Future Talent

[TheBigA]

Somebody's going to start charging access providers who want to connect to their website. Access providers will simply add those access charges to their monthly service bill.

The music industry wants the same thing. They want ISPs to charge music downloaders a fee, and give the money to SoundExchange. The problem is that the ISPs are not in that kind of business. They have Congress and the FCC telling them they must keep their hands off the content. There must be network neutrality. You can't have net neutrality, and also expect the ISPs to perform police work. This is not to say the ISPs don't know who is downloading what. They do. Or at least they have ways of getting that information. Just as Google has access to lots of information about you.

I think we're at a point where the public doesn't want to be nickled & dimed for everything it does, and will rebel against such charges. Content providers have to decide if they want to make money, or be heard. You can charge by the person and get a small audience, or give it away and reach the masses. That's the difference between broadcasting and podcasting.

The bottom line for broadcasters is that they'd better be prepared to produce content that's not available elsewhere,

You use the cable TV example, so I’ll use it too. Local cable companies typically don’t do a lot of local programming. Sure, they’re required to offer public access channels. But no one watches them. They certainly aren’t money-makers for the cable company. They offer them because they’re required by law. Most of what is available on cable is nationally syndicated programming, provided by companies not located locally. The cable company makes its money by inserting spots in the national feeds, and by the monthly bill. I really see a day when some local radio stations will work this way. The local station will be the tower and the transmitter. They’ll do some local news or weather in cutaways as required. But for the most part they carry national shows, and insert a certain number of local spots within the national feed.

Sure the syndicated show has a web site, and sure a listener could hear the show there rather than on the local station, just as I can watch Conan or Letterman on Hulu or some other source. That’s just how it is. You will be sharing your audience with lots of things. Just having unique content doesn’t mean it’s content that anyone wants.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It used to be simple; the New York Times and Washington Post decided what was important and what people should think about it, and the nightly news echoed whatever the above newspapers decided was important that day. If you disagreed with the "proper" take or opinion, you could discuss it with your neighbors but that's as far as it went.

Maybe I am older, but I don't remember the past as dominated by NY Times and Washington Post. We had strong papers in Dallas, Little Rock, Chicago, Indianapolis and Atlanta.

You are right about eggs not lending themselves to "unscrambling". Blogs are here to stay. Along with Podcasts. A call-in radio. And Internet discussion boards and list-serves.

The messy business of making self government work.... and survive... means we find ways to encourage all these venues to become useful participants in making self government work.... rather than being part of the destruction.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Bloggers have to get their information someone. It's hard to make a persuasive argument without referencing information from a trusted source.

The most watched channels on an cable system are the local channels, presenting local content at times, as well as inserting local context along with the network content. You think commercials are a tune out? Try commercials for products and services that aren't available locally.

You also have to look beyond the end of your nose to a time when high-speed, ubiquitous wireless Internet will make a new generation of electronic devices viable, and will revolutionize the use of existing devices. TVs are already network-aware. I'd bet that WiFi radios will outsell HD radio within the next few years. We have a generation growing up with the idea that high-quality content should be available on-demand - and they're willing to pay for that kind of access. Telecoms are gearing up to deliver it.

Social networking sites demonstrate that there is a desire to communicate with others. If you look at the geography of "friends" lists, you'd see that there is a predominance of local people, or people with a local background who are still interested in what's happening "back home". National providers can't provide that information. Local providers are the ones who'll be able to monitize that content. TV stations are already fighting for fees from cable providers for access to local content. Local TV stations have built an audience, and they're demanding payment from the cable providers for their content. That's a model that other content providers are keeping a close eye on.

 

[TheBigA]

The most watched channels on an cable system are the local channels, presenting local content at times, as well as inserting local context along with the network content.

It’s a matter of percentages, and for most local stations, there is more network and syndicated content than local content. The local stations are merely retransmitting national feeds, just like some local radio stations. But when the radio stations do it, you feel it’s a problem. If the percentages of local vs. national on radio were more like TV, you’d have even less local radio than you do now.

We have a generation growing up with the idea that high-quality content should be available on-demand - and they're willing to pay for that kind of access. Telecoms are gearing up to deliver it.

I don’t see any data that says they’re willing to pay for anything. They want what they want, and they want it for free. They’ll pay if they have to, but they’re not willing to do it. The most popular services offered by telecoms are those that combine cable, internet, and cell services. Applying the consolidation and corporate radio debate to telecom, they will become the new Clear Channels and new media corporations. I think there’s a lot of concern about giving them too much power and control.

Social networking sites demonstrate that there is a desire to communicate with others.

There’s a difference between social networking and radio. The difference is that social networking is two-way. Radio is one-way. That’s a basic reason why radio is losing out to other forms of communication. Top-down broadcasting, with DJs creating playlists, telling listeners what music is cool, is obsolete. So don’t use social networking as a way of justifying local DJs. Especially when the majority of local DJs don’t use social networking as part of their daily show.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There’s a difference between social networking and radio. The difference is that social networking is two-way. Radio is one-way. That’s a basic reason why radio is losing out to other forms of communication. Top-down broadcasting, with DJs creating playlists, telling listeners what music is cool, is obsolete. So don’t use social networking as a way of justifying local DJs. Especially when the majority of local DJs don’t use social networking as part of their daily show.

I wonder if there is a hybrid possible in this mix. In smaller, rural markets out in "flyover country" there are announcers/personalities/djs who during their morning shows are responding to phone calls, twitters, text messages, etc. They can do some "value add" to what would otherwise just be a message exchange between people in that community. They can serve as the "den mother" helping guide the conversation and to pull people into the developing social network who would not know that it exists without the radio exposure. And it's cheaper than hiring a news person.

But it's not just Podunk. They are on vacation this week, but if you can get them in your area, tune in Steve and Johnnie After Dark, 11:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. on WGN in Chicago. (not exactly Podunk!) They have a camera enthusiasts night one a month, a weekly car enthusiasts night, and Website-Wednesday is the Hootenanny of radio talk. A husband and wife and a producer all three taking emails, tweets, facebook, etc and someone bouncing a phone callers comments off Google while one of the other hosts carries on the phone conversation.

Listening to their show now and then is like attending a trade show for radio programmers. Sure, they do it only as WGN can do it, but I regularly scribble little "what if" notes in my journal where I collect ideas for MicroMarketRadio and LPFM.

 

[TheBigA]

In smaller, rural markets out in "flyover country" there are announcers/personalities/djs who during their morning shows are responding to phone calls, twitters, text messages, etc.

I think there's some of that going on now. And it's similar to programming your show with requests. You respond to the active listeners and ignore the passive ones. So instead of being someone else's iPod, you're someone else's iPhone, listening in to other conversations.

There are several DJs who tweet while they do their live show, but the Twitter show is different from the on-air show. It spotlights new songs that aren't in the playlists, information not given on-air, pictures, video, and general commentary. I think that's more useful. That way you create two content streams, instead of one. But it's more work for the DJ.

 

[smedge2006]

Local cable companies typically don’t do a lot of local programming. Sure, they’re required to offer public access channels. But no one watches them. They certainly aren’t money-makers for the cable company. They offer them because they’re required by law. Most of what is available on cable is nationally syndicated programming, provided by companies not located locally.

The cable system where I live has both a 24-hour local news channel and a 24-hour local sports channel. Their management realized that if they were going to hold on to viewers in the age
of dish and other wireline competition, they'd better have something unique. And it's worked: When satellite and the competing cable provider come calling, people who don't want to switch cite those channels as reasons.

It’s a matter of percentages, and for most local stations, there is more network and syndicated content than local content. The local stations are merely retransmitting national feeds, just like some local radio stations. But when the radio stations do it, you feel it’s a problem. If the percentages of local vs. national on radio were more like TV, you’d have even less local radio than you do now.

Because radio was a primarily local medium for 40+ years following the arrival of television, and because producing local content was and is DIRT CHEAP. If station owners weren't loaded down with debt, they'd have no problem doing it. And it doesn't require a stable of six-figure personalities either.

The difference is that social networking is two-way. Radio is one-way.

Radio INVENTED two-way electronic communication. For those who weren't around, it used to be called TWO-WAY talk radio... Radio has lost that by rigid call screening and programming concepts that turn talk hosts into godlike oracles.

 

[SirRoxalot]

We have a generation growing up with the idea that high-quality content should be available on-demand - and they're willing to pay for that kind of access. Telecoms are gearing up to deliver it.

I don’t see any data that says they’re willing to pay for anything. They want what they want, and they want it for free. They’ll pay if they have to, but they’re not willing to do it. The most popular services offered by telecoms are those that combine cable, internet, and cell services. Applying the consolidation and corporate radio debate to telecom, they will become the new Clear Channels and new media corporations. I think there’s a lot of concern about giving them too much power and control.

Young people today pay far more for telecommunications than I'm willing to pay. Unlimited cell plans with Internet access, unlimited messaging, expensive phones with multi-role capabilities - they're willing to pay for access. They're less willing to pay for premium level content unless they feel like they're getting real value, or there's content that they want that they can't get from any other source.

Social networking sites demonstrate that there is a desire to communicate with others.

There’s a difference between social networking and radio. The difference is that social networking is two-way. Radio is one-way. That’s a basic reason why radio is losing out to other forms of communication. Top-down broadcasting, with DJs creating playlists, telling listeners what music is cool, is obsolete. So don’t use social networking as a way of justifying local DJs. Especially when the majority of local DJs don’t use social networking as part of their daily show.

Yet you're a major proponent of top-down management...

You're so out of touch with what "local DJs" do that it's laughable. I don't know a "local DJ" who DOESN'T use social media IF they can get through the firewall when they're in the studio. There are some companies that don't allow access to FB, Twitter, or other social media in the studio. Some guys who can afford it bypass the system with their cell phones. Some simply use social media when they're not at work to communicate with listeners.

SOMEBODY sets or evaluates trends. SOMEBODY has to sort through the blizzard of information to determine what's pertinent to a particular segment of an audience in a particular region in a timely fashion. That's been one role of live, local talent. Giving up that role simply reduces the reason for people to tune in for a shared experience. You also forget the demonstrable companionship role that radio plays for many people. A friendly voice conveys so much more than words on a screen, and some people crave that connection.

Great, capable talent is a profit center, not a cost. The examples of revenue losses directly attributable to cuts in talent are found throughout the industry by those who are willing to look. You'll contend that it's the economic downturn causing the revenue losses, but it's demonstrable that the groups who cut less talent are weathering the economic downturn better than those who slashed and burned.

 

[Prais]

Rox said,
"but it's demonstrable that the groups who cut less talent are weathering the economic downturn better than those who slashed and burned.'

Wow! Show me where the study exists that says THAT??

I already read the quote at the bottom of your posts. "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts — for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang."

Roxx, is Mr. Lang referring to YOU? it's quite interesting how YOU use (make believe) statistics? Not nasty here, just inquisitive about the source for what you say is "demonstrable" (above).

 

[TheBigA]

When satellite and the competing cable provider come calling, people who don't want to switch cite those channels as reasons.

"Competing cable provider?" Where does that happen? Cable companies get exclusive contracts with communities. I'd like to see the survey that says the local news channel is why they don't want to switch.

If station owners weren't loaded down with debt, they'd have no problem doing it. And it doesn't require a stable of six-figure personalities either.

Then why do stations NOT loaded down with debt choose satellite delivered content or syndicated hosts? Why did mom & pop stations, for 40 years, carry national 24/7 music services from a variety of providers, rather than hire a staff of local personalities? Why did hundreds of radio stations scream when the former ABC Radio Network make changes at their 24/7 services?

Radio is changing. It’s not going to be what it was for the last 40 years. Just as in the 50s, it stopped being what it had been during the previous generation. That is the nature of things. They don’t stay the same. The concept of radio being live & local DJs playing pre-recorded music is over. It’s a quaint idea, and a lot of boomers are very attached to that idea, because it reminds them of the past. But it’s done. Time for something new.

Radio INVENTED two-way electronic communication. For those who weren't around, it used to be called TWO-WAY talk radio... Radio has lost that by rigid call screening and programming concepts that turn talk hosts into godlike oracles.

Oh come on now. Some stations still do old style talk. But these message boards are way more popular, and way more direct, and allow the public to exchange opinions with other people, not some unseen talk show host.

Once again, things change. Imagine the life of the village blacksmith when the car was invented. He provided a personal service for your animal. He was local, and knew your beast better than that car company in Detroit. And yet, the public CHOSE the car over the horse. Sure, there are still a lot of people who love to ride horses. They do it on the weekends. But it’s not the primary means of transportation. We need to start thinking of radio that way, and start thinking of ways that really respond to what people want, instead of talking about how great it all used to be.

 

[TheBigA]

They're less willing to pay for premium level content unless they feel like they're getting real value, or there's content that they want that they can't get from any other source.

And when given the choice between a local radio station with a live host, and an internet, satellite, or mobile music service that has no DJs, they choose they latter. Why is that? They don’t see DJs as “added value.” They see it as an interruption. And if they’re not willing to listen for free, they certainly are not going to pay extra for it.

And we’re not just talking about Gen Y. We’re talking about two generations of people, all under the age of 40. The only generation that is wedded to this concept of live & local DJs is over 45.

Yet you're a major proponent of top-down management...

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about that.

I don't know a "local DJ" who DOESN'T use social media IF they can get through the firewall when they're in the studio.

I think what you’re talking about is people who do personal networking on company time. That’s not what I’m talking about.

SOMEBODY sets or evaluates trends. SOMEBODY has to sort through the blizzard of information to determine what's pertinent to a particular segment of an audience in a particular region in a timely fashion.

SOMEBODY is doing it. It’s called TMZ and Perez Hilton and lots of other things that don’t involve traditional media. You can’t do it on traditional media because it takes too much airtime, and everyone wants something different. You need to develop a more personalized system than radio, and such a system exists. But the concept of people in their teens finding out about popular trends from a DJ who is old enough to be their parent or grandparent is absolutely laughable.

Radio no longer has a monopoly on communication any more. People don’t need radio stations to communicate. They can do it themselves. They don’t need other people to tell them what is cool or sort through stuff. They have Google to do that.

Great, capable talent is a profit center, not a cost.

It’s an annoyance that the public will circumvent if they can. Now they can.

You're the one looking at it from the management POV. I'm looking at it as a listener.

But the bigger issue is: What is great talent? People know the difference between great talent and some wanna be. They know who is entertaining and who is just a warm body in a chair. And there are only a FEW people who qualify. Right now, there are way too many people calling themselves “talent.”

Talent is not what you call yourself. It’s what other people call you. I think people know the difference.

The fact is that we are at a point where “great talent,” as you call them, is being recognized. They are being syndicated, so others can rediscover what it means to be great. I was listening to Elvis Duran a few days ago. He is a great talent, and deserves to be heard by more people than the city of New York. There was a time 20 years ago when a great talent like Howard Stern wasn’t bound by his own geography. He could be syndicated on other stations, and critics wouldn’t blame greedy owners for replacing their local morning shows with him. It was obvious that what he did was different, and better than what those stations were doing locally, and they made more money with Howard than they did with their local show. We need to do that again. Radio needs more Howard Sterns, and they’re out there now. But they aren’t national names yet because they’re stuck on some small local station somewhere.

You'll contend that it's the economic downturn causing the revenue losses, but it's demonstrable that the groups who cut less talent are weathering the economic downturn better than those who slashed and burned.

I don’t think you can generalize that kind of thing. The key thing about now is that groups are cutting talent and lots of other things because they simply don’t have the money. You can’t hire new staff if ad rates are going down, and the ad rates went down BEFORE the talent was cut, so we know that keeping the talent is not going to retain the revenue. Ad rates started going down 5 years ago, and it was because of competition from other media, not consolidation. And these falling ad rates and talent cuts are hitting all kinds of radio stations, not just major owners.

But here’s the thing: If talent is willing to work for nothing, and take a share of revenue, you might have a deal. But if all you want is a regular paycheck with benefits, go to the mall. That’s where you get hourly work. Not radio.

Unless you actually are "great talent." In which case you probably have an agent who will negotiate your deal.

 

[Prais]

"great talent like Howard Stern"

HA! I almost spit my drink at the computer screen.

YOU certainly mean "Howard Stern and every 15 year old boy with a computer full of porn and a memory for dirty jokes his drunk uncle told him."

TALENT? If you think Howard is talent....well, no wonder the world is in the sad shape it's in.

Howard has guts - and little talent.

 

[TheBigA]

TALENT? If you think Howard is talent....well, no wonder the world is in the sad shape it's in.

Once again, talent is not what we say it is. It's what others say it is. What defines talent is the ability to an attract an audience for what you do. If you're talented without an audience, it's a hobby. But the minute you get in front of an audience, and they applaud, it's talent.

Howard had a huge audience. Far more popular than almost all other syndicated hosts, and at his peak he was only on about 40 radio stations! If he had been on as many as Rush, he could have had twice as many listeners.

The point of radio is to attract an audience that you can sell to advertisers. Howard attracted an audience, and that takes talent. You or I may not like his act, just as I don't agree with Rush's politics, but we have to agree he was effective at what he did.

 

[Prais]

Big, the key word in your post is "HAD" a huge audience.

You also said, "What defines talent is the ability to an attract an audience"..

No sir....that defines GETTING RATINGS.

Talent is MUCH different. ANY sleaze can do what Howard did.
His "talent" was being the original and having just as big or bigger slobs for a boss to allow that crap on the radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Big, the key word in your post is "HAD" a huge audience.

I agree. But the fact that 9 million people are still willing to pay $12 a month for him says a lot. How many other people on terrestrial radio could get that kind of passion. Very few recording artists can get their fans to spend $16 for a CD. Howard is doing better than 98% of the recording artists out there.

You're letting your personal opinion get in the way of business. That's not good. Getting ratings is a talent and it's good business. That is how radio is judged. Once again, I'm not a fan of his. I prefer Elvis Duran. But I'm just one person, and I'm willing to allow the public decide what they want on their airwaves.

 

[gr8oldies]

I don't care for Stern at all, but if "any sleaze" can do what he did, why didn't any of the shows that replaced him last? I don't hear David Lee Roth doing mornings in Cleveland any more.

One of our posters feels that the beginning, middle and end of all of radio's problems is not having a guy in a little booth downtown talking between songs in real time. If people think it's an interruption, just let the DJ say different things and people won't push that button, and they'll stop what they are doing at work to listen to the jock break. Maybe they'll even get rid of their online subscriptions, not read the Yahoo! headlines, because they know the DJ will sort through everything, and deliver what's important over the intro to the next song. I don't think that's likely, but oh well.

 

[Prais]

Big A opined; "You're letting your personal opinion get in the way of business."

Right, and more importantly, my morals, too.

If it's not good, that why did I retire before age 55? It WORKED for me and I'm doing fine.

Mr Big, you are not me, and I wish you the best.

 

[TheBigA]

If it's not good, that why did I retire before age 55? It WORKED for me and I'm doing fine.

No one is judging you or your morals. I'm suggesting you do the same to everyone else.

 

[Prais]

Nope. Then I'd be just as big a slob as Howard.

 

[Silkie]

Tomorrow's talent is today's studious, industrious person who is fascinated by every aspect of how radio works, inside and out.  This is the talent that will smile politely, pay close attention and ask questions while some no-talent of today teaches by example the "appropriate" way to deliver.  Tomorrow's talent goes a great deal deeper than much of what we hear today, and will certainly be a force to be reckoned with - if only the no-talents knew who just knocked them for a loop.  I watch and marvel at the diligence of these young people who are repeatedly admonished that radio is in trouble, that they need to consider that they will never have anything; but they also know that they will be the ones who rescue it. 

Oh yes, there is future talent who will show up in the Radio Hall of Fame, as others before them have.  They dream big and act on their dreams, waiting for just the right time.  These are the people who deserve to work in the magical kingdom that is radio.  Some on this thread seem to be limiting themselves to certain formats or technologies, or the tiny little pocket markets that don't matter to anybody anyway.