Good article on what's wrong with radio

[radiofriend1]

FM commercial radio is pathetic nowadays...a shameful, commerce-oriented business operation that exists soley for its own profitability...with total contempt for its listening audience. Several years ago, the general manager of the local FM "classic rock" station gave a speech at some radio convention, where he was quoted bragging about the fact that his station played the same songs over and over and over...like he was proud of the scam.

I no longer listen to commercial radio...and never will again

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=87729&page=

yes that's right-i wake up every day thinking, "hmmmmm, y'know i really HATE THESE DAMNED RADIO LISTENERS........what can i do today to show my total contempt for them and at the same time, bring my ratings crashing down AND put my revenue in the toilet???"

dude R U coo-coo for cocoa puffs or something? if u don't listen to commercial radio anymore (right) then please quit boring us with your blather...........

 

[fred flintstone]

Dear radiokissass...

You are either in management or haven't gotten screwed yet.
You assume if management screws somebody, it's the screwee's fault; they deserve it.
This is typical of the Authoritarian Personality; the kind of people who embraces Fascism.
When it's your turn in the barrel, you will likely have a complete breakdown.
Clearly, you are totally self-absorbed and care about no one but yourself.
Meanwhile, you are so grateful to be in radio you are willing to sell out completely.

 

[OldGringo]

Dear radiokissass...

You are either in management or haven't gotten screwed yet.
You assume if management screws somebody, it's the screwee's fault; they deserve it.
This is typical of the Authoritarian Personality; the kind of people who embraces Fascism.
When it's your turn in the barrel, you will likely have a complete breakdown.
Clearly, you are totally self-absorbed and care about no one but yourself.
Meanwhile, you are so grateful to be in radio you are willing to sell out completely.

What the heck? A few weeks ago, I disagreed with much of what you said. Now I agree 100% on all your recent posts.

There must be something deeply meaningful and cosmic going on... :-\

 

[radiofriend1]

Dear radiokissass...

You are either in management or haven't gotten screwed yet.
You assume if management screws somebody, it's the screwee's fault; they deserve it.
This is typical of the Authoritarian Personality; the kind of people who embraces Fascism.
When it's your turn in the barrel, you will likely have a complete breakdown.
Clearly, you are totally self-absorbed and care about no one but yourself.
Meanwhile, you are so grateful to be in radio you are willing to sell out completely.

What the heck? A few weeks ago, I disagreed with much of what you said. Now I agree 100% on all your recent posts.

There must be something deeply meaningful and cosmic going on... :-\

and both of you are either on your way up in radio or on your way down...........obviously, not passionate, enthusiastic, CONTRIBUTING stars of our biz

 

[Anyacat]

I don't think no-friend-of-radio read the article, or if he did, he may be one of the corporate dweebs who agrees with this:
"If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company. We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products."
--L. Lowry Mays, Clear Channel CEO, in Fortune Magazine (2003)

 

[fred flintstone]

and both of you are either on your way up in radio or on your way down...........obviously, not passionate, enthusiastic, CONTRIBUTING stars of our biz

"Our biz?" How many stations do you own?
If you're on the air, your place in "the biz" corresponds to the person at the counter at McDonald's in the restaurant biz (if you have an off-air programming or production job, it's more like the person at the grill).
If you're a PD, you're the equivalent of an assistant manager,
In heavy industry, the equivalent jobs would be assembly line worker and assembly line foreman.
But those people, unlike most in radio, have a better grasp on the reality of their positions.
When you grasp the reality of your situation, you will become "bitter" and "frustrated," too and then you will get to hear some kid lecture you on being "passionate" and "contributing."
It's OK, we've all been where you are; you haven't been where we are yet.
And we didn't want to face reality either.
Ever wonder why most people get out of radio and get real jobs before they reach 30?

 

[OldGringo]

and both of you are either on your way up in radio or on your way down...........obviously, not passionate, enthusiastic, CONTRIBUTING stars of our biz

Whatever.

Did one of your stations win two Marconis last night?

 

[radiofriend1]

and both of you are either on your way up in radio or on your way down...........obviously, not passionate, enthusiastic, CONTRIBUTING stars of our biz

Whatever.

Did one of your stations win two Marconis last night?

did one of YOURS??? or are you still in commercial radio?

 

[radiofriend1]

I don't think no-friend-of-radio read the article, or if he did, he may be one of the corporate dweebs who agrees with this:
"If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company. We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products."
--L. Lowry Mays, Clear Channel CEO, in Fortune Magazine (2003)

uh like that was over 3 yrs ago. get your head out of the sand

what he was saying is that we are not in the business of tall towers in big fields. we are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. if u think u are just an am or an fm these days u are already behind the times (which several of u apparently are)

 

[OldGringo]

and both of you are either on your way up in radio or on your way down...........obviously, not passionate, enthusiastic, CONTRIBUTING stars of our biz

Whatever.

Did one of your stations win two Marconis last night?

did one of YOURS??? or are you still in commercial radio?

Yes. KSCA in LA for Personality of the Year and Station of the Year in its category.

 

[fred flintstone]

what he was saying is that we are not in the business of tall towers in big fields. we are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. if u think u are just an am or an fm these days u are already behind the times (which several of u apparently are)

No! He said he is in the SALES business. (Read the quote.) He's made that clear on several occasions.
You really don't get the nature of "your" business, do you?

Hint: You can tell the nature of any business by what they sell (and to whom they sell it).
All businesses must have: (1) A product. (2) A buyer. (3) A means of producing the product.
In terrestrial radio: The program is the means of production. The advertiser is the buyer. The audience is the product.
Didn't they teach you anything at Connecticut School of Broadcasting?

 

[radiofriend1]

what he was saying is that we are not in the business of tall towers in big fields. we are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. if u think u are just an am or an fm these days u are already behind the times (which several of u apparently are)

No! He said he is in the SALES business. (Read the quote.) He's made that clear on several occasions.
You really don't get the nature of "your" business, do you?

Hint: You can tell the nature of any business by what they sell (and to whom they sell it).
All businesses must have: (1) A product. (2) A buyer. (3) A means of producing the product.
In terrestrial radio: The program is the means of production. The advertiser is the buyer. The audience is the product.
Didn't they teach you anything at Connecticut School of Broadcasting?

your screen name screams volumes about where you are in relation to REAL RADIO IN 2006..............

 

[Anyacat]

I don't think no-friend-of-radio read the article, or if he did, he may be one of the corporate dweebs who agrees with this:
"If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company. We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products."
--L. Lowry Mays, Clear Channel CEO, in Fortune Magazine (2003)

uh like that was over 3 yrs ago. get your head out of the sand

what he was saying is that we are not in the business of tall towers in big fields. we are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. if u think u are just an am or an fm these days u are already behind the times (which several of u apparently are)

And something has happened to change Lester's mind? The man said as clear as it can be said that he is not in the business of providing news, information or even entertainment, he is in the business of selling thing, surely even a person of limited intelligence can understand what is said when it is said in simple words...oh what's the use, sometimes you just have to let the kid set his hair on fire so that he can understand when you say "Hot."

 

[gr8oldies]

I made this point three years ago when everyone was in "how dare Lowry mays say that" mode. Thde old Mom and Pop owners may well have given platitues about "only being there to serve the public", "being there to be the news voice and tell the truth" or even "being there to play great music for the folks in West Podunk". And it was all a lie..they wanted to make money and get a return on their investment. Lowry was just the one telling the truth.

Darryl Parks of WLW once spoke about being invited to a journalism class at Ohio State University. He asked the class what they thought the purpose of the newspaper was. The students said "To tell the truth the the community", "to keep the politicians honest", etc. The students and the professor's jaws dropped when Mr. Parks explained that the Columbus Dispatch was in business to make money, and the paper wouldn't be there if they couldn't sell a full page ad to Lazarus department stores on Sunday. The future Woodward and Bernsteins just couldn't get it..like some on this board can't, or won't get it.

 

[fred flintstone]

your screen name screams volumes about where you are in relation to REAL RADIO IN 2006..............

This is how some people respond when they lack facts or logical arguement.
They can't refute what's been posted so they resort to childish jibes.

Modern newspapers would not exist without department stores - and their ads.
Almost all newspapers are folios (although tabloids are much more convenient for readers) because department stores want full page ads.
The decline in newspapers coincides with the decline in the department stores.
The news hole is major daily newspapers is around five percent.

The existance of broadcasting as we know it came from and was built around the introduction and growth of consumer package goods and of brand name marketing.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

It sure is going to be nice when CC HAS to prune off the smaller market stuff to re-shuffle capital to big-market facilities. Statistically, most ALL the money made by CC is in the top 10 markets, so it only would make sense for them to take the money from the sale of smaller stations and re-apply it to places that would make them more money. Wall Street would like them better as they'd be more effecient, make more profit, and honestly would be a better company, serving the public better in the markets they did serve. I think the stock market is finally understanding sheer size and numbers of signals means very little when it comes to makeing money. It has more do with what is done with the signals owned. So, hopefully CC will be futher pressured from the marketplace to dump the littler stations off to some people that care about the smaller markets and are willing to serve their communities, working hard to make a profit. Let Golieth have LA, Chicago, NYC, Dallas, Detroit, etc. The sooner CC and the other big corporates get out of smaller and even medium market, the better off everyone will be. I just hope the stock market continues to pound them mercilessly so action will be taken for corporate to bail out of small market.

 

[Anyacat]

The decline in newspapers has less to do with the retail consolidation than with a variety of other reasons. During World War II, for example, people got their news from the radio, newspapers and newsreels in the movie theater. After World War II, television news supplanted newsreels, although news was still delivered on the radio and in the papers. However, an entire generation grew up getting its news from television, and, consequently, did not get into the habit of reading newspapers with any regularity. Now, we have the Internet, which gives people access to news almost as it happens. I don't think it's a coincidence that newspaper readership began a steady decline in the 1980s (by the way, during the 1970s, readership was at an all-time high). Of course, the consolidation of newspaper companies and the loss of favored newspapers (in Chicago, for example, the loss of the Daily News and the American), didn't help because people had an intense loyalty to a specific paper for a variety of reasons and didn't move to another source when that paper folded. Which brings us to the statement that modern newspapers exist solely to as vehicles of advertisement. One would hope not. The purpose of a news gathering organization--be it print, TV or radio--is to report without bias and without fear of reprisal, the events of any given day. Of course, they have to stay in business, but newspapers get into trouble when the advertising department starts making editorial decisions. There is a correlation with radio in that advertising salesmen start to determine programming and the whole thing goes into the toilet. I like new toys as much as the next guy, but I also like my terrestrial radio and I don't like the idea that ad salesmen are making programming decisions. Perhaps this marks me as a dinosaur or maybe I'm just a discriminating listener.

 

[fred flintstone]

Which brings us to the statement that modern newspapers exist solely to as vehicles of advertisement. One would hope not. The purpose of a news gathering organization--be it print, TV or radio--is to report without bias and without fear of reprisal, the events of any given day. Of course, they have to stay in business, but newspapers get into trouble when the advertising department starts making editorial decisions. There is a correlation with radio in that advertising salesmen start to determine programming and the whole thing goes into the toilet. I like new toys as much as the next guy, but I also like my terrestrial radio and I don't like the idea that ad salesmen are making programming decisions. Perhaps this marks me as a dinosaur or maybe I'm just a discriminating listener.

Newspapers have existed as vehicles of advertisement for the last 150 years - since the birth of the "penny press," mass circulation, popular newspaper. Newspapers became affordable to most people because advertisers paid most of the costs. Before this papers were expensive, exclusive, limited to content of interest to the business elite - or were more similar to blogs than to NEWSpapers in the sense we use the term.

You are just repeating the J-school myths gr8oldies refers to in his post (above).

Advertiser supported media exist - like any other business - to satisfy customers.
Advertisers are the customers.
To the extent newspapers "report without bias" they do so to get people of different viewpoints to read the paper because that's good for business; a non-partisan publication puts a department store ad in more hands than a partisan press. When major cities had four-six-a dozen daily newspapers, they could afford to be partisan. With one or two newspapers, different economic rules apply.
Newspapers were more popular when they were partisan - just like talk radio. People don't want "without bias" - not really. They want their own bias (which people see as "fair and balanced"). "Without bias" may have contributed to the decline in newspaper readership as much as anything.

 

[Anyacat]

Dear Fred: I have no doubt you are smarter than me. But a reporter reports and does not comment, that is the job of the commentator and the inability, or unwillingness, to know the difference is why people confuse commentary (biased) with reporting (unbiased). And while it is true, as I thought I made clear, that advertising support and subscriptions used to allow newspapers to exist, one does not want the advertising people making news room decisions. And yes, people still to buy newspapers for their bias, real or perceived, and hence the difference between The Tribune, always a Republican paper (established to promote the candidacy of Abraham Lincoln) and the Sun-Times, seen as a "working man's" paper.

 

[fred flintstone]

Dear Fred: I have no doubt you are smarter than me. But a reporter reports and does not comment, that is the job of the commentator and the inability, or unwillingness, to know the difference is why people confuse commentary (biased) with reporting (unbiased). And while it is true, as I thought I made clear, that advertising support and subscriptions used to allow newspapers to exist, one does not want the advertising people making news room decisions. And yes, people still to buy newspapers for their bias, real or perceived, and hence the difference between The Tribune, always a Republican paper (established to promote the candidacy of Abraham Lincoln) and the Sun-Times, seen as a "working man's" paper.

One significant difference: Advertising doesn't allow newspapers to exist. It is THE REASON newspapers exist.
The Sun-Times and Daily News were once part of Field Enterprises (heirs to Marshall Field).
The wall of separation between editorial and business sides is a myth.
Editors don't bite the hand that feeds them (and often lick it).
If a newspaper publishes a story unfavorable to a major advertiser it is because the story will get/has gotten out anyway - and an attempt to surpress the story would be obvious.
The newspaper can then hype how it was "fearless" and the whole thing blows over.
Notice how much of what passes for news is really self-promotion.
I'd recommend you rent The Front Page. I recommend the pre-code Adolph Menjou-Pat O'Brien version (1931) as the most authentic and closest to the play, although performances are better in the Walter Matthau-Jack Lemmon version (1974).