More details to follow:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/more-changes-at-nielsen-business-media/
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/more-changes-at-nielsen-business-media/
-
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
Erica Farber Leaving R&R
- Thread starter RicoGregg
- Start date
You could always read the story on the R&R website....
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/
It may be my suspicious nature, but it doesn't sound to me like she's leaving completely of her own volition...
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/
It may be my suspicious nature, but it doesn't sound to me like she's leaving completely of her own volition...
It was consolidation of management by Nielsen, R&R's owner. The current Billboard manager absords her duties.
Erica is a great person and the consumate professional. She won't be idle for long.
Erica is a great person and the consumate professional. She won't be idle for long.
LasVegasRadioJunky said:
I have not read Billboard for about 15 years or more. They are clueless about radio, and will bring that cluelessness to R&R.
Totally agree. I first met here when she was doing research for a national rep firm that handled the station in Miami I managed, and have always admired her intelligence and professionalism.
From R&R.com today.
When "WTF" is used in a serious, journalistic publication, we know the serious and journalistic qualities are lacking.
When "WTF" is used in a serious, journalistic publication, we know the serious and journalistic qualities are lacking.
PTBoardOp94 said:
C'mon now. R&R is a publication about RADIO. "Serious" and "journalistic" haven't been part of radio's repertoire for a long time in most markets.
SirRoxalot said:
The second "R" stands for "Records" and, in fact, most of the advertising revenue for Radio and Records has always come form the music business, not radio and radio related things. Despite that, under Erika Farber, the paper has been the only solid voice for programmers for decades.
If you hate radio so much, and feel that those of us still in it are scum, get out, leave us alone and get a satellite radio. I'll even send you a check for the receiver and your first year subscription.
Getting a little personal, aren't we?
To quote Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."
I don't hate radio, and have no use for satellite radio. I will admit that I'm not too fond of some of radio people at the corporate level.
As for the line "those of us still in it" is concerned, you seem to be implying that I'm NOT in radio. That's not the case - at least so far. As things are unfolding - or should I say collapsing - NOBODY'S safe anymore - including research mavens. You might want to hang onto that $150.00 that you're offering me.
R&R is indeed a fine publication, and a great resource. Ms. Farber has done a commendable job - which is why I fear for the future of the publication under new management.
DavidEduardo said:
To quote Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."
I don't hate radio, and have no use for satellite radio. I will admit that I'm not too fond of some of radio people at the corporate level.
As for the line "those of us still in it" is concerned, you seem to be implying that I'm NOT in radio. That's not the case - at least so far. As things are unfolding - or should I say collapsing - NOBODY'S safe anymore - including research mavens. You might want to hang onto that $150.00 that you're offering me.
R&R is indeed a fine publication, and a great resource. Ms. Farber has done a commendable job - which is why I fear for the future of the publication under new management.
A
adma
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
Feeling the heat?
When David Eduardo lashes out like this, it's a sign that something's wrong behind his supposedly suave facade. And given who it is lashing out, that may be a sign that things are looking even worse for radio than it appears.
adma said:
No heat at all. I am just tired of Roxie's rants, and conclusions based on misinterpretation of data. It's gone from whining to the purely offensive (that last post pretty much said everyone in radio is a layer or two below pond scum). The nation is in a deep recession, with many millions of jobless... and Rox is using a national condition as evidence that radio is, to him, dead or dying.
Better Check Your Blood Pressure
Wow. You've derived quite a bit of meaning from a comment indicating that radio journalism is a mere shadow of its former state at the vast majority of radio groups around the country. I don't recall mentioning "pond scum" anywhere, even as an innuendo.
If you're going to react this way to everybody who thinks that radio is "dead or dying", you're going to be a pretty disgruntled guy. I'm an amateur "whiner" compared to people like Jerry Del Colliano, who's way more "inside" than I am. And, there are plenty of others who are convinced that corporate is killing the medium.
I know, you're ALWAYS right, and everybody else is ALWAYS wrong. Except that "conditions on the ground" aren't turning out in your favor.
PS - Best of luck to Ms. Farber. It will be interesting to see where she turns up next.
DavidEduardo said:
Wow. You've derived quite a bit of meaning from a comment indicating that radio journalism is a mere shadow of its former state at the vast majority of radio groups around the country. I don't recall mentioning "pond scum" anywhere, even as an innuendo.
If you're going to react this way to everybody who thinks that radio is "dead or dying", you're going to be a pretty disgruntled guy. I'm an amateur "whiner" compared to people like Jerry Del Colliano, who's way more "inside" than I am. And, there are plenty of others who are convinced that corporate is killing the medium.
I know, you're ALWAYS right, and everybody else is ALWAYS wrong. Except that "conditions on the ground" aren't turning out in your favor.
PS - Best of luck to Ms. Farber. It will be interesting to see where she turns up next.
Re: Better Check Your Blood Pressure
The common factor in all the "radio is dying" comments is that they make no suggestions for radio in today's environment, both competitive and economic.
The usual "we need more DJs" and "we need bigger libraries" and "we need to go back to the 60's when radio was fun" don't cut it because it's not 1964 and listeners on most formats don't respond positively to the library and DJ concepts.
Missing the old days is great, but usually has no bearing on today than whitewalls and two-tone paint has to car companies. WIBG was an interesting competitor to WFIL, but those days are long gone.
SirRoxalot said:
The common factor in all the "radio is dying" comments is that they make no suggestions for radio in today's environment, both competitive and economic.
The usual "we need more DJs" and "we need bigger libraries" and "we need to go back to the 60's when radio was fun" don't cut it because it's not 1964 and listeners on most formats don't respond positively to the library and DJ concepts.
Missing the old days is great, but usually has no bearing on today than whitewalls and two-tone paint has to car companies. WIBG was an interesting competitor to WFIL, but those days are long gone.
Re: Better Check Your Blood Pressure
There have been plenty of suggestions about what's needed for radio to improve in today's environment, but corporate has ignored everyone - including their own local management - and fed us more "Seacrest", satellite, and syndication. How are listeners responding to THAT?
If you're right, radio has a bright future. So far, all we have for your methodology is 20 years of decline. See that trend turning around soon?
DavidEduardo said:
There have been plenty of suggestions about what's needed for radio to improve in today's environment, but corporate has ignored everyone - including their own local management - and fed us more "Seacrest", satellite, and syndication. How are listeners responding to THAT?
If you're right, radio has a bright future. So far, all we have for your methodology is 20 years of decline. See that trend turning around soon?
Re: Better Check Your Blood Pressure
Quite well, per the numbers. Good talent enhances radio. In an internet world (where does Pandora come from, anyway?), the issue of localism is not just trumped by quality, it is not even an issue. But "better" always wins, whether on TV, radio or any other entertainment distribution pipe.
I see the trend continuing, and eventually the "radio station with a tower or antenna" will merge into multiple distribution channels. The channels that win are the ones that are easy to use. Many of today's options are not easy, compared to terrestrial radio.
Ryan Seacrest will be on one of the channels, whether it is WiMax or over a smart phone or via power line distribution. The local person who is not as good will be SOL.
Off air radio will decline slowly, simply because there are so many alternatives. Many of the alternatives have no business model, so we will see lots of change and churn, too. The good radio companies will have the good radio content locked up, no matter how it is distributed.
The proof of the existing programming methodology is that the decline is so small vs. all the change that has happened. Compared with network TV or print, radio is doing very well.
What will be interesting to see is how many "serious" non-broadcast streams survive the current economic situation. The shake-out may help define the systems of the future under a "only the strong survive" theory.
SirRoxalot said:
Quite well, per the numbers. Good talent enhances radio. In an internet world (where does Pandora come from, anyway?), the issue of localism is not just trumped by quality, it is not even an issue. But "better" always wins, whether on TV, radio or any other entertainment distribution pipe.
I see the trend continuing, and eventually the "radio station with a tower or antenna" will merge into multiple distribution channels. The channels that win are the ones that are easy to use. Many of today's options are not easy, compared to terrestrial radio.
Ryan Seacrest will be on one of the channels, whether it is WiMax or over a smart phone or via power line distribution. The local person who is not as good will be SOL.
Off air radio will decline slowly, simply because there are so many alternatives. Many of the alternatives have no business model, so we will see lots of change and churn, too. The good radio companies will have the good radio content locked up, no matter how it is distributed.
The proof of the existing programming methodology is that the decline is so small vs. all the change that has happened. Compared with network TV or print, radio is doing very well.
What will be interesting to see is how many "serious" non-broadcast streams survive the current economic situation. The shake-out may help define the systems of the future under a "only the strong survive" theory.
Same Old Arguement
There, ladies and gentlemen, we once again have the corporate point of view in a nutshell. The only thing that can save radio from corporate hubris is bankruptcy, or forced divestiture because of re-regulation.
"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
We've had this arguement before. How it relates to Erica Farber's leaving is beyond me.
There, ladies and gentlemen, we once again have the corporate point of view in a nutshell. The only thing that can save radio from corporate hubris is bankruptcy, or forced divestiture because of re-regulation.
"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
We've had this arguement before. How it relates to Erica Farber's leaving is beyond me.
- Status