Erik Scott Smith Joins KILT-FM/Houston as Morning Co-Host

[BamaTX]

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.

Not the same reach or usage as before. Sure radio still reaches people. But "reach" just means "they listened to us while they were waiting at the societies office because the receptionist had her radio on".

Terrestrial radio isn't as effective as it once was. People still use it, but they use it less frequently and spend less time interacting with it. Can money still be made? Absolutely. But for how long can that be said? A decade or two?

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.

That's my point. Companies are getting ready for a future without terrestrial radio.

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.

For all intents and purposes of this conversation, radio = AM/FM.

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.

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.

Bringing in a d-list celebrity to be part of their morning show is just a glorified publicity stunt meant to create buzz among their listeners and potential listeners.

There's no denying they likely paid a premium for this hire. I just think the resume doesn't fit the position given that there are dozens of other more qualified people out there with experience in entertaining a country music crowd.

I'm not saying he won't work out. But what I am saying is that audacy could have made a safer hire.

 

[TheBigA]

Never claimed it was. It is an entertainment distribution.

You're comparing radio stations to Spotify and OTT. They are music distribution services. People use them as a replacement for buying CDs or downloading songs.

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.

But radio stations don't OWN the frequency. They're renters. It's not their job to "save radio." Audacy owns its streaming services and pays taxes on that. Maybe you don't understand the role of the FCC. When AM listenership started declining, the FCC launched something called the "AM Revitalization Plan." That's what I mean when I say it's the FCC's job to save radio. The big radio companies are planning for the eventual transition from broadcast radio to streaming. Same with the TV companies. Radio and TV companies are aware that broadcast usage is declining, and that's why they're making other plans.

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!"

That's not how I read the press release. Where did you come up with the idea that he's a "celebrity?" I don't understand your infatuation with a third banana. He's not the primary host.

 

[BamaTX]

You're comparing radio stations to Spotify and OTT. They are music distribution services. People use them as a replacement for buying CDs or downloading songs.

Never compared them. I just said they were the new avenues of media. I also wouldn't put streaming services on the same category as CDs or other type of "physical" media. Streaming doesn't have the same restrictions as a USB drive or a cassette where communication only goes one way. You get what you want, where you want, how you want, however you want.

Furthermore, streaming has better flexibility for advertisers by offering better data on their listeners. What are people listening to? Where are they located? How are they listening? On what device are they listening? What is their age? How long are they listening? Are they interacting with ads? What have they googled lately? And so on and so on.

The amount of data available to advertisers makes terrestrial radio look like the little leagues. Imagine owning a travel business and being able to only play ads for people who recently searched travel sites? You can't do that with terrestrial radio.

But radio stations don't OWN the frequency. They're renters.

You own the license. You don't rent it.

It's not their job to "save radio."

Again, I never said this. At this point, I'm inclined to ask where I made such claim. Their job is to make money. But in their path to make money, they're killing radio a bit faster than they realize.

Audacy owns its streaming services and pays taxes on that. Maybe you don't understand the role of the FCC.

No, I don't think you do.

When AM listenership started declining, the FCC launched something called the "AM Revitalization Plan." That's what I mean when I say it's the FCC's job to save radio.

It's not their job. The last plan was a push by AM broadcasters to change some of the rules (like using an FM translator) for their benefit. The FCC isn't going out of their way to make sure terrestrial radio stays alive. They'll listen to broadcasters and make changes if they make sense. This is where the last "AM revitalization plan" came from and where the current one (digital only AM) is coming from.

If the FCC was invested in saving terrestrial radio, then they wouldn't be repurposing TV licenses for wireless internet use (which is what will ultimately drive the death of radio)

The big radio companies are planning for the eventual transition from broadcast radio to streaming. Same with the TV companies. Radio and TV companies are aware that broadcast usage is declining, and that's why they're making other plans.

Then what's the argument here? You took issue because I said radio was dying, yet now you're agreeing with me.

That's not how I read the press release. Where did you come up with the idea that he's a "celebrity?"

Let me get this straight, you're defending the hire, yet you don't even know his resume?

In the wise words of Cousin Eddie, "You serious Clark?"

I don't understand your infatuation with a third banana. He's not the primary host.

Again, that's all you. I simply pointed out that moves like these are what is accelerating the death of radio. You're the one who chose to laser focus on this hire and geography, when the reality is that there are several other things that are also killing radio.

I made that very clear the moment you replied.

 

[TheBigA]

Never compared them. I just said they were the new avenues of media. I also wouldn't put streaming services on the same category as CDs or other type of "physical" media.

That's how they're being used. If you notice, most new cars no longer offer CD players, but they still provide AM/FM. People use streaming strictly for listening to their favorite songs. Radio doesn't work that way. The listener doesn't program the music heard on the radio. It's a mass medium. Streaming is one-to-one and is classified that way legally. It's also digital, which AM/FM can't do.

Furthermore, streaming has better flexibility for advertisers by offering better data on their listeners.

What we're seeing is users prefer subscription streaming rather than ad-supported. People want to avoid commercials. The latest data on Spotify is people are choosing the ad-free version. Advertising is the only revenue stream for AM/FM.

Then what's the argument here? You took issue because I said radio was dying, yet now you're agreeing with me.

You said this move by Audacy is what's killing radio. You presented it as one is causing the other. As I said that was snarky and factually wrong. There's nothing radio companies can do that will change human behavior. KILT could hire Ralph Emery as co-host, and that won't change what's happening. You're viewing radio as a narrow thing that requires transmitters & towers. Companies like Audacy create content that airs on FM, becomes a podcast on the internet, and the station can be streamed on Audacy.com. So the use of radio isn't dying. Just the device people once used is. It's becoming increasingly difficult to buy a radio, because people can hear the radio using their existing devices. Plus those devices are digital, so the quality is better.

Again, that's all you. I simply pointed out that moves like these are what is accelerating the death of radio. You're the one who chose to laser focus on this hire and geography, when the reality is that there are several other things that are also killing radio.

There is absolutely nothing radio companies or stations can do, no one they can hire, no music they can play that will get people to throw away their cell phones and start buying transistor radios again. That is a simple fact. You're blaming the horse for the fact that people prefer cars. If only the horse ate less or ran faster, people would still ride them instead of cars.

I just think the resume doesn't fit the position given that there are dozens of other more qualified people out there with experience in entertaining a country music crowd.

A more qualified person wouldn't accept a third banana job. It would be an insult to their qualifications. They would want to be the sole host. They would want top billing. This guy is billed as "plus Erik." He's not the main guy. He's not the reason people will or won't tune in. You also have no idea how entertaining he is since he hasn't started yet.

 

[stan]

That's how they're being used. If you notice, most new cars no longer offer CD players, but they still provide AM/FM. People use streaming strictly for listening to their favorite songs. Radio doesn't work that way. The listener doesn't program the music heard on the radio. It's a mass medium. Streaming is one-to-one and is classified that way legally. It's also digital, which AM/FM can't do.
.

most automobile systems have Bluetooth or USB connectability for your smartphone. The reason this is being done is the consumer. Many of us will stream music or podcasts, rather than listening to the radio while traveling or commuting. I don’t need a radio to give me traffic reports - if they even do outside of morning drive. My phone will show me on the map and reroute me accordingly. Weather is the same way. My phone will alert me to any weather emergencies.

More and more autos no longer offer AM radio - at all. Expect that percentage to grow as the percentage of electric vehicles grows.

 

[TheBigA]

I don’t need a radio to give me traffic reports - if they even do outside of morning drive. My phone will show me on the map and reroute me accordingly. Weather is the same way. My phone will alert me to any weather emergencies.

Operationally these are two different kinds of devices: Push vs. pull. The radio gives you the information vs you have to get the information from the internet. One you can do while driving 70mph, the other takes your eyes off the road. So yes they do the same thing, and certainly the internet allows you to narrowly focus on your specific situation. BTW, you're not telling me something I don't know. I'm aware of all the options that exist. I purposely shut off the weather emergency function on my phone because it woke me up at night and was just plain annoying. The reason we air weather & traffic on the radio is because advertisers like to sponsor them. We'll continue to do the reports as long as that continues.

 

[BamaTX]

That's how they're being used. If you notice, most new cars no longer offer CD players, but they still provide AM/FM. People use streaming strictly for listening to their favorite songs. Radio doesn't work that way. The listener doesn't program the music heard on the radio. It's a mass medium. Streaming is one-to-one and is classified that way legally. It's also digital, which AM/FM can't do.

But to compare streaming to CDs or flash drives is incorrect.

What we're seeing is users prefer subscription streaming rather than ad-supported. People want to avoid commercials. The latest data on Spotify is people are choosing the ad-free version. Advertising is the only revenue stream for AM/FM.

That's false. Spotify still has more non paid users than paid users. As a matter of fact, the gap between paid users and free users keeps growing (and that's despite the fact that Spotify saw a substantial growth of paid users).

The market for ad supported streaming is still there and is showing no signs of stopping.

Terrestrial radio on the other hand...

You said this move by Audacy is what's killing radio. You presented it as one is causing the other.

You're jumping to conclusions again. I didn't say this alone is causing it. There are several moves by radio operators that are causing people to seek other alternatives.

This is one of them.

As I said that was snarky and factually wrong. There's nothing radio companies can do that will change human behavior.

But there are things that accelerate the abandonment of terrestrial radio.

Making hires that make no sense and have a high probability of failure instead of making a safe hire causes this when the hire fails.

KILT could hire Ralph Emery as co-host, and that won't change what's happening. You're viewing radio as a narrow thing that requires transmitters & towers.

Buddy, I think you are viewing my posts in a narrow minded view and jumping to conclusions.

Companies like Audacy create content that airs on FM, becomes a podcast on the internet, and the station can be streamed on Audacy.com. So the use of radio isn't dying.

Terrestrial radio is dying. That's a fact.

How fast it dies is the actual question. Can companies continue to profit from radio for another couple of decades or several decades depends on several factors. This os why I find it mind boggling that you keep hammering on about the hire when i already explained that it's just one of the things that alienates listeners.

Just the device people once used is. It's becoming increasingly difficult to buy a radio, because people can hear the radio using their existing devices. Plus those devices are digital, so the quality is better.

Hence the death of terrestrial radio inching closer and closer.

There is absolutely nothing radio companies or stations can do, no one they can hire, no music they can play that will get people to throw away their cell phones and start buying transistor radios again.

Then why are you arguing with me if you agree with me?

That is a simple fact. You're blaming the horse for the fact that people prefer cars. If only the horse ate less or ran faster, people would still ride them instead of cars.

Again, re-read my posts. You're missing the point because you keep making assumptions.

A more qualified person wouldn't accept a third banana job. It would be an insult to their qualifications.

Again, look up the guy's resume. This hire is a downgrade for him given where he has been and the work he has done.

Unless this job is paying him substantially more, then taking this job is an insult to his qualifications.

They would want to be the sole host. They would want top billing. This guy is billed as "plus Erik." He's not the main guy. He's not the reason people will or won't tune in. You also have no idea how entertaining he is since he hasn't started yet.

Again, i never claimed he was. Why do you insist on fighting points I never argued or stated?

 

[TheBigA]

But to compare streaming to CDs or flash drives is incorrect.

It depends on the streaming platform. If you're streaming KILT on Audacy, you're right. If you're streaming your own playlist, it's no different than listening to your own mix tapes or CDs.

That's false. Spotify still has more non paid users than paid users. As a matter of fact, the gap between paid users and free users keeps growing (and that's despite the fact that Spotify saw a substantial growth of paid users).

The press release I received says the growth is in subscriptions. Do you disagree that people want to avoid commercials? That's why I said the data it provides advertisers is less useful because people want to avoid advertising. And they can. Advertisers pay for the Nielsen data on radio, so it obviously is useful to them.

But there are things that accelerate the abandonment of terrestrial radio.

Do you have data on that or is it just your personal opinion? Just because you don't like something or radio doesn't do what you want doesn't mean everyone else agrees. I get that radio no longer plays the music you like. It's hard to find radio stations that play a lot of music. It's been that way for a long time. Radio doesn't play music as a public service. It's meant as an enticement for advertising. If the music doesn't attract the people advertisers want, then radio doesn't play it. Simple.

Then why are you arguing with me if you agree with me?

Because you're creating this causation thing, that one thing has caused the other, and it's just plain wrong. I'll say it again: There is nothing radio can do, no music it can play, no staff it can hire, no amount of money it can spend that will change human behavior. NOTHING. The process is happening completely independent of what radio does. People still listen to the radio even though they subscribe to streaming services or satellite radio. They do both. We have factual data on this. That's now Nielsen arrived at its 92% figure.

Again, i never claimed he was. Why do you insist on fighting points I never argued or stated?

You keep saying there are more qualified people for the position. That's not the issue. You really don't know who applied, what the job is, or what he's getting paid. You're making all of this up. You don't know why he's leaving LA for Houston. It could be a personal reason, or it could be because he likes country music. Who knows. You just think it's a terrible hire and its indicative of "why radio is dying." In your most humble opinion. I most emphatically disagree.

 

[stan]

The reason we air weather & traffic on the radio is because advertisers like to sponsor them. We'll continue to do the reports as long as that continues.

During drive time that may be true. Other times, you’re on your own. Often during severe weather events that is true as well.

 

[AnyHuman]

Radio doesn't play music as a public service. It's meant as an enticement for advertising. If the music doesn't attract the people advertisers want, then radio doesn't play it. Simple.

Unless it's an LPFM. I've heard an LPFM in my area that seems to play someone's personal music collection on shuffle with no sponsors, at least no announcements for sponsors on-air.

 

[TheBigA]

Unless it's an LPFM. I've heard an LPFM in my area that seems to play someone's personal music collection on shuffle with no sponsors, at least no announcements for sponsors on-air.

Absolutely. All of my comments are about commercial stations. There are lots of non-coms, including LPFMs, that play music outside the range preferred by advertisers. All they ask is that listeners help pay for the service.

 

[BamaTX]

It depends on the streaming platform. If you're streaming KILT on Audacy, you're right. If you're streaming your own playlist, it's no different than listening to your own mix tapes or CDs.

Except mix tapes and CDs are limited by what you're carrying. Streaming platforms like Apple Music and Spotify are practically "on-demand" services. Any song you want at any given moment is at the touch of your fingers.

Can't do that from media confined to a CD or flash drive.

The press release I received says the growth is in subscriptions.

The public and your average listener will never read those press releases. Those are meant for industry insiders.

Do you disagree that people want to avoid commercials?

Yes, I disagree. This is why Spotify's ad based users have grown faster than paid users.

That's why I said the data it provides advertisers is less useful because people want to avoid advertising. And they can.

But they're not avoiding ads. A lot of people are using ad based services. While terrestrial radio may be dying, advertising in audio isn't. There seems to be a market for both.

Do you have data on that or is it just your personal opinion?

Data on what exactly? That Spotify's ad based users grew faster than paid subscribers? A simple Google search will tell you Spotify's numbers. They're not a secret.

Just because you don't like something or radio doesn't do what you want doesn't mean everyone else agrees.

I didn't say this.

I get that radio no longer plays the music you like. It's hard to find radio stations that play a lot of music. It's been that way for a long time. Radio doesn't play music as a public service. It's meant as an enticement for advertising. If the music doesn't attract the people advertisers want, then radio doesn't play it. Simple.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Because you're creating this causation thing, that one thing has caused the other, and it's just plain wrong.

For the last time, I already made myself clear several times. Why do you keep coming back to this point?

For the last time; "moves like these" (and not this move alone) is what can accelerate terrestrial radio's death. It's a risk hire that can pay huge dividends or alienate listeners to find better alternatives PERMANENTLY.

I'll say it again: There is nothing radio can do, no music it can play, no staff it can hire, no amount of money it can spend that will change human behavior. NOTHING.

Not exactly true. Trends change all the time.

Furthermore, radio can still influence human behavior. For example, conservative talk on terrestrial radio continues to have a massive influence on politics and how people think.

The process is happening completely independent of what radio does. People still listen to the radio even though they subscribe to streaming services or satellite radio. They do both. We have factual data on this. That's now Nielsen arrived at its 92% figure.

And I'm not arguing against it. Why won't you just acknowledge that the shift is happening? I feel like broken record here. You're taking a snapshot of an ongoing shift and calling it a day!

You keep saying there are more qualified people for the position. That's not the issue.

So hiring less qualified people is not an issue? Really?

You really don't know who applied, what the job is, or what he's getting paid. You're making all of this up.

Why are you so obsessed with this hire? I said moves like these, yet you're so obsessed in dissecting the hire when I've made myself perfectly clear; it is one of many reasons why radio is dying (or at least dying faster). Instead of making a safer hire by reaching out to better qualified individuals, they made a risky hire on hopes of making a splash. If the hire doesn't work out, they'll probably lose a few listeners permanently (and over time, all these listeners they've alienated will finally add up).

Furthermore, I didn't make anything up. I didn't say how much he was getting paid or who applied. Care to quote where I made such claims?

You don't know why he's leaving LA for Houston. It could be a personal reason, or it could be because he likes country music.

Doesn't matter. Why he left has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[TheBigA]

Data on what exactly?

That "there are things that accelerate the abandonment of terrestrial radio." That's what I was responding to. Do you have some facts, or just your opinion.

For the last time; "moves like these" (and not this move alone) is what can accelerate terrestrial radio's death. It's a risk hire that can pay huge dividends or alienate listeners to find better alternatives PERMANENTLY.

Or it won't make any difference at all. As I said, he's the third banana, not the main host. But if he alienates someone, that doesn't mean that leave radio. They might simply change stations to KKBQ. Seems like a lot of folks already have.

Furthermore, radio can still influence human behavior. For example, conservative talk on terrestrial radio continues to have a massive influence on politics and how people think.

Or if people don't like what they're saying, those talk hosts could completely alienate the audience and cause them to throw their radios away, never to come back. I know a lot of people who refuse to listen to AM radio for that reason.

Why are you so obsessed with this hire? I said moves like these, yet you're so obsessed in dissecting the hire when I've made myself perfectly clear; it is one of many reasons why radio is dying (or at least dying faster). Instead of making a safer hire by reaching out to better qualified individuals, they made a risky hire on hopes of making a splash. If the hire doesn't work out, they'll probably lose a few listeners permanently (and over time, all these listeners they've alienated will finally add up).

Isn't that what we're talking about? Look at the subject line of this thread. It's about this hire and your view that, as you say, it's "one of the reasons radio is dying." That is complete crap. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Then you go on to say he's not qualified, and that they're hoping to "make a splash." Where did you come up with that idea? I don't see it in the article. If the listeners like the other two hosts, they're not going to leave because of the third banana. His first day is Monday, and you already have him getting fired. Good for you.

 

[davideduardo]

most automobile systems have Bluetooth or USB connectability for your smartphone.

New models. The average car on the road today is over 12 years old. It will take a long time for that connectivity to be universal.

The reason this is being done is the consumer.

No, just some of the ones buying a new car.

More and more autos no longer offer AM radio - at all. Expect that percentage to grow as the percentage of electric vehicles grows.

No, just a couple of models of electric vehicles do that.

 

[BamaTX]

That "there are things that accelerate the abandonment of terrestrial radio." That's what I was responding to. Do you have some facts, or just your opinion.

The better question is why do you need sources for something that is just obvious?

How many terrestrial stations have filed for bankruptcy in the past decade? Have you noticed how commercial radio licenses have lost so much value in the past 15 years? Or what about the fact that new music trends are now taking place on the internet? Or what about the fact that just about every new vehicle in the market has Bluetooth as a standard feature?

Or it won't make any difference at all. As I said, he's the third banana, not the main host. But if he alienates someone, that doesn't mean that leave radio. They might simply change stations to KKBQ. Seems like a lot of folks already have.

What makes you so sure they won't discover a morning podcast over the internet instead?

Or if people don't like what they're saying, those talk hosts could completely alienate the audience and cause them to throw their radios away, never to come back. I know a lot of people who refuse to listen to AM radio for that reason.

That's been my point.

Isn't that what we're talking about? Look at the subject line of this thread. It's about this hire and your view that, as you say, it's "one of the reasons radio is dying." That is complete crap.

You just admitted risky hires could alienate listeners away from radio, yet it is still crap?

Care to explain your contradiction?

Then you go on to say he's not qualified, and that they're hoping to "make a splash." Where did you come up with that idea?

If you would kindly reread one of my many several post please. Because I don't feel like repeating myself.

I don't see it in the article. If the listeners like the other two hosts, they're not going to leave because of the third banana. His first day is Monday, and you already have him getting fired. Good for you.

You're oddly focusing and nitpicking one little part of the argument. I never even called for him to get fired.

Please do yourself a favor and reread the entire thread. You keep arguing things I've already thoroughly explained.

 

[TheBigA]

The better question is why do you need sources for something that is just obvious?
How many terrestrial stations have filed for bankruptcy in the past decade? Have you noticed how commercial radio licenses have lost so much value in the past 15 years?

Some companies are bad at running their business. That's no reason to blame radio as a device or platform. You just keep reaching to find something that proves your point, even thought it has nothing to do with the subject. Unless you think Audacy will go bankrupt because they hired a third co-host for the morning show at one of their stations.

What makes you so sure they won't discover a morning podcast over the internet instead?

What makes you so sure they will?

You just admitted risky hires could alienate listeners away from radio, yet it is still crap?
Care to explain your contradiction?

I was trying to make a joke about conservative talk radio, but you missed it.

You're oddly focusing and nitpicking one little part of the argument. I never even called for him to get fired.

Right. Instead you said that his hiring is an example of what is killing radio. Sorry. That's your way of saying they shouldn't have hired him in the first place because there are so many better qualified people lining up to be third banana on the 16th place station in Houston. As if it makes a difference.

 

[BamaTX]

Some companies are bad at running their business. That's no reason to blame radio as a device or platform.

Radio companies could run their business at best as anyone could and probably slow the death of radio to a crawl (but not stop or reverse it)

You just keep reaching to find something that proves your point, even thought it has nothing to do with the subject. Unless you think Audacy will go bankrupt because they hired a third co-host for the morning show at one of their stations.

Again....for.the.last.time...please read my posts again. You're making weird conclusions and making stuff up now.

What makes you so sure they will?

The fact that streaming and podcasts have continued to grow over the past few years.

I was trying to make a joke about conservative talk radio, but you missed it.

With all due respect, you're not being very coherent.

Right. Instead you said that his hiring is an example of what is killing radio. Sorry. That's your way of saying they shouldn't have hired him in the first place because there are so many better qualified people lining up to be third banana on the 16th place station in Houston. As if it makes a difference.

Again, you're nitpicking at this and being stubborn about coming back to this.

I've made myself perfectly clear over and over.

 

[TheBigA]

I've made myself perfectly clear over and over.

So have I. You believe what you want to believe.

 

[BamaTX]

So have I. You believe what you want to believe.

Considering you posted false information about streaming, you may be a little off there.

 

[TheBigA]

Considering you posted false information about streaming, you may be a little off there.

What "false information" was that?