I know of a guy who is still working at the same station that he was working for, back when he was in high school, 30 years ago. He has not been at that one station for that entire time, but has been at various stations within that same geographical area (within 10-15 miles of each other) for almost all of that entire time. He is apparently content to be a "big fish in a small pond." I don't think he is of "limited talent" as you said here, but I am almost certain that he has learned all of the editing techniques, etc., that you mentioned here, but that I did not keep in the quote from what you posted above. Is he "making a living" at it? I don't know; you'd have to ask him.TheBigA said:
-
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
Future Talent
- Thread starter jerry367
- Start date
At my first full-time radio job, right before I left there, the PD (who had become PD at age 19 because of high turnover at that station!) posted a list of station liners to be read by jocks at that station. (But he told me that I didn't necessarily need to use them.) I also told this to my successor as production director and mid-day jock at that station, that he didn't have to use them, but I noticed that he did. Even when I passed through there months later, I noticed that he was still using those liners!gr8oldies said:
Similar liners might have made sense for our FM station, which was voice-tracked at the time (early '90s), but our AM was "live" at that time, so the liners became more of a "crutch," at least for him. I'm not suggesting that anyone should "free-form," but that everyone should at least be able to "think on their feet."
The fact remains that liners are the only way to clearly and consistently communicate key benefits of listening to the station. To even suggest leaving key promotional elements of the station ad hock to individual talent is absurd. What you'll get there is an inconsistent and inaccurate mixed messages.
Don't want to read liners? Then don't pursue being on the air in radio.
Unlike what SirRox indicates, I've not seen any focus group or research data that indicates positioning liners cost TSL or cume for that matter. Generally the data shows negative comments from talent that "talks too much", or from "too many commercials".
Don't want to read liners? Then don't pursue being on the air in radio.
Unlike what SirRox indicates, I've not seen any focus group or research data that indicates positioning liners cost TSL or cume for that matter. Generally the data shows negative comments from talent that "talks too much", or from "too many commercials".
HowardMBurgers said:
1Stealing commercials?
_________________________________________________
PPM appears to be another version of No Child Left Behind. More than ever, we're "teaching for the test." What I get from Rox's post is fairly clear: Preliminary PPM results indicate that it takes more than liners to position a successful radio station. (Yes, I know, this also applied to the diary.)
Sure, read the liners. But now more than ever, it goes beyond that. Execute and differentiate yourself. As John Parikhal (no fan of PPM) notes, the days of calling yourself "Portland's Most Music or Best Music Station" or "Topeka's Best at Work Hits" are in the rear view mirror.
HowardMBurgers said:
To run a top rated station season after season requires an instinct and commitment that is unique. It is like being a quarterback or a fighter pilot. You have to be good to survive. The advice you dispense here with regularity is appropriate for stations that intend to be at the top of the ratings list.
If there are 26 stations in a market, it does not take a math whiz to figure out that all twenty six cannot be in the top five. What if you own a station that because of power, because of dial position, because of limited capital and you know you cannot in the next seven years be at the top of the list, what do you do? Everything a station does to become Number 1 in the market has a possible negative effect on some other listeners. The top station NEVER get 100% of the market. Who are all these people that listen to station #26, #25, #24, #23 etc.etc. in the audience studies.
What are the possibilities that if those stations read you messages and adopt your excellent advice on how to program a top rated station simply end up pissing-off what little audience they have so they end up with even less audience.
Instead of suggesting that some of the people here have no place pursuing an on-air position in radio, why not give them some big brother advice that they need to understand the market and need to learn what kind of station they do belong in. I assume most readers here recognize that NPR stations have made some headway in attracting audience in the last 15 years. They have done so apparently by violating most of what you say is essential to be a legitimate on-air person.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
GRC, as one who's run an NPR station, let me suggest they've made headway attracting an audience mainly by running national network programming from Washington. They are a perfect example of how national syndication and creating a national brand can work for local radio.
They have paid close attention to a lot of the commercial radio formulas, such as liners and positioning statements, and apply commercial marketing approaches to their otherwise commercial free operation.
TheBigA said:
Chuckle, smirk, chortle. Conversation between me and you is an interesting adventure. I have great respect for your experience and much of your rationale.
The main thrust of my post was a concept (on my part) that there are some stations in any metro market that for various reasons are not likely to EVER seriously contend for a place at the top of the hill. My question to Mr Burgers revolved around what do these second or third tier stations do to maximize/enhance their modest market position. I ask the question: "Do these stations have to develop and implement standards that are somewhat different than what those at the top of the hill live by?"
So what do you do? You avoid what I tried to make the main question and you attempt to destroy my logic position by attacking some peripheral bit of logic.
Having a debate with you about radio can be a lot like having a debate about how church works when your "opponent" is a Fundamentalist theologian. In another venue: Been there. Done that. Got the tee-shirt.
Personally, I never saw Radio-info as debate - or "debate class" as many people do.
I figure, "here is what I know - for what its worth." Take it or leave it. No need to get smug or be a wise guy, unless someone else has an attitude, first. Take it or leave it.
We come from a LOT of different geography and demographics, education and work experience.
I'm on alot of boards like this. People (especially on the R-I boards) seem to take these posts so SERIOUSLY. Sheesh! It's amazing.
I figure, "here is what I know - for what its worth." Take it or leave it. No need to get smug or be a wise guy, unless someone else has an attitude, first. Take it or leave it.
We come from a LOT of different geography and demographics, education and work experience.
I'm on alot of boards like this. People (especially on the R-I boards) seem to take these posts so SERIOUSLY. Sheesh! It's amazing.
Prais said:
There is much to be learned from sharing of ideas. We do live among a species that can become contentious at times. ;D
I fear for what the "debate mentality" is eventually going to do to Talk Radio. Maybe Talk Radio stations need someone who plays the roll that our "editors" do at Radio-Info. When the conversation gets too rowdy they move it "Outside". As a person, get too rowdy and I hear they will "Take the person outside."
In talkradio, local often trumps national. There are many occasions where a local story is brewing, whether it be a local pol in trouble, a neighborhood protesting an adult bookstore, a police brutality case, activists trying to stop the plaanned destruction of an historic this or that, latest crime stats, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
These can all be great topics and of particular interest to a local crowd, vs. hearing the same national political blather spouted day in and day out.
Local hosts can do BOTH national and local topics. And when they are doing a national topic, at the very least they're engaging locals on air.
These can all be great topics and of particular interest to a local crowd, vs. hearing the same national political blather spouted day in and day out.
Local hosts can do BOTH national and local topics. And when they are doing a national topic, at the very least they're engaging locals on air.
jerry367 said:
Trouble is, you need a certain critical mass of listeners if you're going to do local talk, especially if you take calls on the air. Nothing makes you sound bush league faster than the same 8 or 10 regular callers. As far as local issues go, this kind of depends on the market. Some markets have more going on than others. In a market smaller than #50 or so, finding enough interesting topics and/or guests becomes more of a challenge. Not to say it can't be done, but there are a lot of small cities where not much happens.
Oldbones said:
While I generally agree with you, one of the big problems in those markets is that lack of news coverage period. Newspapers have fewer and fewer resources, which means less and less investigative reporting. Local radio news departments are either small or non-existent, so that resource goes out the window. Local TV news departments have shrunk, and there's a lot more "lifestyle" news than there is investigative reporting.
The lack of information makes research on local topics difficult. Most local talk-show hosts don't have the journalistic capabilities or contacts to ferret out the "what's really going on here" aspects of the stories that do come to light. Producers - who used to have those skills and contacts - have become little more than call screeners. Add "additional duties" for both producers and talent, and you run out of hours in the day.
The shrinking media should be a major concern for citizens. Journalists have usually been the check-and-balance for politicians. As that role is reduced, government becomes less transparent, and there are people who will take advantage of that lack of oversight.
TheBigA said:
And you have data that proves this? Please, link it for us.
SirRoxalot said:
The data is out there for everyone to see. All the major journalistic outlets are losing money and firing staff. Washington Post and New York Times are both on the ropes. Not because of debt or consolidation, but because the public stopped subscribing to newspapers, and they now give their stuff away for free on the web. Web ads haven't come close to replacing the ad revenue they're losing in the print edition, so they're in trouble. Only the Wall Street Journal is charging for online content, and it's not a huge success.
Open your eyes. The public isn't supporting public broadcasting to a large degree either. Stations are in constant fund-raising mode, and lots aren't meeting their goals. This is a huge crisis, and there is no easy solution. But the key fact is the public wants its content for free, and it's hard to pay for real journalism when the public won't pay.
Sure, when asked, the public says it doesn't like all the gossip and attention on Tiger Woods. But when faced with a choice between Tiger Woods and more coverage about Haiti, the ratings go to Tiger.
TheBigA said:
But what you're saying is that the public doesn't want news content, they want entertainment content. I don't see any less interest in news, but I do see a problem with monetizing the delivery of news. You're right in the fact that people want the content for free, when they want it, and in a more convenient form. What you're implying with a statement like "Their primary concern isn't politicians, but celebrities..." is that they're not interested in real news content, and I'd like to see your sources for such a contention.
It isn't just the NY Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine, or other journalistic publications that are in trouble, it's ALL print publications. News websites get huge numbers of hits. The problem is that those hits don't generate enough revenue to pay for the staff required to gather news, process it, and present it. The subscription model won't work unless it's very inexpensive, and everybody buys into it. If you're charging, and your competition isn't, guess who'll get the hits?
Meanwhile, paper publications are still saddled with huge printing costs, whether you're printing 50,000 copies or 500,000 copies. It's tough to scale back as subscriptions fall because there's little market for those big presses that you no longer need. Throw in the same debt loads from consolidation that radio faced, and you have the same problem that radio has - too much expense, and not enough income in a down advertising market.
- Status