Getting sick and tired of being directed to a web site while listening to radio.

[brian65]

It might be the latest 'future' of the radio business but adds nothing to a listeners experience and probably will detract from it in the future.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As long as there has been radio, it has be directing us somewhere. To the shoe store. To the auto dealer. To the concert. To our friend in the diamond business.

There are elements of radio that can be obnoxious. Its one thing to hear a reasonable message about the benefits to me of visiting the shoe store, the auto dealer, etc. It is something else to be pounded and shouted at by the same announcing style that creates the Monster Truck debacles.

Do you really dislike being directed to a website, or do you dislike the style of the announcement, or do you dislike the website.... which too many radio station websites look like they are designed and maintained by the same two guys to shout out the monster truck rally commercials. ;D

 

[brian65]

Thanks for asking.

The true commercials are something we simply have no choice about, tolerable or not. Not much sense in complaining about them.

What I truly dislike is the uselessness of what we are typically directed towards. I've never heard an interesting conversation resulting from some image found on a radio web site we are directed towards.

The web sites also seem too loaded with crap to find anything so I just don't bother to view them.

It's clearly being done simply to garnish web hits. That's of no use to listeners and I hope the practice fades away as soon as possible.

Listening to someone talking + visual images = TV, not radio.

 

[gr8oldies]

That's the point,...visit OUR website to see the video of the accident, rather than the TV station or newspapers. As long as people are goint to look for the pictures, unless we say "you don't need to see the pictures" it's better for say, WLW to point people to it's website.

 

[nmoore6676]

Radio stations are promoting websites for lots of reasons. One of course is to establish that they are in with the "in crowd". A station without some kind of web site is not taken seriously anymore. As to the content that varies of course, however pretty much all Clear Channel Web sites are alike as are other major chains like Cox, Citadel and so on. Some are pretty shabby looking and others have too much glitz and glitter for my taste.

The main reason I like them is that I can listen to out of town stations and especially ones that program music or talk shows I can not get locally. Then there are the office listeners who can not get off air reception. in their buildings. So more and more they announce the web site so people know where to find the stream. Then that brings in the other factor, commercials. The savvy operators sell commercials on the web site exclusively, and often a sponsor who buys both will want cross promotion.

The ones I find annoying are the headers they put on pod casts. It seems that they use the same ones over and over and you have to listen to the same pitch before every segment which can be really aggravating if you are listening to short segments like news or traffic reports.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If I wanted to be ugly and sarcastic, I could say of the poor websites: "Just proves how incompetent people in radio are today. They can't design a valid website. What makes them think they know how to operate a valid radio station."

Actually, forget about radio for a moment and just think of websites in general. It's a new medium and very few people, if any, really understand the full scope of websites yet. There are churches with dumb websites. There are car dealers with bad websites. I check out a lot of communities and when you look for sites that represent a city, a county or a chamber of commerce, there are a few real winners, but tons and tons of sites that leave me asking: "What were they thinking?"

Conventional wisdom is: The Internet is here. Learn to use it before it eats your lunch. If you avoid the party, thinking you will wait until the concept needed becomes clear, you will have missed the party.

 

[brian65]

As I stated, it may be the latest trend for the radio business, but it offers nothing to the listener.

Of course being able to listen on-line is good, but steering listeners to the station's web site for some specific discussion topic content only annoys listeners because there's no valid listening reason it should be done.

People haven't watched radio since about 1940.

 

[BobointheH20]

While I understand that the radio industry is trying to figure out how to make a buck from the internet, which explains directing them to their own as well as other websites, I agree with Brian here. All sending listeners to the internet ultimately does is take attention away from radio.

Along those same lines, I've never understood why the new trend in radio banter, especially where you still have a live team, is to discuss what is on TV. Doesn't that draw a potential audience away from radio? Pity poor 6-10 PM guy, his morning drive team told everyone to be sure to watch Dancing with the B-List Stars or whatever other reality crap is on!

 

[gr8oldies]

You're not going to be in touch with your listeners if you pretend TV doesn't exist. I've worked for some people like that, who didn't want to admit that anyone was doing anything but listening to the station, but if everyone's around the water cooer talking about Dancing with the Stars, you had better be doing the same.

 

[One Who Knows]

For a radio station to get an audience, it must be "relevant" to its listeners.

Therefore, if everyone around the water cooler, for instance, is talking about "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars" or "Survivor" or whatever...that's what a morning show should be talking about.

 

[BobointheH20]

For a radio station to get an audience, it must be "relevant" to its listeners.

Therefore, if everyone around the water cooler, for instance, is talking about "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars" or "Survivor" or whatever...that's what a morning show should be talking about.

Sorry, but I disagree. For years, morning shows managed to entertain without the crutch of reality show discussion. That is a relatively new phenomenon. Frankly, I think it's lazy, and it does nothing to support the future of radio as an independent medium.

Go ahead, pile on.

 

[gr8oldies]

I take it that in 1982 no radio morning show talked about the last episode of M*A*S*H? We're going to do a morning show and not talk about whatever everyone else is talking about? We just ignore it? There is no TV, there are no movies, no concerts and no one does anything but listen to your radio station?

 

[gr8oldies]

If we're going to pretend that our audience doesn't watch TV, go to or rent movies, surf the internet, go to Facebook, Twitter or MySpace, we are so out of touch that it's unbelievable. I can hear it now "if you'd like to contact the morning show, send a latter to Q109, P.O. Box...." (Though I still hear old-line religious broadcasters doing "Letter Month.)

 

[landtuna]

For years, morning shows managed to entertain without the crutch of reality show discussion. That is a relatively new phenomenon. Frankly, I think it's lazy, and it does nothing to support the future of radio as an independent medium.

Go ahead, pile on.

I'm not going to "pile on" but I do believe I remember morning radio shows (as in 30's and 40's and up through the 80's) spending a lot of time reading and commenting on newspaper stories. Usually these weren't the hard news but humorous stories or oddball stuff. Not substantially different from "reporting" on "reality" TV shows.

And can we please refer to these as "unscripted" shows? There is very little "reality" in them at all.

 

[gr8oldies]

There's an aircheck on reelradio.com from 1974 of KHJ in Los Angeles with Charlie Van Dyke doing the morning show. Big topic of the morning: "The Excorcist" which had just been released.

 

[One Who Knows]

Yep...that's called being "relevant". I rest my case.

 

[BobointheH20]

There's an aircheck on reelradio.com from 1974 of KHJ in Los Angeles with Charlie Van Dyke doing the morning show. Big topic of the morning: "The Excorcist" which had just been released.

Yep...that's called being "relevant". I rest my case.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I get being relevant, and I know there is always going to be talk about current events or the latest summer blockbuster. I think that the advent of "unscripted shows" have taken it all to a new level of mediocrity. It's a daily drone now, not an topic of interest, every day a required redrumming of what already happened. It's a dumbed-down reiteration, not a relevant topic that might spark thought or humor or further discussion.

There was a time when morning shows WERE the water cooler conversation. Now most of them don't bring anything new to the table.

 

[KyDXIn]

You're not going to be in touch with your listeners if you pretend TV doesn't exist. I've worked for some people like that, who didn't want to admit that anyone was doing anything but listening to the station, but if everyone's around the water cooer talking about Dancing with the Stars, you had better be doing the same.

Website tend to make radio stations wannabee tv stations with video clips. Do I need a "video of the day" clip from Youtube posted on a radio website? Do I need the radio reporter shooting video of the person they are interviewing?

 

[Silkie]

"Turn your computer into a radio/recorder". That's what one station promotes in a jingle, right before a board operator who claims to be a disc jockey plays what she snagged from various places. Since we already heard what she clipped, why bother paying attention to her station.