> I assume you are using that term to mean something different
> than the FCC version based on your follow-up charge.
> Although, it seems the public votes with their ears as to
> what they enjoy and the aggregate gets to decide what serves
> the largest tastes. Your cliche is an old Elitist argument
> that popular-does-not-equal-good. Ask Dan Rather how that
> philosophy is working for CBS News.
>
Example:
Jacor brought Channel Z to the market. Channel Z did very well for a new format on a weak signal. It filled a format hole, created a buzz, and people listened. Clear Channel changed it to the Fox. How many tweaks did that station get until they finally gave up for "The Brew"? Why didn't their popular format that worked in other cities not work here? An established classic rock station already filled the need and they alienated every Channel Z listener that knew the frequency even existed.
> "...they copy another established station, or bring in a
> clone..."
> Imitation has been happening since the first stone wheel was
> carved. It is everywhere, like automobile design, where the
> most successful are analyzed for their traits that make them
> successful and then copied, borrowed, adapted, used, stolen,
> etc.
> Using your logic, there should only be one single "Top 40"
> station and it would be run by a disciple of Rick Sklar. No
> one else would be allowed to "copy" his success and apply it
> elsewhere and Lee Abrahms would still be in Detroit
running
> the only AOR station, as well. Is that really what you
> intend to occur?
>
This market is already low on strong signals. Bringing in an attack for Sunny 95 and Saga in general seems like a waste. Maybe they'll prove many of us wrong, but I don't see it happening. Why not fill another hole?
> Well, The Brew may be a similar playlist to a wildly
> successful station in Milwaukee, but I am not sure Lite is
> modeled on anything that could yet be defined as success in
> Philly.
> But, so what if it is? Why should a company be forced to
> utilize their resources if they think they have found a
> unique position in one market that may exist in others? This
> allegation seems to contradict your original charge of not
> serving the public by offering choices. Can you clarify this
> discrepency, please?
>
That "wildly successful" station may already be wearing out. You can only play 500 big hits from the 80s 24/7 for so long before sheeple will figure it out and move on. QFM96 is a good example of how a large playlist can survive quite well.
> Sure, but stock holders are not interested in large amounts
> of risk. They only want high amounts of return. It is far
> more likley to get bazillions of dollars invested in
> McDonald's than in Chris' because McDonald's has the track
> record. Poor old Chris only has an untested idea.
> Now, Chris may be the higher return, if his idea hits, but
> we all have heard about how many new business ideas fail
> within the first year (is it 85%-90%?). It would be
> difficult to find "plenty of money" in that fail-rate.
>
This is exactly why radio is so watered down today. Play the "safe" songs that "research" says the general public wants. My question is who that public is? Neither myself, or anyone I know, have received a diary to submit about listening habits. Many even question the validity of such "ratings".
> Emotion is a wonderful thing in broadcasting. Wall Street
> only wants the non-emotional spreadsheet. There in lies the
> conflict.
>
> The problem is with "you" who demands to hear only "your"
> favorites everytime "you" tune into a radio station. Public
> tastes are fickle and the public's demand for immediate
> satisfaction is excruciating.
>
> Public tastes may suck, but don't blame the deliverer.
>
Incorrect. There are always songs in any given genre that you tolerate on the radio. I don't think anyone with common sense expects a radio station that caters 100% to them. It's impossible.
For the longest time I thought I was the only one that didn't enjoy radio after the early 90s. Most of the people I know have the same feeling. When was the last time you heard anyone say "wow, that's a great station"? It has become so over-researched and tightened, it's no wonder so many "Jacks" and "Teds" are popping up.
I may not be an expert in the field, but I must have some idea as to what the public wants to hear. The days of FM are numbered. Once people have access to other free options via the internet in their cars, or anywhere they want, corporate-run radio will finally see its shortcomings.<P ID="signature">______________
Chris
202.FM</P>
