Good For Radio?

[MissyRadio]

So Cumulus now owns 96.3 KSCS and WBAP AM and FM. As well as KLIF-FM (93.3), KLIF-AM, KPLX (The Wolf), and KTCK (The Ticket).

Somebody explain to me how that is good for the radio industry?
How is that good for the Dallas-Fort Worth listener?
And finally, how is this clusterfudge of stations a good thing for the radio job seeker?

I would really like to hear an expert's "spin" on this.

 

[radionosey]

Let's not forget about the clear channel cluster, 92.5 kzps, 106.1 kiss, 102.9 mix, 102.1 the edge, 97.1 the eagle, that's two company's that own 75% of the main listening audience of the 5th largest market in the grand ole USA

 

[deeblanton]

AND...Cumulus also owns KESN (ESPN) 103.3 !!!

 

[TheBigA]

Somebody explain to me how that is good for the radio industry?
How is that good for the Dallas-Fort Worth listener?
And finally, how is this clusterfudge of stations a good thing for the radio job seeker?

I would really like to hear an expert's "spin" on this.

It all depends.

It's good for the industry because the industry is advertiser-supported, and advertisers demand big numbers at low cost. In the old days, you had a handful of radio stations. Now you have a handful of owners. The net result is about the same. There aren't a lot of companies interested in buying radio stations or owning anything, for that matter. So this is a limited marketplace anyway. And when you compare radio to other industries, like automobile or beverage or department stores, there's more ownership diversity in radio.

For the listener, fewer owners mean potentially less format duplication. Although I expect they'll keep both KSCS and KPLX country. Big owners have access to big stars and big promotions. And Dallas is a major programming hub for Cumulus.

How is it good for job seekers? Radio has never been an easy field to break into, and it's probably harder now. None of this merger-aquisition stuff is good for jobs in any field. But if you get into a company like Cumulus, there's a lot of opportunity. They have investment money, they're definitely looking to expand the Dallas-based Cumulus Media Networks, but it's all about delivering results. They have some top-notch programming people there right now.

By the same token, I can come up with negatives for all three of these questions. The reality is that it is what it is. It's not going to change, so you adjust and learn how to deal with it.

 

[radioaircheck]

I don't think Cumulus owns ESPN or Radio Disney. They are seperate. Somebody help me here. ESPN 103.3 is not in the same building with WBAP and KSCS are they?

 

[TheBigA]

You are correct. Disney owns ESPN Radio and Radio Disney. Cumulus reps the ESPN format in some markets, but doesn't own the stations.

 

[Kent]

So Cumulus now owns 96.3 KSCS and WBAP AM and FM. As well as KLIF-FM (93.3), KLIF-AM, KPLX (The Wolf), and KTCK (The Ticket).

OK. I'll bite.

Somebody explain to me how that is good for the radio industry?

In the early-to-mid 90's, more than half of commercial radio stations were losing money. Now that stations can be sold in larger clusters and extra staff can be eliminated, we have at least a slightly healthier industry as a whole.

How is that good for the Dallas-Fort Worth listener?

At least in theory, it gives the listeners more diversity. I've read in several publications that the resurgence of CHR in the mid-to-late 90's probably wouldn't have happened had it not been for consolidation. Many of the stations that switched to CHR would probably have gone to AC other than that they suddenly found themselves in a larger cluster that included an established AC.

And finally, how is this clusterfudge of stations a good thing for the radio job seeker?

It's not good for the job seeker. It's not supposed to be. As The Big A pointed out, it's bad for the job seeker no matter where it occurs. While it's not the only reason mergers and acquisitions happen, one of the big benefits to the acquirer is that they can get rid of duplicate positions. That means lost jobs. If you haven't noticed, middle management's a terrible place to be whenever a big deal happens. You're almost lucky if you're one of the people who gets downsized because your workload can go up exponentially without getting any extra compensation for it. Been there, done that! Also, the theory behind consolidation was that it would mean fewer, but better, jobs. I don't know if it's still happening, but it was happening for awhile. If you voicetracked on multiple stations, you used to get paid extra. Both Clear Channel and Capstar's brief experiment with the Star System paid extra for voicetracking multiple markets, at least at first.

I would really like to hear an expert's "spin" on this.

I don't know if I'd qualify as an expert, but those are a few of the benefits of consolidation. Again, like The Big A, I'm not trying to say it's good; I'm just saying it's not all bad. Really, consolidation seems to me like more of a symptom of radio's problem than the problem itself. When you allow more stations, or anything, into a market than it can support, you either have to let operations shut down or let healthier owners buy out the ones who are struggling. That's ECON 101. Saying consolidation is bad for the industry and the listener without mentioning that Dallas/Ft. Worth now has around 75 stations in the market is only mentioning the smaller part of the problem.

 

[arnoldevns]

I've been torn about this question for some time. The simple answer is that it depends on what the group owner does with the stations. If they voice track the stations and have little local input into how they're run, that's not good. If they keep them locally run with a commitment to the community, that's good. You can consolidate ownership and make the business end of the stations more efficient (one sales staff, one GM, business office, etc) without hurting the quality of the on air product. Sadly, most consolidated ownership has not done that. It remains to be seen how these stations will be impacted long term by this consolidation.

Part of the problem is that the radio business is dying. People are getting their music from ipods, iphones, etc. They can listen to the music they want without long commercial breaks on things like sirius/xm, pandora and live365. Radio's biggest selling point is localism. But even that won't convince many people to listen when they've grown accustomed to other options.

 

[TheBigA]

Part of the problem is that the radio business is dying. People are getting their music from ipods, iphones, etc. They can listen to the music they want without long commercial breaks on things like sirius/xm, pandora and live365. Radio's biggest selling point is localism. But even that won't convince many people to listen when they've grown accustomed to other options.

There's a lot in that paragraph. I don't think radio's biggest selling point is localism. It's convenience. And that convenience isn't changing, and it's why radio, for the most part, has retained a lot of its listenership, even with the options you listed. What radio is doing now is spreading its brand to a lot of those other options, so you can listen to a traditional radio station on a phone or the internet. The interesting thing is that advertising and music marketing is still more effective on OTA radio because the audience is still more concentrated than all the other options. And a lot of that goes back to convenience.

 

[dakareedog]

AND...Cumulus also owns KESN (ESPN) 103.3 !!!

No, they don't. It, 103.3 and Radio Disney were retained by ABC in the sell off to Citadel.

 

[MissyRadio]

Thank you for answering my somewhat biased questions with sincerity.

Obviously I feel that consolidation has been a horrible detriment to the industry and I have my doubts that more than half of the commercial stations in the area were losing money in the early 90s, but here's my biggest issue:

Competition. Or rather lack of it. Competition that comes from having more owners in the marketplace brings out the best (and sometimes the worst!) in people and in companies. Competition makes you want to be better than that other guy. To do something original to grab your audience. To spend more money on promotions and personality instead of slightly higher profits for the stockholders. When's the last time that the people in your office talked about something they heard on the radio that morning? When was the last time that a wacky stunt made the news (in a positive way)?

Just a couple of other quick points: Diversity? Yeah, I am really enjoy getting all those different viewpoints on WBAP AM AND FM! Actually, I don't really need diversity, I just want my station to try harder to earn my ears. Do what you have to do to get that hot artist in studio and play the cut before the competition. Play that remix that your production girl spent all night working on. Play something new that I know I won't hear anywhere else because you want to CRUSH the competition!

Advertising? Do you know who has the biggest piece of the advertising pie in local media? Your dad's newspaper. Although that number continues to shrink every year and online grows. Radio's percentage hasn't changed in spite of consolidation with the exception of maybe a few more national buys. But those national buys have a habit of squeezing out inventory for the local mom and pop who are out of luck if they want an ad on the air in a prime spot next week. Competition can keep the price in check but valuable enough to sustain a station in the marketplace.

Employment? Yeah. That's a no-brainer. Actually on both sides of the mic. Let's just say the cream of the crop doesn't want to go into radio sales. And I honestly don't know where the next generation of DJs are coming to come from since they are no longer being groomed at night.

Thanks for letting me spout off. Feels good to get that off my chest.

 

[TheBigA]

Competition. Or rather lack of it. Competition that comes from having more owners in the marketplace brings out the best (and sometimes the worst!) in people and in companies. Competition makes you want to be better than that other guy.

If you think that Clear Channel doesn't compete against Cumulus, or isn;t concerned that Cumulus now has a monopoly on country radio in Dallas, then you don't understand what competition is. Competition is far more fierce now with these big companies.And competition WITHIN these big companies is pretty fierce too. If you work for one of them, and you're not pulling your weight, you're gone. It doesn't matter how many competitors you have. What matters is their resources and abilities. Quantity is NOT quality, and lots of pea shooter stations don't mean squat. You may have had lots of owners before, but most of them got no ratings, and were non-players in the market.

But my other point is that this ownership deregulation happened more than 15 years ago. When do you move on and deal with today? What happened in 1996 is done, and radio is not going back. So we all have to learn how to live with today's rules and today's competition. Radio has far bigger issues to fight with than another OTA competitor. They have millions of internet stations and hundreds of Sirius stations and millions of phone apps and on and on. The marketplace isn't just fined by towers and transmitters any more. Just as transportation isn't defined by horses and buggies. We all need to grow up and deal with today's reality.

 

[TheBigA]

And I honestly don't know where the next generation of DJs are coming to come from since they are no longer being groomed at night.

"Groomed at night?" I don't know what you're talking about. I did the overnight shift for a few months, and NO ONE was there to groom me for anything. The only reason I was there was because I was cheap and had a 3rd class FCC license. Now you don't need the license. But I don't know anyone who went from working overnights to a job in the daytime, unless they quit. That's what I did. Otherwise, I'd still be there. Nobody wanted to see the overnight guy get better and want a better shift. The overnight guy solved a problem, and as long as he could beathe, he'd stay in that shift.

For the past 20 years, people get groomed by working as part of a team. They're part of a Waking Crew or Morning Zoo, and live with the pressure of delivering ratings for a while. Then they take their act someplace else. Or they do traffic for a top show. You're not going to learn anything in the overnight, because no one is listening, including the boss. I've seen promotions people work their way on the air. The listeners know them from remotes. They build personality there. Then they fill in when one of the regulars is on vacation. But this romantic idea about doing overnights as a way to get groomed for an airshift is total mythology perpetuated by bosses who wanted to get people to do the graveyard shift. It was called that for a reason. You did it til you died.

 

[MissyRadio]

Did I touch a nerve Big A?
Maybe I'm just an old woman living in the past wishing I could get that handsome Tommy Dorsey back on my Philco. But in any case, let me rebut in backwards order:

Please note that I said night. Not overnight. Ask Russ Martin about working at night. Or Kidd Kraddick. Or any of a thousand other jocks who honed their craft at night. I bet you did learn a few things "overnight" but you are correct that you pretty much had to quit in order to move up. Promotions people on the air? Good luck with that. Maybe 1 out of 100 could handle it. Although to be fair, the bar of what sounds professional in radio has dropped down so low, that as long as you can read a liner card, management will put a mic in front of you.

Do you know what Clear Channel's answer to competition is? Hiring more sales people. And what is the competition WITHIN these companies? Are we talking ratings? Do you think the Eagle is competing with MIX and the Edge? Maybe for dollars but certainly not for listeners. At least not the way it should be.

And finally, yes, we need to stop living in the past and deal with today's reality.
I just wish tomorrow looked a lot better.

 

[TheBigA]

Did I touch a nerve Big A?

Not at all. I just get tired of hearing the same old stuff more than 15 years after deregulation.

Do you know what Clear Channel's answer to competition is? Hiring more sales people. And what is the competition WITHIN these companies? Are we talking ratings? Do you think the Eagle is competing with MIX and the Edge? Maybe for dollars but certainly not for listeners.

What do you think the game is all about? The reason you compete for listeners is so you can attract advertisers. THAT is the end game. And it's ALWAYS been what radio's all about. What the Eagle, Mix and Edge are competing for is power within their cluster. I don't know the specifics, but I imagine folks at The Eagle don't have the kind of power as the folks at Kiss. That is killer competition, and no one wants to be at the bottom of that pile, let me tell you. I suspect if The Eagle wasn't owned by CC, that format would have flipped a while ago.

 

[bturner]

I must chime in here. I was one who was groomed and was hired for overnights because I was the best of what was left in the aircheck box at the moment. I moved to evenings, then mornings before being told I was a better PM drive jock. The hardest part of the grooming was the PD wanting to meet with me about noon and scheduling me for an event at 5pm when my daily shift was 10pm to 12M for production and 12M to 6am on air...it almost became a daily thing and all I wanted to after the weekend shift was sleep.

I doubt radio as we knew it will ever return. I contend radio has not grasped the element that brought it the success it had: an emotional connection with the listener. My opinion is the popularity of the talk format is based more on people listening because on the emotional connection with the host. They feel like they know and maybe would be friends with the host. I contend that radio is ignorning this in most formats. Yes, you can play music and still connect with listeners.

Sales in radio is the touchdown in football. It's how we run the plays that has changed. In the past it seems stations put more emphasis on presenting a good image in the local community. The good image was seen as a way to persuade advertisers.

One point on radio today: most major broadcasters are publically traded. The objective is paying dividends. While profit was always the objective and a requirement for success, private owners were more apt to put funds back into improvements and delay profits in hopes of greater profits later. Even with that said, I have to question if radio is not still the same: too little money to invest and an attitude of cheaper is better.

Group owners have been able to eliminate the duplication of duties. Instead of 5 fully staffed stations, now traffic for all 5 stations might be done by one person, the sales staff combined to offer combo buys, the production staff trimmed and jocks released for computer or voicetracking with one station with a human. Considering how so many stations had financial difficulties before 1996, I have to wonder if that too is unchanged today. Even the big boys don't seem to be swimming in cash.

Personally I think the big boys have done some good things for radio but have also helped radio to suffer at the same time. I'd say individual owners or small market owners owe much to the big boys as they pioneered ways to lower station operation expenses. On the other hand, I do not see on air innovation or quality as hallmarks of the big boys.

 

[TheBigA]

I doubt radio as we knew it will ever return. I contend radio has not grasped the element that brought it the success it had: an emotional connection with the listener.

As you point out, it depends on the format. But this "emotional connection" concept ignores the way most people use radio, which is as a background experience. Sure not everyone listens with the radio at low levels, but today we have so many people trying to make an "emotional connection" that most people have really burned out from it all. They just want to go somewhere where they won't be spammed, where they won't be pitched, and where they can just relax and hear some music. But still there are loads of DJs who try for that "emotional connection" today, whether it's Delilah or John Tesh or some local guy doing his "lovin' & leavin'" segment. It happens every day. But there are so many stations, not every one can, or even should, be built around an emotional connection.

 

[Bobbo]

I'll bet Big A is a Big Republican, too--and no doubt a corporate radio sympathizer.

That being said, I also "grew up" in overnights (18 months or so), moved to evenings, then a midday, D/O under early consolidation, and back to afternoons and then mornings, before being downsized and kicked out of my small market nest entirely. Total round trip, 1991-1999--before being picked up to cohost and do comedy bits for syndicated "weekend Car Talk" radio in 2008. And the whole span of my career as a personality thus far has been to a huge extent shaped and styled by what I learned doing Midnight-6am on a damned traditional Country formatted station in a town of right at 100k population...It's what we used to call A SHOW, remember? It's timing, anticipation, creation of patter, interaction with callers, quicktime production and replay of phoners and bumpers and "bits," airchecking and fine-tuning the tone and pace and delivery...and THAT is, before '95, where the onair talent of the future came from--not every "new kid" doing the overnight shift moved up, but by God, a whole bunch of 'em did.

And losing the overnights (and even any airshift after 10am in many, many "big" market outlets) has been only one of MANY aspects of programming that have been adversely affected by LACK OF COMPETITION at that (programming/personality) level.

Hell, don't take my word for it; ask anyone here! Except for Big A, he's that one dude whose salary was in line enough for him to remain to write production and voicetrack four shows on five different stations, Monday through Friday, 9-5. Lucky boy.

 

[TheBigA]

I'll bet Big A is a Big Republican, too--and no doubt a corporate radio sympathizer.

Nope. The big Republicans say the rich are the job creators. If so, how many jobs did Romney create while he was at Bain?

I'm a realist. And I'm still in radio. I remember what we used to call "a show." That was in the era of block programming. What killed individual shows was the trend to building a total station SOUND. "Welcome back my friend to the show that never ends." Boss Radio was one of the things that killed it. But the focus on "format" that came about after the FM explosion in the 70s. "Don't break the format." That's what killed the concept of A SHOW. That happened long before 1995.

 

[TheBigA]

And losing the overnights (and even any airshift after 10am in many, many "big" market outlets) has been only one of MANY aspects of programming that have been adversely affected by LACK OF COMPETITION at that (programming/personality) level.

Nope. As I said earlier, quantity isn't the same as quality. Stations were VT-ing overnights in the 70s. Competition didn't kill fringe shifts. Lack of advertising did. The easiest way to get yourself a job in radio from 7PM to midnight is do what Alan Freed did in Cleveland 60 years ago: Bring your own advertiser. Tell the station you have a sponsor for your "show." I promise you he'll hire you on the spot. It has nothing to do with competition. There is a mythology that reversing the ownership rules would bring back competition, and as a result, 24/7 airshifts. Not so. If companies could only own two stations per market, all the fringe stations would shut down, and all their employees would be out of work. When the money goes away, the jobs follow. Advertisers have lots of places to put their money. Not just radio. That's why fringe shifts are gone. But the old ownership rules are never coming back because the FCC wants more radio stations, and more radio stations dilutes the advertising pool that creates the jobs. Docket 80-90 is what killed competition.