Future of WBCN

[epsilon]

Re: Sox on WBCN

> >
> > I would rather hear the Sox in stereo on WBCN- and it is
> > time to put Castiglione out to pasture.
> >
>
> Does the flagship have any say who the PBP announcers are?
> I thought it was strictly the team's decision.
>

Isn't the usual agreement that the station picks the announcers subject to the approval of the team?

 

[BRNout]

Re: Future of radio/no es en Espanol

> The AM band is a wasteland, except for the big 3 in Boston
> WBZ, WRKO, WEEI.
> Leased time ethnic rules the air, and guess what, it is only
> a matter of time before Boston FM gets one or more Spanish
> or Brazilian focused FM's. There is money to be made there.
> Big money. Etnic is big in other markets. As america becomes
> fragmented, instead of one big melting pot radio will
> follow.
>
I have to disagree with this somewhat. We're all quite familiar with the saga of WCBS-FM down in New York. It was blown out because of demographics and the idea that the "Jack" format would "sell" better than oldies. While this is quite debatable, the issue of ethnic radio - especially in a place like Boston - brings this out.

In most markets with Spanish FM's, there is a large spanish-speaking audience. A significant percentage of the market (more than 10%, usually closer to 20). Plus, you have station ownership, like Entravision, who is dedicated to providing that sort of radio. But, even on spanish stations that get great ratings, the total ad sales are never spectacular. Look in New York. La Mega (WSKQ) does boffo ratings. But, its billings are waaaaaay below much lower rated english stations (like WFAN). Same is true in LA.

And, have you ever watched any of the spanish TV channels around here? See the ads. Even during top rated shows, the ads are strictly bottom-feeder material. Why? Because, the audience, though of a desirable demo, is not very affluent. The more affluent latinos watch and listen to english media as often - or more so - than spanish media. They speak english as well as spanish (a necessity to do well). It's why, if you go to Latin America, you'll find an inordinate number of radio stations playing "english" pop music. They don't necessarily get great ratings, but the US pop bills well because it attracts the upper-crust audience in places like Mexico City, Caracas or Buenos Aires.

And, once we get illegal immigration under control, the second generation latinos will continue to assimilate (as some already are). They don't want to hear ranchero or salsa all the time, they like rhythmic pop, AC or country. Mark my words, in the next 20 years, you'll see low rated spanish FM's flipping back to english. As it is, LA's ratings have spanish FMs at the top AND bottom of the ratings. Denver and Dallas too. Not all do well - many have abhorrent ratings and are just kept on because their owners have some committment to spanish language radio.

Bringing this back to Boston, this market is realtively low on the list of latino markets. Given the limited number of FM signals available here, someone MAY try one spanish FM here - but no more than that. And, IF someone went spanish, perhaps it would be a post-Stern Infinity with churban on WBCN or (heaven forbid) on WODS. Looking for young demos. If Infinity flips someone to spanish, it would be to churban (reggaeton) and not tropical.

I do not see any of the other owners in this market flipping to general interest spanish tropical programming. Yes, WFNX would be a great candidate, but not while Mindich is around. But, aside from that low rated mess at FNX, no one else would wish to take the cut in pay that such a switch would guarantee. Good ratings don't matter if you have to sell low priced ad time to a toe fungus treatment system. And, that's what would happen here. Those lowball ads may run a flea powered AM transmitter, but on a big FM it will not pay the bills.

And, Brazilian portuguese ain't happening on FM in this town, unless its a college station. They'll just have to strain to hear WJFD from New Beige. Which is privately owned.



<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by BRNout on 06/22/05 03:01 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[LA_Guy]

I agree...

Radio isn't about ratings these days, it's about DOLLAR$!
Look at B-101 in Providence. When they changed format to oldies, they were #2 in the market with a 7 share. Problem was that no one wanted to buy the older demographics that easy listening generated. So they changed to oldies and even though they're hardly a top 5 station they still made a ton of money!



> > The AM band is a wasteland, except for the big 3 in Boston
>
> > WBZ, WRKO, WEEI.
> > Leased time ethnic rules the air, and guess what, it is
> only
> > a matter of time before Boston FM gets one or more Spanish
>
> > or Brazilian focused FM's. There is money to be made
> there.
> > Big money. Etnic is big in other markets. As america
> becomes
> > fragmented, instead of one big melting pot radio will
> > follow.
> >
> I have to disagree with this somewhat. We're all quite
> familiar with the saga of WCBS-FM down in New York. It was
> blown out because of demographics and the idea that the
> "Jack" format would "sell" better than oldies. While this
> is quite debatable, the issue of ethnic radio - especially
> in a place like Boston - brings this out.
>
> In most markets with Spanish FM's, there is a large
> spanish-speaking audience. A significant percentage of the
> market (more than 10%, usually closer to 20). Plus, you
> have station ownership, like Entravision, who is dedicated
> to providing that sort of radio. But, even on spanish
> stations that get great ratings, the total ad sales are
> never spectacular. Look in New York. La Mega (WSKQ) does
> boffo ratings. But, its billings are waaaaaay below much
> lower rated english stations (like WFAN). Same is true in
> LA.
>
> And, have you ever watched any of the spanish TV channels
> around here? See the ads. Even during top rated shows, the
> ads are strictly bottom-feeder material. Why? Because, the
> audience, though of a desirable demo, is not very affluent.
> The more affluent latinos watch and listen to english media
> as often - or more so - than spanish media. They speak
> english as well as spanish (a necessity to do well). It's
> why, if you go to Latin America, you'll find an inordinate
> number of radio stations playing "english" pop music. They
> don't necessarily get great ratings, but the US pop bills
> well because it attracts the upper-crust audience in places
> like Mexico City, Caracas or Buenos Aires.
>
> And, once we get illegal immigration under control, the
> second generation latinos will continue to assimilate (as
> some already are). They don't want to hear ranchero or
> salsa all the time, they like rhythmic pop, AC or country.
> Mark my words, in the next 20 years, you'll see low rated
> spanish FM's flipping back to english. As it is, LA's
> ratings have spanish FMs at the top AND bottom of the
> ratings. Denver and Dallas too. Not all do well - many
> have abhorrent ratings and are just kept on because their
> owners have some committment to spanish language radio.
>
> Bringing this back to Boston, this market is realtively low
> on the list of latino markets. Given the limited number of
> FM signals available here, someone MAY try one spanish FM
> here - but no more than that. And, IF someone went spanish,
> perhaps it would be a post-Stern Infinity with churban on
> WBCN or (heaven forbid) on WODS. Looking for young demos.
> If Infinity flips someone to spanish, it would be to churban
> (reggaeton) and not tropical.
>
> I do not see any of the other owners in this market flipping
> to general interest spanish tropical programming. Yes, WFNX
> would be a great candidate, but not while Mindich is around.
> But, aside from that low rated mess at FNX, no one else
> would wish to take the cut in pay that such a switch would
> guarantee. Good ratings don't matter if you have to sell
> low priced ad time to a toe fungus treatment system. And,
> that's what would happen here. Those lowball ads may run a
> flea powered AM transmitter, but on a big FM it will not pay
> the bills.
>
> And, Brazilian portuguese ain't happening on FM in this
> town, unless its a college station. They'll just have to
> strain to hear WJFD from New Beige. Which is privately
> owned.
>

 

[dlhalper]

Re: Future of RADIO

it was said--
> Guys, I have got to respond to this and clear up some total
> misconceptions.

First, said Donna, holding herself up to the computer, some of us are not guys. That at least has changed, and since I was on the air in the late 60s as Northeastern's first female d.j., there have been many other women in the industry. Just had to mention it. (am ducking now, as those who think I am being politically correct prepare to throw things at me...)

and then it was said--
> When someone says about a station that the whole deck of
> cards is about to fall... apply that to every station, every
> format in every market in America. Something has happened
> that the radio execs at all these broadcasting companies
> hoped wouldn't: Advertisers finally woke up one morning and
> realized, nobody's listening. Nobody.

And why is that? I say it's largely because of media consolidation and the Telecom Act of 1996. I made a comfortable living and had a lot of fun for more than 20 years consulting in small and medium markets. A number of people who are still on the air in major markets are people I trained (they never write, they never call, and only a few ever said thank you... oh well...). But at some point, like a giant game of PacMan, the small stations got gobbled up and owners with huge debt service decided to save money by voice-tracking and using satellite. Okay fine, I understand that in some markets it's tough to find reliable and good-sounding air talent, but owners and managers who had, in my view, very short-sighted goals, turned radio into some chain-store where it sounded the same in city after city and did not reach out to the listeners any more. The good news was that millions of people could hear Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh all over the country. But that was also the bad news, because we stopped developing the next generation of talent or the next compelling reason to listen to radio.

See, when I consulted, and when I jocked & music directed, radio was considered a best friend. These days, it's just one more of a number of choices, and only those stations that are UNIQUE and reach out to the audience have a chance of continued success. There ain't no magic format, but it's not just a whine to worry about the future of classic rock or oldies or whatever-- owners tend to have a pack mentality and when they think they have found a "magic answer", whether it's AAA or the Arrow or Jack, they all migrate to it. Then when it only works in some places, they say "see nobody listens to radio any more."

But that's a lie. Radio can make or break a presidential election. Radio can make or break a song (yes even today). Radio can be a best friend if somebody will just let it. I'd go back to radio tomorrow if there were someplace I could do the things I believe in, and I KNOW that I would get listeners. They're out there and we can create a new generation of fans-- but we'll have to work at it because we blew them off with 22 minute spot loads and syndication and voice tracking. Do we have the will to get those listeners back? Are there owners who are willing to admit they made a mistake in shunning the local audience? Only time will tell, but as your friendly media historian, I can say with certainty that people have been predicting radio's demise since the 1940s. But we are not dead yet. And G-d willing, there will be some changes made before we become totally irrelevant to a new generation that could like us if we'd just give them a reason. The world doesn't need another Howard Stern clone nor another Rush Limbaugh clone. It doen't need some fad format. It needs stations that have a target audience in mind and will be their best friend. Society is in a transition now-- boomers are not your typical 50+ audience-- they still love rock and many of the rockers they love are in that demographic. Young people have grown up with no fond memories of radio-- okay we missed an opportunity, but I say it's not too late to bring them to us-- however, it will take promotion, marketing, and a willingness to create UNIQUE broadcasting that is live and local and entertaining and informative. Just my opinion. [rant mode off]

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: Reply to Frish/Let's talk about the station

Unlike many of Stern's affiliates, I actually think WBCN will do just fine without him.

Although rock radio is in a serious decline on a nationwide basis, Boston is still a pretty strong rock market.

Yes, WBCN's morning ratings will take a hit, but I think WBCN's overall ratings won't be hurt all that much.

Perhaps as many as two dozen of Stern's current affiliates will change formats when he leaves Infinity. WBCN won't be one of them.

 

[Frish]

Re: Reply to Frish/Let's talk about the station

Hold it Millenium responded with a "response to Frish" so let me respond to it.
>
> YOUR FACTS ARE FANTASY. Mark Parenteau was INDEED EMPLOYED
> BY XM.
> In fact, the website read "Hey Moms & Dads & Kids, it's ME,
> Mark Parenteau",
> the minute he ran into legal troubles the website came down;
> about a week
> later his employment was terminated. That's reality.

What's the difference? if he was fired from there not even a year after he got there. It does not matter when his picture came off of their web site. I dont understand why you think arguing over how many agels fit on the head of a pin means anything.
>
> >
> > Mark Parenteau was one of the greatest twenty years plus
> > ago but he could not offer anything as he got older,
> ce.
> > You're right he did then go to XM where he did not even
> make
> > it a year, fired because he was impossible to work with
> > because of his arrogance not because of his legal troubles
>
> > they didnt happen until a good while until he had been
> fired
> > from there:
>
> SEE ABOVE.
>
>
> FACT. Ken Shelton has been unable to find work
> > for years because his reputation is well known that he is
> > difficult but you are not suggesting that no one is
> > interested in his services although they have not been for
>
> > years now.
>
> MILLENIUM RESPONDS:
> Ken Shelton is VERY EASY to get along with. He just didn't
> have it on ROR.
> It was quite sad.

He didnt have it there, or ZLX where there was a quote in the paper by the Pd (I thin Buzz Knight) who said that his firing had nothing to do with money. That in my mind was a fairly obvious slap at the guy. He didnt last at WBOS either but who cares since I never even mentioned him in the first place. You're on something Millenium because your arguments are all over the palce and often have nothing to do with the given topic. It's pretty clear that you also only like those who in turn like you and it seems like everyone who you have contact with has been out of radio or off the air for years and years. It's pretty transparant........It's actually very sad.
>
>
> Wizardo:
> Unlike yourself I talk to Nik Carter I dont know why you're
> trying to pour salt on his name here but I know> that he has
> turneed down a few diffferent jobs he turned > down Sirius
> while he was still working for wbcn. His voice
> >
> I STAND BY THE FACTS, NIK was adequate, nothing special, I
> wish him well.
> He didn't land on his feet like Parenteau did. Had Mark not
> gotten arrested he would still be at XM. He was well liked
> there.
>

If you dont work at XM you dont know if he was or wasnt well liked. Again that is your opinion and it's not based on anything factual. Listen to your argument though "If hadn't gotten arrested (for molstting a young boy)he would still be at XM now" you sound like a complete nut.
>
> is heard all over TV and radio because he's doing voice
> > overs full time and the voice of a few radio stations in
> > major markets and if you know anything about
> communications
> > voice overs pay better than most radio jobs ever will.
>
> OH PLEASE - Nik Himself was saying he would be back - and
> where is he?
> Voice overs?
>
>
I imagine that when you're making a morning show salary even if you're doing afternoons you cannot just take the next thing that comes along because you're at a certain level that you would want to maintain or increase money wise and status wise etc. What makes you so certain that Nik is not on air now by choice? not everyone takes what they're offered; some can afford not to. You dont have to understand that yourself but it's the way it is for some. There are lots of great talents available these days and many probably because they choose to wait for the job that they want. Ralphie Marino is a well known Boston talent who is unnemployed because of the star format change, if Lady D can get a job so quickly at Mix 98.5 I know Ralphie could easily go to Kiss or somewhere else like that if he wanted to but he's not. Im sure he is waiting for the job he wants not just whatever comes along. I bet Nik is doing the same thing.

Shows how much you know(which is very little) if you turn your nose up at voice over work, its very, very, profitable why do you think so many people are doing it and trying to get into that industry now?. There are people who do nothing else and make six figure money. Do some research and know a little about this industry that youre always talking about online.

If you were Nik or Deek where else in Boston would you even WANT to work? not alot of other places that you would even be interested in. Most places would be a step down from wbcn I should think even if you do not think so.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Announcer Hiring And Approval

Epsilon asks:

> Isn't the usual agreement that the station picks the
> announcers subject to the approval of the team?

Usually, but not always.

In some cases, the team itself will produce the broadcasts, sell commercial time, and buy airtime from a radio station. In that case, the announcers are employees of and hired by the team.

In a few cases, the broadcast rights are held not by a team or a station, but by an independent producer, who like the team, sells commercials and buys airtime from the station. In these cases, the announcers are hired by the producer, often subject to approval by the team and sometimes also of the flagship station.

And there are even cases where the station that holds the rights holds sole right to hire announcers, and the team has no say or right of approval. I believe most network television contracts with professional sports leagues nowadays preclude the leagues from having any say in who the networks hire as announcers.

 

[neanderpol]

Why?

...is everyone so quick to announce the death of radio?

Aren't revenues as a whole up?

Isn't the attrition of audience approximately 2-4%?

Aren't music sales up? (Yes...if you factor in revenues garnered from legal downloading which is poised to surpass illegal downloading)

Yeah...it seems that the naysayers are overreacting a bit.

I'm not saying we're on the right path. We all know what the problems are, but nobody is acting to stop the potential fall of our medium from happening. So, in that regard, people should heed the warnings. But, we're not dead yet.

The "we play more music than anyone else but have no personality" format will fail miserably. It takes two years to establish any format, and the projected lifespan of that particular format is exactly two years. Are the "experts" even paying attention to what they're doing?

Ask yourself this question:

Why should people listen to my station?

Is it commercials? You'd like them to stay through the stopsets, but we know that anything placed third or worse in the set is a waste.

Is it music? If so, you might want to reconsider your methodology of picking the playlist. Callout/auditorium tests are an absolute waste of time/money. If you think people have too many distractions to listen to radio, imagine how tough it is to get a legitimate cross-section of your target audience to sit in an auditorium and fill out a bubble sheet? What's the motivation? $30 and a spuckie? Oh, and how can we as an industry complain about the relevancy of Arbitron, and how the miniscule sample size dictates ratings, when that's exactly how we pick the product we present to the masses? Programmers know how to do this. But ownership seems reliant on out-of-market consultants to dictate their station's business. How insecure is that?

So now we're down to personality. Which is the true identity of your station.

The combination of good imaging, and well defined air talent is the "face" of your station. If it's unrecognizable, you're screwed. You become the background noise that the satellite radio guys want us to be. Yes, many stations are now suffering from this malady. They need to hire talent that know how to entertain first. You can teach anyone music history, or political agenda. You cannot teach personality. You either have it, or you don't. But, the potential is there. We just aren't nourishing it.

Why is it so important for NBC to get John Madden? Because like him, or hate him, he is the face of American football. He transcends the game. When you have someone like that, you have instant credibility. Sirius..Stern..XM..O&A. Why doesn't anyone else step up and stop the migration. Yeah...it's gonna cost a little. But at what price would you value your signal? For every dollar you spend...you're getting tens of thousands in return.

It's about the talent. Development? Where is it? Is it in Topeka? Some overnighter there? Is he/she getting airchecked, and being shown the basics? No, because we as an industry refuse to see that people are essential to the communications/entertainment business. Look at big business. How they realize that automation causes unhappiness.

Radio needs to take the cue from Nordstrom's. Interpersonal service. What did Mancow say? "Have a beer with your audience" or something to that effect.

We as talent cannot expect management to make us "stars". It takes work. It's not like we bang nails all day. Get up, do prep, and put together a package of yourself that makes you marketable. Learn how to do your own production. Perhaps work on your voice for commercial, or parody purposes. MAKE YOURSELF VALUABLE! Contrary to what you hear, there's good money to be had if you're worth it.

Satellite radio understands the importance of putting a personality to the radio. Cable TV understand it. Will we figure it out before we dry up the talent puddle?

The lamentations of many on this board are legitimate. But, radio's not dead. We just need to take a serious look at how we do business. The solution's there. Every level of our industry needs to work for a change. We've had it easy. It's time to earn those checks.

Who knows...Perhaps I'm just bitching. I love what I do. And I'm going to work hard to continue doing it. If the terrestrials die...there will be satellite. There..I've said it. The first rule is to keep the check coming in.

Stations that don't see the future will be gone. Ask WNEW. WCBS or any of the others that thought they were untouchable.

OK...gotta go play Green Day....AGAIN!

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Re: Why?

> So now we're down to personality. Which is the true identity
> of your station.
>
> The combination of good imaging, and well defined air talent
> is the "face" of your station. If it's unrecognizable,
> you're screwed. You become the background noise that the
> satellite radio guys want us to be. Yes, many stations are
> now suffering from this malady. They need to hire talent
> that know how to entertain first. You can teach anyone music
> history, or political agenda. You cannot teach personality.
> You either have it, or you don't. But, the potential is
> there. We just aren't nourishing it.
>
> Why is it so important for NBC to get John Madden? Because
> like him, or hate him, he is the face of American football.
> He transcends the game. When you have someone like that, you
> have instant credibility. Sirius..Stern..XM..O&A. Why
> doesn't anyone else step up and stop the migration.
> Yeah...it's gonna cost a little. But at what price would you
> value your signal? For every dollar you spend...you're
> getting tens of thousands in return.

We also need PD's and station managements who aren't afraid to let their on-air personalities shine. Outside of one very charismatic or perhaps "zany" morning driver and/or morning team, most PD's seem not to want any of their other talent to outshine one another, or more importantly, not to outshine them on their own internal egotistical battlefield by coming up with popular ideas on their own that were not management's ideas (which mostly originally came from consultants anyway).

Most managements seem afraid and threatened, as if they're relinquishing complete control, to allow their personalities (beyond morning drive) to rock any boats even slightly, though it's always been the few hosts who could get away with doing it in a way that complemented (not opposed) the stations format who became the most successful in broadcast media, even if they ended up having to eventually take it to the satellites.

> Satellite radio understands the importance of putting a
> personality to the radio. Cable TV understand it. Will we
> figure it out before we dry up the talent puddle?

Satellite radio and cable have subdivisions run by a variety of longtime veteran programmers who understand this, and respect personalities without feeling threatened by them. We need more terrestrial managements who will allow personalities to display their individuality and creativity without fearing that they're "becoming too big for the britches" of their station and their little talent stable of card-readers, over whom they seem to feel they must maintain complete control of at every moment.

 

[JamieWolf]

Shouldn't this be about radio?

>
> Millennium Response: Blame my Congressman, Ed Markey, as
> Neggy so appropriately posted above. Great personalities do
> things other than radio today. The Deek/Melissa/Nik Carter
> syndrome reflects the Limp Bisquick Effect - the music being
> manufactured on high priced cds is not satisfying to the
> millions purchasing Sirius and XM - where personalities
> flourish. Where you don't have to put up with bad rock
> being passed off as "cool" music.
>

Your hypocrisy! see above and you wrote that great personalities do things other than radio today but when someone says Nik Carter makes a lot doing voice overs your response is "Oh please voice overs" they are right you contradict yourself so often that you dont make any logical sense.
>
> I have wished Nik Carter well on this board. I still do. I
> feel badly for
> Parenteau. The only people formerly of BCN that I feel
> were totally shameful
> were Berardini and Hyson for the reasons stated before. The
> station had a very rich history. Any jock who has been able
> to put BCN on their resume should be proud, even with the
> dictatorship that was offensive to the staffers, the
> listeners, and the business people who had to put up with
> the unprofessional and highly suspicious activities of the
> GM and PD.

If you wish him well why do you keep bad mouthing him? that is all you do. You bad mouth him and lots of other people that are not there anymore so what is the point?. You sound angry and jealous of a lot of people. I thought this was supposed to be about radio not about personal grudges.

 

[Frish]

Re: Why?

> ...is everyone so quick to announce the death of radio?
>
> Aren't revenues as a whole up?
>
> Isn't the attrition of audience approximately 2-4%?
>
> Aren't music sales up? (Yes...if you factor in revenues
> garnered from legal downloading which is poised to surpass
> illegal downloading)
>
> Yeah...it seems that the naysayers are overreacting a bit.
>
> I'm not saying we're on the right path. We all know what the
> problems are, but nobody is acting to stop the potential
> fall of our medium from happening. So, in that regard,
> people should heed the warnings. But, we're not dead yet.
>
> The "we play more music than anyone else but have no
> personality" format will fail miserably. It takes two years
> to establish any format, and the projected lifespan of that
> particular format is exactly two years. Are the "experts"
> even paying attention to what they're doing?
>
> Ask yourself this question:
>
> Why should people listen to my station?
>
> Is it commercials? You'd like them to stay through the
> stopsets, but we know that anything placed third or worse in
> the set is a waste.
>
> Is it music? If so, you might want to reconsider your
> methodology of picking the playlist. Callout/auditorium
> tests are an absolute waste of time/money. If you think
> people have too many distractions to listen to radio,
> imagine how tough it is to get a legitimate cross-section of
> your target audience to sit in an auditorium and fill out a
> bubble sheet? What's the motivation? $30 and a spuckie? Oh,
> and how can we as an industry complain about the relevancy
> of Arbitron, and how the miniscule sample size dictates
> ratings, when that's exactly how we pick the product we
> present to the masses? Programmers know how to do this. But
> ownership seems reliant on out-of-market consultants to
> dictate their station's business. How insecure is that?
>
> So now we're down to personality. Which is the true identity
> of your station.
>
> The combination of good imaging, and well defined air talent
> is the "face" of your station. If it's unrecognizable,
> you're screwed. You become the background noise that the
> satellite radio guys want us to be. Yes, many stations are
> now suffering from this malady. They need to hire talent
> that know how to entertain first. You can teach anyone music
> history, or political agenda. You cannot teach personality.
> You either have it, or you don't. But, the potential is
> there. We just aren't nourishing it.
>
> Why is it so important for NBC to get John Madden? Because
> like him, or hate him, he is the face of American football.
> He transcends the game. When you have someone like that, you
> have instant credibility. Sirius..Stern..XM..O&A. Why
> doesn't anyone else step up and stop the migration.
> Yeah...it's gonna cost a little. But at what price would you
> value your signal? For every dollar you spend...you're
> getting tens of thousands in return.
>
> It's about the talent. Development? Where is it? Is it in
> Topeka? Some overnighter there? Is he/she getting
> airchecked, and being shown the basics? No, be cause we as
> an industry refuse to see that people are essential to the
> communications/entertainment business. Look at big business.
> How they realize that automation causes unhappiness.
>
> Radio needs to take the cue from Nordstrom's. Interpersonal
> service. What did Mancow say? "Have a beer with your
> sudience" or something to that effect.
>
> We as talent cannot expect management to make us "stars". It
> takes work. It's not like we bang nails all day. Get up, do
> prep, and put together a package of yourself that makes you
> marketable. Learn how to do your own production. Perhaps
> work on your voice for commercial, or parody purposes. MAKE
> YOURSELF VALUABLE! Contrary to what you hear, there's good
> money to be had if you're worth it.
>
> Satellite radio understands the importance of putting a
> personality to the radio. Cable TV understand it. Will we
> figure it out before we dry up the talent puddle?
>
> The lamentations of many on this board are legitimate. But,
> radio's not dead. We just need to take a serious look at how
> we do business. The solution's there. Every level of our
> industry needs to work for a change. We've had it easy. It's
> time to earn those checks.
>
> Who knows...Perhaps I'm just bitching. I love what I do. And
> I'm going to work hard to continue doing it. If the
> terrestrials die...there will be satellite. There..I've said
> it. The first rule is to keep the check coming in.
>
> Stations that don't see the future will be gone. Ask WNEW.
> WCBS or any of the others that thought they were
> untouchable.
>
> OK...gotta go play Green Day....AGAIN!
>

I agree with everything Neanderpol says except waaf's imaging is the worst in the area.

 

[TravisWMLN]

Re: Why?

> I agree with everything Neanderpol says except waaf's
> imaging is the worst in the area.
>
For as much of an AAF fan i am...i agree, their imaging is bad...i mean i can tend to look past it, but when i get complaints from my friends about the "liners" they hear, then i know it's bad.

 

[Roach1978]

Re: Why?

> ...is everyone so quick to announce the death of radio?
>
> Aren't revenues as a whole up?
>
> Isn't the attrition of audience approximately 2-4%?
>
> Aren't music sales up? (Yes...if you factor in revenues
> garnered from legal downloading which is poised to surpass
> illegal downloading)
>
> Yeah...it seems that the naysayers are overreacting a bit.
>
> I'm not saying we're on the right path. We all know what the
> problems are, but nobody is acting to stop the potential
> fall of our medium from happening. So, in that regard,
> people should heed the warnings. But, we're not dead yet.
>
> The "we play more music than anyone else but have no
> personality" format will fail miserably. It takes two years
> to establish any format, and the projected lifespan of that
> particular format is exactly two years. Are the "experts"
> even paying attention to what they're doing?
>
> Ask yourself this question:
>
> Why should people listen to my station?
>
> Is it commercials? You'd like them to stay through the
> stopsets, but we know that anything placed third or worse in
> the set is a waste.
>
> Is it music? If so, you might want to reconsider your
> methodology of picking the playlist. Callout/auditorium
> tests are an absolute waste of time/money. If you think
> people have too many distractions to listen to radio,
> imagine how tough it is to get a legitimate cross-section of
> your target audience to sit in an auditorium and fill out a
> bubble sheet? What's the motivation? $30 and a spuckie? Oh,
> and how can we as an industry complain about the relevancy
> of Arbitron, and how the miniscule sample size dictates
> ratings, when that's exactly how we pick the product we
> present to the masses? Programmers know how to do this. But
> ownership seems reliant on out-of-market consultants to
> dictate their station's business. How insecure is that?
>
> So now we're down to personality. Which is the true identity
> of your station.
>
> The combination of good imaging, and well defined air talent
> is the "face" of your station. If it's unrecognizable,
> you're screwed. You become the background noise that the
> satellite radio guys want us to be. Yes, many stations are
> now suffering from this malady. They need to hire talent
> that know how to entertain first. You can teach anyone music
> history, or political agenda. You cannot teach personality.
> You either have it, or you don't. But, the potential is
> there. We just aren't nourishing it.
>
> Why is it so important for NBC to get John Madden? Because
> like him, or hate him, he is the face of American football.
> He transcends the game. When you have someone like that, you
> have instant credibility. Sirius..Stern..XM..O&A. Why
> doesn't anyone else step up and stop the migration.
> Yeah...it's gonna cost a little. But at what price would you
> value your signal? For every dollar you spend...you're
> getting tens of thousands in return.
>
> It's about the talent. Development? Where is it? Is it in
> Topeka? Some overnighter there? Is he/she getting
> airchecked, and being shown the basics? No, because we as an
> industry refuse to see that people are essential to the
> communications/entertainment business. Look at big business.
> How they realize that automation causes unhappiness.
>
> Radio needs to take the cue from Nordstrom's. Interpersonal
> service. What did Mancow say? "Have a beer with your
> audience" or something to that effect.
>
> We as talent cannot expect management to make us "stars". It
> takes work. It's not like we bang nails all day. Get up, do
> prep, and put together a package of yourself that makes you
> marketable. Learn how to do your own production. Perhaps
> work on your voice for commercial, or parody purposes. MAKE
> YOURSELF VALUABLE! Contrary to what you hear, there's good
> money to be had if you're worth it.
>
> Satellite radio understands the importance of putting a
> personality to the radio. Cable TV understand it. Will we
> figure it out before we dry up the talent puddle?
>
> The lamentations of many on this board are legitimate. But,
> radio's not dead. We just need to take a serious look at how
> we do business. The solution's there. Every level of our
> industry needs to work for a change. We've had it easy. It's
> time to earn those checks.
>
> Who knows...Perhaps I'm just bitching. I love what I do. And
> I'm going to work hard to continue doing it. If the
> terrestrials die...there will be satellite. There..I've said
> it. The first rule is to keep the check coming in.
>
> Stations that don't see the future will be gone. Ask WNEW.
> WCBS or any of the others that thought they were
> untouchable.
>
> OK...gotta go play Green Day....AGAIN!
>

First off - Welcome back Neanderpol!

Now onto the topic at hand: I know myself - I have cut down on the time I spend listening to the radio over the last few years. About 5 years ago - I listened almost nonstop to AAF or HJY.

But now - I struggle to find something that I want to stay and listen too - I constantly flip around, looking for something interesting on the channels. I'll listen to Red Sox talk on EEI now (even though I don't like the red sox) just because it's something different . . .

For me - there are a few reasons why my listening habits have changed - for one - the play-lists for radio stations are WAY too repetitive. If you listen to one station for the whole day now - you'll hear "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by Green Day at least once an hour! Yes - it's a great song - but WAY too over played. I like the song, and I love the new Green Day album - but I can't justify going out to the store and buying it yet, simply because I hear the songs EVERY day on the radio. Why pay for a CD when all I have to do is flip through the stations in Boston, and chances are that I'll hear a green day song playing.

If there is one good thing that comes out of the Jack/Mike formats - I hope that it is the expansion of traditional radio's play-lists. Stations need to promote new music and take some more risks - where is the next God Smack?

2) Very few Jocks now can hold my attention in their breaks - Quinn and Cantera on HJY, and The Morning Buzz are the only two shows that I will actually stop and listen too if their just doing a break from the music. For me - they are fun to listen too - and talk about different things every day.

The Hillman Morning Show used to do that - and I used to be a huge fan when Mike Shu and Chris Engel (for some reason - I always liked Engel, though he too doesn't have a very unique personality on the air) were on - but now that show has fallen into a huge rut, focusing too much on Mantown (was a good idea - just getting very old now) - and not having anyone on the show that will put up the other side of the issue (it has got very right wing). Before - that show used to have both sides of the topic and was interesting to listen too - now - it's no better than any other show on the air.

While there are some good talents on the air - the majority of jocks are just "there" and could be replaced rather easially without anyone really noticing. . .

I will give props to Neanderpol for trying to do some things a little bit differently on his show (bringing back some older tunes), but even he needs to go further to make me want to keep tuned to him throughout the afternoon. Right now he still sounds like everyone else on the radio . . . a voice in a box that could be replaced without too many people noticing. . .

Just my 2 cents . . . from just a listener who's sick of the repetition. . .

Roach<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Roach1978 on 06/23/05 01:05 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Cam1224]

Re: Choosing announcers

> I believe Oedipus wanted to fire Gil and Gino and replace
> them with Peter Brock and Bill Abbate. Thankfully, Bob
> Kraft wouldn't hear of it.
>
> RE: Castiglione - McDonough is much better. Castiglione is
> ALWAYS saying "It's a high fly ball DEEP INTO CENTER FIELD
> -- it's going - it's going HE CAUGHT IT<
> CAN YOU BELIEVE IT???? < HE CAUGHT IT... Can you believe
> that...I thought it was a home run..."
>
> Ridiculous. And that's the voice in our memories - where's
> Sean McDonough!
> Call him up - give him a job!
>
>
> > > I would rather hear the Sox in stereo on WBCN- and it is
>
> > > time to put Castiglione out to pasture.
> > >
> >
> > Does the flagship have any say who the PBP announcers are?
>
> > I thought it was strictly the team's decision.
> >
>

McDonough commands too much $$$ for television nevermind radio!

 

[Frish]

Re: Why?

> > So now we're down to personality. Which is the true
> identity
> > of your station.
> >
> > The combination of good imaging, and well defined air
> talent
> > is the "face" of your station. If it's unrecognizable,
> > you're screwed. You become the background noise that the
> > satellite radio guys want us to be. Yes, many stations are
>
> > now suffering from this malady. They need to hire talent
> > that know how to entertain first. You can teach anyone
> music
> > history, or political agenda. You cannot teach
> personality.
> > You either have it, or you don't. But, the potential is
> > there. We just aren't nourishing it.
> >
> > Why is it so important for NBC to get John Madden? Because
>
> > like him, or hate him, he is the face of American
> football.
> > He transcends the game. When you have someone like that,
> you
> > have instant credibility. Sirius..Stern..XM..O&A. Why
> > doesn't anyone else step up and stop the migration.
> > Yeah...it's gonna cost a little. But at what price would
> you
> > value your signal? For every dollar you spend...you're
> > getting tens of thousands in return.
>
> We also need PD's and station managements who aren't afraid
> to let their on-air personalities shine. Outside of one very
> charismatic or perhaps "zany" morning driver and/or morning
> team, most PD's seem not to want any of their other talent
> to outshine one another, or more importantly, not to
> outshine them on their own internal egotistical battlefield
> by coming up with popular ideas on their own that were not
> management's ideas (which mostly originally came from
> consultants anyway).
>
> Most managements seem afraid and threatened, as if they're
> relinquishing complete control, to allow their personalities
> (beyond morning drive) to rock any boats even slightly,
> though it's always been the few hosts who could get away
> with doing it in a way that complemented (not opposed) the
> stations format who became the most successful in broadcast
> media, even if they ended up having to eventually take it to
> the satellites.
>
> > Satellite radio understands the importance of putting a
> > personality to the radio. Cable TV understand it. Will we
> > figure it out before we dry up the talent puddle?
>
> Satellite radio and cable have subdivisions run by a variety
> of longtime veteran programmers who understand this, and
> respect personalities without feeling threatened by them. We
> need more terrestrial managements who will allow
> personalities to display their individuality and creativity
> without fearing that they're "becoming too big for the
> britches" of their station and their little talent stable of
> card-readers, over whom they seem to feel they must maintain
> complete control of at every moment.
>
That is not entirely true. It is in that many of the programming staff at XM and Sirius are veterans but many are also there because they have reached the end of the line at "terrestrial radio". Xm for example for a timee had become like an elephant grave yard of radio talent staffed by people who had been someting twenty years ago: I.E Mark Parenteau, Lou Brutus, Lee Abrahms who is in charge of programming. many past ttheir prime and had nowhere else togo really. As for their commitment to personality that is what you would think but they also pay very little so how committed are they?. Xm from what i have hheard is paying better than sirius and they are in Dc so a personality does not need to make as much to live there but Sirius pays very little and you can hear it in the prodeuct. At times it sounds alost college radio like. Im not talking about tthe HOward Stern's or the Cousing Brucies thatw ork there Im talking about the rank and file of thei airstaff which makes up most of the staff.

 

[classicradionut]

Re: Future of RADIO

The esteemed DLH proclaimed:

> First, said Donna, holding herself up to the computer, some
> of us are not guys. That at least has changed, and since I
> was on the air in the late 60s as Northeastern's first
> female d.j., there have been many other women in the
> industry.

Aaah, poor Donna... you needn't point out the blatant sexism of my former comments. T'was a generality - a poor choice of words that eminated from my cold, uncaring fingertips which offended thee. It shant happen again.

Then, I said:
> Advertisers finally woke up one morning
> and
> > realized, nobody's listening. Nobody.
>

To which Donna replied thus:
> And why is that? I say it's largely because of media
> consolidation and the Telecom Act of 1996.

Of course it was. But you'll never hear the execs admit it.

> See, when I consulted, and when I jocked & music directed,
> radio was considered a best friend.

And that is the ENTIRE point I've been screaming at whomever will listen! Thanks for pointing it out!

> These days, it's just
> one more of a number of choices, and only those stations
> that are UNIQUE and reach out to the audience have a chance
> of continued success. There ain't no magic format, but it's
> not just a whine to worry about the future of classic rock
> or oldies or whatever-- owners tend to have a pack mentality
> and when they think they have found a "magic answer",
> whether it's AAA or the Arrow or Jack, they all migrate to
> it. Then when it only works in some places, they say "see
> nobody listens to radio any more."

Lets face it. The sad fact of radio format changes these days are thus: Management feels there are two pluses, especially when they change a station considered 'heritage'... First, they save an ungodly amount of money in salaries. Second, they expect a large ratings 'bump' that'll last for about 6 months, in which time they can sell like mad, take the cash and make another acquisition or line some executive's pocket. Then, when it wears off, they'll do some other shocking format change. Trouble is, once the talent is gone, it's really just a jukebox with commercials, regardless of what kind of music they decided to play. And listeners really would prefer their own home-burned CDs with their favorite songs playing without any commercials at all. So... in the end, what product do these stations really have? Nothing. Any fool can play music, but it's the people who entertained that kept the audience. I think I'm looking Infinity and Entercom squarely in the eyes on this one.

> But that's a lie. Radio can make or break a presidential
> election. Radio can make or break a song (yes even today).
> Radio can be a best friend if somebody will just let it.

But that requires stations to hire a most expensive commodity - people. And not just any ole person who walks in from the street, but someone who has a certain level of intelligence and an ability to actually connect with a listener. Unfortunately, people have to be paid and given essentials like health insurance, etc... so, more often than not, even the talkers cut corners by just broadcasting a satellite feed and national news - that's not even lip service to the community of license.

> I'd go back to radio tomorrow if there were someplace I
> could do the things I believe in, and I KNOW that I would
> get listeners. They're out there and we can create a new
> generation of fans-- but we'll have to work at it because we
> blew them off with 22 minute spot loads and syndication and
> voice tracking. Do we have the will to get those listeners
> back? Are there owners who are willing to admit they made a
> mistake in shunning the local audience? Only time will
> tell, but as your friendly media historian, I can say with
> certainty that people have been predicting radio's demise
> since the 1940s. But we are not dead yet. And G-d willing,
> there will be some changes made before we become totally
> irrelevant to a new generation that could like us if we'd
> just give them a reason. The world doesn't need another
> Howard Stern clone nor another Rush Limbaugh clone. It
> doen't need some fad format. It needs stations that have a
> target audience in mind and will be their best friend.
> Society is in a transition now-- boomers are not your
> typical 50+ audience-- they still love rock and many of the
> rockers they love are in that demographic. Young people
> have grown up with no fond memories of radio-- okay we
> missed an opportunity, but I say it's not too late to bring
> them to us-- however, it will take promotion, marketing, and
> a willingness to create UNIQUE broadcasting that is live and
> local and entertaining and informative. Just my opinion.
> [rant mode off]
>

I agree with you 100%. Radio DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DEAD. But, perhaps, as Dad always said when referring to how to make America great again, radio needs to go through a 1930's style depression - blow out all the dead wood. Then what returns will have the desire for greatness. Unfortunately all we have now from most corporate ownership is the desire for great PROFITS at all cost, and to them, the ends justify the means. Woa was the day that Wall Street got involved in programming radio stations.

Perhaps the so-called 'panic' I was referring to is a good thing. They're getting what they deserve.

As a side note, didn't I read an article just the other day by John Rook about how corporate owners are turning to the great programmers of yesterday for advice on how to save radio today.... only to be told that they screwed it up by taking all the programming control out of the hands of PD's and placing it with the GM and a committee of department heads... all of whom's background is in sales and not programming?

Enjoy the day, folks!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[RumourControl]

Re: Future of RADIO

> The esteemed DLH proclaimed:
>
> > First, said Donna, holding herself up to the computer,
> some
> > of us are not guys. That at least has changed, and since I
>
> > was on the air in the late 60s as Northeastern's first
> > female d.j., there have been many other women in the
> > industry.
>
> Aaah, poor Donna... you needn't point out the blatant sexism
> of my former comments. T'was a generality - a poor choice
> of words that eminated from my cold, uncaring fingertips
> which offended thee. It shant happen again.


That has also been Halper's rap for years "I was the first woman, they didnt give me any respect" blah blah blah. If you're the first member of ANY group (or in her case it is unknown if she svtually was the first woman etc but she certainly was one of the very few in the beginning). Point being that if you're one of the first of ANY group you will encounter multiple isms, in her case sexism. It only goes but so far and you have to live and flourish on your talent and ability and once you do finally make it through you've made it through, in short it's time for her to get past it..... maybe not get over it but at least get past it so that not every opinion is prefaced by "well as the first woman on air in the northeast" that really has no bearing on the state of the industry TODAY. Radio being the immediate medium that it is is about today and not so much about yesterday and past injustices. If they continue to flourish these past injustices then they should be dealt with but you cannot hang your entire identity on what you did, or what was done to you fifty years ago. That goes for all in this insane industry, as the mafiosos would say "this thing of ours"

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Future of RADIO

The funny thing...I've been ranting the same thing on this board for over a year.

Look at my above post entitled "Why?".

Take away the personality (readeople) and you're background noise.

Nobody listens because nobody cares.

The audience wants someone to identify with. Very few air talent show the audience respect, and therefore are "in the box" instead of "in the ears".

The wall is up. And then, when you get a group of people, and I'll use WBCN as an example...I grew up on Charles, Ken, Mark, and Tami. I'd have listened to Bob/Zip, Ian O'Malley, Chuck Nowlin etc. but...I lived in Southie, and we all know about 'AAF in the city.

Sorry...I digress.

When I was a kid, you could plan your day around WBCN's jocks. You knew Mishegas meant you were late for school. You snapped your Walkman on at lunch to hear Billy West's latest lunchtime song. And who didn't enjoy "bing bong...five minutes after the big hour of five o' clock"?

The point is...I couldn't care less about what songs BCN played. Hell...I HATE Elvis Costello, The Allman Bros., and a good majority of the songs back then. BUT.....I listened through all of that stuff to hear what Mark would talk to Sam Kinison about.

Now, corporate ownership at a lot of stations have decided that there's no reason to nurture that connection.

I call it the "McSong after McSong" mentality. Nameless, faceless music, delivered by robotic, personality-zero announcers.

Alleged quick-witted imaging is no substitute for a jock that connects with the audience. Never has been. Never will be.

The reason people think we as an industry are done:

1. Too many commercials.
2. Too much talk (which translates into talkin' loud & sayin' nuthin')
3. Repetition
4. Too small a music library
5. Repetition

It's past time to re-think how we present the medium to the audience.

Stop with the out-of-market consulting. Cookie cutter radio never works. Stop with the friggin' researched to death playlists. You cannot judge music by test sheets. You take the feeling out of it.

I don't even want to get in to how horrible some stations are with flow...Selector is a program, not the arbiter of how good the music sounds. Sound codes don't have ears.

And neither do most consultants.

Radio today is run by analysts. Not music fans, or entertainers. It's all about spread sheets, and perceptual research.

All of which is skewed, and will be our eventual undoing.