https://news.****************/artic...mith-Joins-KILT-FM-Houston-as-Morning-Co-Host
-
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
Erik Scott Smith Joins KILT-FM/Houston as Morning Co-Host
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
That's funny...you put a higher standard on the third banana of a morning radio show than you do the people who write & sing the music they play. Unless this guy is singing, who cares what his background is?
See, that's where you're wrong.
But you make a generalization that everyone wants what you want. That's not how radio works.
And then extrapolate that into "that's why radio is dying." Which is a non-sequitur.
You questioned me for being critical of a hire instead of the format. I gave you what you wanted.
I'm not sure what you're seeking here.
Where's the lie? Seriously, what part of this hire makes sense for the market, audience, and format? You can't even compare it to Bobby Bones making the move from Austin to Nashville either.
These Audacy moves make no sense to me (and I'm not the only one who has been critical of Audacy).
What format was Bobby in when he was in Austin? Clue: It wasn't country.
These people aren't hired for their experience with a genre of music. They're not making music decisions. They're supposed to be entertainers. Now if you have a problem with his entertaining abilities, that's another story. If he's not singing or making playlist decisions, it doesn't matter.
A lot of people are moving to Texas, including a lot of people from California. Get used to it.
There's a reason why I said not to compare it. The Bobby Bones show making the change involved more than just leaving town. It was a local show going national with the full backing of a syndicating network.
By no means am I saying he won't work out. But what I am saying is that he doesn't have the resume to entertain a "country" crowd. The hire is puzzling. Hire him at KTBZ or even KRBE/KHMX? That makes sense. But hire a D-List celebrity with a background in rock to entertain a Texas crowd listening to country music? That makes very little sense.
It does matter. Experience in the format, the region, and culture matters. You don't hire a comedian to entertain an opera crowd.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what we're talking about. Transplants are in every city (including California cities).
Because you brought up that he's not from Texas. That goes for a lot of people in Texas radio. None of them have killed radio.
People don't get hired for a resume, they get hired for what they do. Great pipes, tight board, all that kind of thing. Maybe he's married to a Texan. Give him a chance. If he sucks, then he gets fired. You can say "I told you so."
Does anybody remember Jack Da Wack from Z-100 (WHTZ) in New York City? He moved to Houston and became Cactus Jack when Easy Country 92 became The New 93Q Country in 1992. He made the transition to country successfully. A good broadcaster should be able to perform any format. As 'The Big A' stated, "If he sucks, then he gets fired."
And nearly 30 years later, it’s still called the New 93Q Country. What imaginative minds, or maybe lazy ones, that we have managing that station.
Maybe the word ‘new’ is meaningless these days.
There's a difference between moving to Texas from Atlanta, Phoenix, or Washington vs. a long tenure in Los Angeles or NYC.
I didn't say this move killed radio. I said moves like these are killing radio. People are abandoning the dial in favor of OTT content because radio has been behind the curve for a while now.
Yes they do.
You missed the entire point of my post. My criticism isn't for him. It is for Audacy. At best, this is a gamble where Audacy hopes that his D-List fame attracts curious listeners. Instead of paying a premium for this guy, they could have made a safer choice by hiring someone with a solid country track record.
But they didn't. They made a hire that has a chance to fail and may push listeners further away. Country demographics in Houston aren't the same as rock demographics in Los Angeles. It's not as safe of a bet that he will work has they just hired someone who has a good track record of working "country" crowds.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. People started leaving radio in the 80s when they had other options, such as personal mix cassettes, MTV, or video games. In recent years, people have stopped buying music, and prefer to stream. It has nothing to do with radio. Statistically, most people use radio in addition to other devices, it's not a one-or-the-other thing. Hiring country music experts with deep resumes who are based in Houston will not improve the usage of radio or even make a difference at KILT. It was a snarky comment that has no basis in fact.
Your criticizing a decision with no idea how it was made. You have no idea what he does. Your comments are based on geographical prejudice that someone from LA can't relate to people in Houston. Once again, he's the third banana joining two others on a morning show. I doubt his role will have anything to do with country music. Once again, if he fails, he gets fired.
It absolutely does. Many people have ditched radio for one or two reasons, but it ultimately comes down to radio no longer satisfying the target audience. Hires like these are some of those risky hires that have a strong chance of not working out and ultimately may force listeners to look for better alternatives (cough cough OTT media cough cough).
There was an article that came out in 2020 (I can't find it at the moment) that detailed listening habits during quarantine. It turns out that once people figured out that Alexa could play audio, people started listening to content you couldn't find over the airwaves. Podcasts about murder, music that was popular 10 years ago (but no longer gets radio airplay), and even internet culture talk was extremely popular content for those who began working from home.
You can't find that type of content on the AM/FM dial.
(In an unrelated note, a lot of the new music discovery is no longer happening over the airwaves. It is happening on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Radio is now playing catch-up in some instances.)
Not to the effect you're seeing today. The internet has opened an endless amount of opportunities that weren't alive during 80s or 90s. In those days, you eventually came back to radio after you grew tired of cassette tapes or limited reruns.
The internet is truly limitless and just about accessible in most urban areas and major highways.
It has everything to do with radio. Why else do you think these people made the switch?
Corporate radio isn't interested in saving radio. It is interested in squeezing every last ounce of profit from the industry before they abandon it. This is why Audacy, iHeart, and even Univision push their OTT apps over the air now. They're setting themselves up for a future without terrestrial radio.
There's an obvious shift. You can't capture a screenshot of today and say that's that. Yes, today there is coexistence. But in a decade or two that may no longer be true for radio.
Radio has an inevitable death. That's a fact. It is a trend that won't be reversing and may blow up any moment now. It all depends on the affordability of mobile internet access and the ease of access. We already see a ton of new "Radios" whose main selling feature is integrated Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music, etc. rather than HD Radio/FM/AM/XMSirius.
And questionable hires that have a higher chance of failure just fast tracks that shift.
I never said they had to be from Houston. The hires just have to make sense.
This one doesn't. It is a risk that may result in some listeners going to KKBQ or exploring OTT content (hence my comment original comment).
And you do?
His resume is out there. For the better part of the two decades, he has starred in TV shows and done radio in a part of the country that is a polar opposite of Houston.
Wouldn't you agree that hiring someone with actual experience in Country radio would have made more sense? Yes or no?
I think you mean cultural and not geographical. You keep getting stuck on one point of my overall argument.
Can the move be made? Sure. But is it a risk? Absolutely! Why not play it safe and hire someone with experience working a country crowd? Why is this even a controversial observation to you?
You keep saying I have no clue how or what the hire will do, yet you keep going back to the music.
Not once have I said he would impact the playlist. Let's stop straying away from the subject.
No one is disputing this. But can you at least admit that the chances of him getting fired are higher due to his inexperience working in a country station in a region that is worlds apart from where he is coming from?
Had he been hired to work the morning show on KTBZ, then sure! Culturally speaking, rock listeners in Houston and Los Angeles probably have more things in common than rock listeners in LA and Country listeners in Houston do.
Wrong. Radio satisfies its target audience. That's why advertisers still buy radio. However that target may now mean different people. So people who may have loved country music in the 80s have now aged out of the target. That means radio creates programming that appeals to the current target, and hires hosts who are from that age group. The advertisers determine what the target is.
Radio is not a music distribution service. It never has been. People who want a music distribution service have lots of options. What KILT is doing is focusing on the content THEY create, which is live & locally based talent. The music is not created in Houston.
Radio companies don't own the radio frequencies they use. They only license them. Same with TV. That's why TV companies are pushing their own video apps like Hulu and Peacock. So yes, radio companies have no vested interest in "saving radio." That's up to the FCC. At one time, companies that owned radio stations also made radios, such as RCA and GE. Not any more. But that doesn't mean these companies don't care about the content they create, and the abilities of their employees to create content that can be used on multiple platforms. Perhaps that's what this new guy Erik will be doing. Good for him!
Meanwhile, what's wrong with companies making a profit? In this country, all companies seek to make a profit. Maybe that's different for you. If so, there is non-commercial public radio, where there is no profit allowed.
Companies don't hire a person in order to fire them. So obviously they disagree with you. They're the ones paying his salary, not you. Perhaps the role he will play has nothing to do with country music or Houston. Perhaps he will be the token west coast rocker who the other two hosts will mock and and make fun of to the delight of other locals. Who knows? Give him a chance. Yes it's a risk. Hiring anyone is a risk. That's no reason not to do it.
In the sales demos which commercial radio programs to, about 89% to 90% use radio every week. 25 years ago, it was 94%. With all the new alternatives, that certainly shows that radio is a viable alternative and has the greatest reach of any audio medium.
And that is because they were bored, many were afraid to go out and they had to find things to fill the day. Now, radio is essentially back to the pre-pandemic listening levels.
Or, simply, radio is the easy way to listen. One can go exploring for new discoveries, but most of the time it's desirable to hear the most familiar, favorite songs.
Similarly, radio is the alternative for other sources today. Less time is spent with radio now, but it still reaches nearly 90% of all 25-54 and 18-49 persons each and every week.
No, they are betting on a future of AUDIO. That means content that will be distributed however listeners want to hear it. We are not in the transmitter and tower business, we are in the entertainment business.
But, to those of us in the business, radio is not dead. The platform is shifting. We still believe that sponsored, free content is a viable medium. My emphasis is on "content" and not the delivery method.
To me, it is not well reasoned. But there has to be some kind of thinking there to "set us apart from the other station". Given Audacy's recent moves in most places, I am suspect of everything Fields does.
And I think they thought about this. What we don't know until the show develops is what the reasoning was.
Of course, that is why so many national TV shows originate in Houston...
Obviously, they think they found a way to differentiate. Let's see if it works. Remember, even at P&G, half the new products fail.
If it works, why change it. Look how many brands have the same name after decades.
"New" has been researched to death. It is one of the marketing buzz words that always has positive value, even after decades. In this case, "new" applies to the latest music, good topics on the morning show and the like.
And "new" rhymes with "Q" and makes the name memorable. Contrary to the opinions of many, even when we don't have to write things down in a diary, memorability is key to getting people to come back to you every chance they get to listen.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that this one guy has been added to a morning team. So the show isn't built around him. He's there for color. He's the tomato in the salad, as one consultant would say. Perhaps they wanted diversity of experience. I don't know. But I'm not ready to criticize until he starts work and we hear what he does.
Certainly not at the same rate of yesteryear. Remember, there's a reason why radio licenses have lost a ton of value in the past 15 years.
Never claimed it was. It is an entertainment distribution.
I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't say it was.
They own the license and pay fees. No different than owning land and paying taxes.
There's no need to be anal-retentive.
It's really not. That's not even their responsibility.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation.
Didn't say it was wrong. Stop jumping to conclusions.
Let's stop pretending like there has never been hires that have fallen flat on their faces.
First your chastise me for not knowing what audacy plans to do with him, yet you have no issue speculating?
My point is that this was not a safe hire. It's a risk. A publicity stunt, if you will.
KILT; "hey look, we have a d-list celebrity!"
- Status