getting rid of live orchestras) use MUSICIANS to run their replacement (turntables).

From the mid -40's til about 1980+, EVERY Union radio station had "record turners" getting musicians hourly wages to sit at a few turntables and "play the music." WLS went all tape cart in 1960 (WCFL in about 66, (CFL's early "rock" format used record turners playing 45's on 16 inch turntables), WIND in about '69, WMAQ and WJJD both a bit later). WGN still had "record turners into the late 80's. WMAQ, WJJD and even WGN went "combo" to dump the extra people. WGN's host works the board, (except for Milt Rosenberg and some weekend shows) with a producer and an "engineer" whose sole job is to make sure the commercials play.

I concur with realist; The only people who care about whether or not a talk show host sits in the local studio are the people who want to find jobs sitting in front of a mic in a local studio doing a talk show. NOBODY else cares.

 

[KeithE4]

Of course the latter is local. It's a locally-originated show. A host who can talk about local issues because he's there or isn't on a network where he can't alk about a specific area.

Oh, you mean like Joe Crummy of Cheap Channel's KFYI in Phoenix, who did a "local, Phoenix-based" show from LA for a couple of years. He talked about Phoenix issues and got away with it even though everybody knew he was in California. Personally, I could take him or leave him. He wasn't great but he wasn't putrid either.

He's been canned, but only because ex-Congressman J.D. Hayworth (a KFYI darling while he was in office) found himself unemployed (i.e fired by his constituents) this past November. Hayworth took Crummy's PM-drive-time spot.

 

[Don62]

The only people who care about whether or not a talk show host sits in the local studio are the people who want to find jobs sitting in front of a mic in a local studio doing a talk show. NOBODY else cares.

But they do notice when a station's programming is all canned and imported from satellite, as I've pointed out. Even others have pointed this embarassment out.

This is supposedly a radio board.

I find it strking that people here argue for canned programming. Let's all race to the bottom to eliminate allt he jobs we possibly can. Even our own.

Is there a way all these corporate apologists' jobs can be outsourced by satellite?

If it's good enough for on-air talent, it should be good enough for the wannabes, whiners and loser hacks that are driving the industry into the ground.

 

[Radio_Realist]

But they do notice when a station's programming is all canned and imported from satellite, as I've pointed out.

Notice is one thing. Care is something else again.

This is supposedly a radio board.

Yes, it is. Some of us have a realistic perspective on radio. Some of us do not.

Is there a way all these corporate apologists' jobs can be outsourced by satellite?

Depending on which long distance carrier's circuits are routing our data traffic from our ISP's to Radio-Info.com's servers, many of us are coming in via satellite.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Don, we all understand your point, and apparently you are working in radio, so naturally this trend towards network or satellite programming threatens your job. We all face this sort of thing in all sorts of industries, not just radio. It's how the world works. The companies want to make the largest profit they can, so they try to cut expenses as much as possible, which means out sourcing jobs from the US to India, China, or Mexico ( of course the employers have also found that they can get many of the benefits of outsourcing without leaving the US by hiring illegals from Mexico at below market wages meaning slave wages (yet it's better than what they were making in Mexico), but that's another topic for another board, not a radio board). My point is, radio is not alone with this problem. It is everywhere in American industry (other than with in the school systems where the teachers are protected with ten year, and of course government jobs) and with the unions getting weaker, look for more outsourcing and American job loss not less. Bottom line, money and how can the business make more of it is their focus. I didn't say it was the right way for them to think, but our market driven society is purly profit driven, period. Look at the obscene salaries the CEO's make today compared with CEO's in other countries or in this country say 30 years ago made. It's all about money, sad but true.

As has been previously mentioned, TV already does mostly syndicated or network programming. Radio had been prior to 1955 when TV took over the drama/comedy type entertainment that had been provided for the most part by networks. So only from 1955 to about 1980 was the local yokel phase for radio. Since 1980, again thanks to Rush Limbaugh radio started to revert back to its network/syndicated now today satellite roots. So actually radio is reverting back to what it was. If the stations can earn more money with local yokel then they'll do it, but it seems that the money is in with getting the big shows with the big names, just like with TV. That doesn't help you with your future in radio, but it may help you to have more empathy for those in industry who also suffer the same problem with outsourcing American jobs overseas. It's simply a fact of life in today's world.

 

[smedge2006]

If all this fuss about localism is the work of disgruntled would-be talk hosts, why is there a section called "Localism" on the FCC's web site? Is it only because of complaints from unemployed radio people?

 

[bierkenstock]

I'm going to disagree with most everybody.

Localism has always been a part of broadcast regulation in this country. Otherwise we'd have national broadcasters with repeaters every few miles like Britain and many other countries.

While I agree that most of what passes for local content is boring but when a chemical train derails, the river overflows or the twister is coming to carry people off to Munchkinland, who ya gonna call? (Rest of the time, however, nobody cares much about local news or local anything on the radio.)

What's wrong with making money? You expect to get paid. You expect your bank account and your retirement plan to pay dividends. You might even have some of your money in broadcasting stocks. Here's the bad news: Broadcasting stocks have been doing badly in recent years because the industry is not growing and it's not making money. When money is not coming in a business has to cut costs or go out of business.

In the days of network "golden age" radio, on average about 25% of the schedule was local. That's better than a lot of stations do now.

If people notice programming comes from a satellite it's because programming gets better, sounds better and is more professionally produced.

Don't give Rush all the credit. In part, he was the effect, not the cause. Before Rush could happen on the national scene, so-called chain broadcasting rules had to be changed to allow distributors to feed more than one program simultaneously. Affordable satellite channels (instead of expensive coaxial cable) had to be available to distribute those programs. Automation had to reach the point where syndicated programming could be unattended. Lower cost toll-free long distance lines with improved sound-quality had to be available for national call-in shows. And the industry had to be willing to believe the audience would accept a non-local show. Rush played a big part in the last one and he deserves the credit for it. When he started, with 20 stations, most of them put him on at night or ran "best of" shows on the weekend. ABC and NBC had both tried national talk networks and the results had not been encouraging. WABC agreed to produce Rush's show from New York but they insisted Rush do a local show for New York; it was two years or so before WABC let Rush drop the local show and New York heard the national show (WABC did run some national "best of" segments on weekends during this period).

And while we focus on talk radio here, it's worth mentioning that even before talk went national, Westwood One, ABC and others had started offering 24/7 music channels for non-local music stations.

It is pathetic when class A (50kw clear channel) and other major market heritage stations are more than 50% syndicated during the day Monday-Friday.

Radio has had a declining job market for more than a generation. Anybody under 30 in radio, trying to be in radio or wanting to be in radio should know job prospects are dim. You got into the biz with your eyes wide-open. If anybody deserves tar and feathers, it's the broadcasting schools and broadcasting departments in colleges who take kids' money and encourage their delusions.

 

[Radio_Realist]

why is there a section called "Localism" on the FCC's web site?

Because the Federal Communications Commission is part of the government. They're there to help us, whether we want it or not.

Question: Why did the government bureaucrats form a new bureaucracy?

Answer: Because they could.

 

[hammondo]

Newsflash boys and girls;RADIO STATIONS ARE IIN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY. Otherwise it's not worth owning one.

It's easy to disagree with Bierkenstock's first paragraph. It said;
...
"Whle I agree that most of what passes for local content is boring but when a chemical train derails, the river overflows or the twister is coming to carry people off to Munchkinland, who ya gonna call? (Rest of the time, however, nobody cares much about local news or local anything on the radio.)"

Sir, I couldn't disagree more.
EVERY station I've owned (4) or programmed (another 4) or helped start (10) made BIG BUCKS making the newspaper into fish wrap BECAUSE people knew they could put us on for local news AND SPONSORS CAME by the boatload. One station I owned in a small town had an HOUR LONG 6 day a week LOCAL newscast that had 8 ANNUAL sponsors.

The news was accidents, council meetings, school news, hospital reports, farm info, missing pets and that kind of stuff. HOW do you think a local newspaper makes money? Same stuff.

Today, your radio station can get everything else from the bird and nobody REALLY cares. Do a GREAT local newscast and the advertisiers line up. It's as big a profit center as sports. If you are in a "bad weather" zone, a professional meteorologlist weather report grossed us $4000 a month (with just half the reports sold).

Bierkenstock is RIGHT in the rest of his post. It's Don who is way off.

 

[smedge2006]

Broadcasting stocks have been doing badly in recent years because the industry is not growing and it's not making money.

So let's keep doing what sent the industry into stagnation, de-contentize, de-localize, and fire even more people. :

 

[hammondo]

Can't agree that "the industry is NOT growing."

Most of the reason "Broadcasting stocks are doing badly" has to do with TOO MUCH competition. I can tell you about several places where, in the 70's there were 2 stations, today there are 5 or 6. But the advertiser base is the same or less.

Are you aware that less than half of radio/tv stations make money? Some of that is because some stations are DESIGNED to LOSE money, for tax purposes for their owners. Losing money actually has advantages in the right situation.

Tribune Company is buying back my stock so they can sell to Mr. Zell. I bought it for $3.60 a share in the mid-60's, and am selling for a bit more than $36.00 a share. Unlike (say, Clear Channel, Tribune has been VERY sensitive to making money for it's stockholders. Though they have grown the company, bougt and sold alot of properties, and been really stupid a few times, I've gotten a dividend for most of the last 30 years.

 

[Don62]

[size=10pt]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]It is pathetic when class A (50kw clear channel) and other major market heritage stations are more than 50% syndicated during the day Monday-Friday.

[/size]

[
Thanks. That's what I was trying to say before the money grubbers who only care about one thing - money - shouted me down.

There's no reason in the world a heritage talk station should run syndicated 24/7, except for a morning show.

Most PDs - not the CC robots - wouldn't rely on such a crutch.

It's laughably ignorant to claim local talk isn't worth doing at least for a couple of hours a day because "there's nothing to talk about." Baloney. There's news and topics - local, state and national - that can be easily talked about. Try listneing to talk radio - not the blowhards who harp on only one thing.

I do listen to a lot of syndicated talk but it's getting very old.


KMBZ-Kansas City, is about half local, half syndicated during the day.(Rush and O'Reilly and 2 local shows 9 a.m. - 7 p.m.). It's the market's NT leader.

Still no one has shot down that argument as to why Cheapo Ch. and Cumulus couldn't do something similar with at least one local talk show (in p.m. drive perhaps).
KMBZ's competitor is 24/7 syndicated with a weak local news presence. It's always at the bottom.

 

[Firebird]

WGN Chicago - 24 hours local
KGO San Francisco - 23 hours local
WNIR Akron - 17.5 hours local
WBT Charlotte - 17 hours local

 

[Don62]

I concur with realist; The only people who care about whether or not a talk show host sits in the local studio are the people who want to find jobs sitting in front of a mic in a local studio doing a talk show. NOBODY else cares.

Really? You assume people are too stupid to figure out that "repeater" station is running conservative talk 24-7 without any local content?

For the record, I'm not an out of work DJ or radio host, though I did work in radio news for a year before going into TV.
I'm a listener who finally woke up and saw how the cheapo owners of the industry are destroying some heritage stations by running them on the cheap.

All syndicated? Hell, any monkey could PD a station like that. Takes no creativity or hard work.

Followng the philosophy of those who run radio these days, here is what I should do, because money is the only important factor:

-Hire the cheapest contractors, servicemen, etc.
-Buy the cheapest engagement ring I can find. Maybe one out of a gumball machine, for my fiance.
-If I go into ministry or some social service, as one poster here implied he was in, worry only about making a buck. Call it the "gospel of $$" because, as he said, that's all he cares about.
-Buy the cheapest tiires I can find for my car. Safety or public service or concern about others ont he road is simply unimportant.

 

[JbeJay]

The only people who care about whether or not a talk show host sits in the local studio are the people who want to find jobs sitting in front of a mic in a local studio doing a talk show. NOBODY else cares.

Really? You assume people are too stupid to figure out that "repeater" station is running conservative talk 24-7 without any local content?

Stupid? Maybe they simply don't care. Or maybe in some cases the listeners even prefer a professional, national host to a mediocre local one.

Let me ask you this: Why is a non-local program a bad thing in 2007 when it was a good thing in the pre-tv era, the so-called Golden Age of Radio? Were your grandparents or great-grandparents (or whatever generation that would be) "too stupid to figure out" that Jack Benny and Fred Allen weren't broadcasting from across town "without any local content"?

Just a thought.

Jay

 

[Don62]

The TV comparison isn't valid.
Radio isn't like TV with blocks of sitcoms and entertainment programs.
They do however expect radio to have some sort of localism.

And it's not as if a major-market station can't afford to pay talent. They just don't want to. They're cheapskates.

I never said a local show is automatically superior to a national one, though many clearly are.

As for hosts, I'm not also talking about hiring someone straight out of college. I'm talking about seasoned hosts who sound great, know the topics, know relevant local, regional and national issues, and can host a show.

I've heard many of them. I also heard WIOD after hurricane Wilma when it was all local with experienced hosts. They were professional. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the same stale hot air coming out of NY that can only talk about how their side is right and everyone else is wrong.

Again, I find it interesting that a radio board has so-called radio people arguing against their craft.
This isn't a corporate radio apologists board.
You want to make radio sound like a factory with boring and mediocre content, you do at your own risk.

 

[JbeJay]

The TV comparison isn't valid.
Radio isn't like TV with blocks of sitcoms and entertainment programs.

I obviously need to type more slowly so that you can comprehend what is being said. Let me go through it again.

Mine wasn't a "TV comparison" at all. I was talking about the so-called Golden Age of Radio. I described it as the "pre-tv era". ("Pre-" means "before".)

That was when the national networks provided tons of programming for local stations.

People listened. People loved it.

It didn't matter that the programming wasn't originating at the local station.

People listened. People loved it.

YOU "expect radio to have some sort of localism". So do some others listeners. Most don't care. They simply want to be entertained or informed, whatever the source.

Again, I find it interesting that a radio board has so-called radio people arguing against their craft.

I find it interesting that you think it is "arguing against their craft" for some of us to think that (some) non-local programming can be more successful with the listeners than (some) local programming. I also find it interesting that you think the only reason for non-local programming is "cheaper".

Let me ask you this: Does it bother you that this message board is not exclusively local? I may actually not be in the same town as you are. Shocking!

Do you think these message boards are run in this way only because it's cheaper than having a zillion local message boards which cannot be read by anyone who is not local? Or do you think it's done this way because it is better to have participants from all over?

Jay