• 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

Good For Radio?

I affirm Jon David's comments. Successful radio is not just programming or sales or administration but all of these things in a perfect mix. In many ways it is the chicken and egg syndrome. You must have the chicken with the egg or vice versa. Without sales, programming cannot succeed and without programming sales cannot succeed. Both require good administration to keep things running smooth and keeping both programming and sales from controlling the other.

I was lucky. I got to experience radio in programming and in sales (marketing). The experience taught me just how crucial both are to the other's overall success. This applies to both commercial and non-commercial radio. Some will say entirely listener supported stations do not apply to this but I argue they do. It was good communication and marketing that preceeded the donation from listeners.

As a side note, I think radio has done a poor job making advertising a part of programming to the audience. We see the commercial as the entity that, so to speak, is the door bell ringing while you're in the middle of doing something. Movies, with product placement, seem to have found a way to injecting advertising in 'programming' (the script) without making it an entirely different entity. I realize that's a pipe dream of mine as it requires going so far outside the box to execute but perhaps we need to think of minute ways we can move toward incorporating the commercial into programming in a way that it is effective but not alien to the format. There was one jock I knew that used a character voice and his character who told stories about his everyday life always incorporated a commercial within the segment. The commercial was well into the bit and you were out of the commercial without hardly knowing you heard one. I thought that was ptretty clever (one was about a rancher friend who was going to a specific lumber story to buy some saw horses 'cause they do eat much')
 
A....

Originally, American Radio was chartered to "Operate in the Public Interest, as a Public Trustee....". That is the mission statement of successful Radio...Commercial or Public. Period.

Commercial Radio does not, and should not require public monies of any kind.

That being writ, there is a need for Public Broadcasting, funded in that fashion....But just as Commericial Radio has been overtaken by external Business Interests, Public Radio has been overtaken by external Political ones.

As it currently operates, NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting operates in varying degrees as an adjunct to Leftist political policy, and therefore should be funded by the authors of those policies, not by We the People.

The takeaway from this again should be a commitment to Balance.

In the case of Commercial Radio, the time-honored successful balance of Entertainment, News, and Public Service is the key.

In the case of NPR and the CBB...that balance will be found in stories told of the pursuit of fact, not what should be fact.

J-D
TWR
 
jondavidvox said:
As it currently operates, NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting operates in varying degrees as an adjunct to Leftist political policy, and therefore should be funded by the authors of those policies, not by We the People.

That's not true. NPR and the Corporation operate under the Public Broadcasting Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1967, and funded continually by the House Appropriations Committee for every year since then. The authors of those policies were our elected representatives, and therefore funded by We The People.

If there's an issue in how that Act is being carried out, the proper way to address it is by having Congressional Hearings on CPB, and perhaps creating some additional form of oversight of the system. But to do what you suggest is contrary to the Act itself. And really contrary to the role of Congress as defined by the Constitution.

The ONLY way to get corporations to serve the public is with the threat from the government. That is the only body with the authority to make requirements of corporations and commercial media. Same with non-commercial public media. "We the people" have jobs to do and families to take care of. We pay our representatives to make sure our media serves us. That's what's missing in this equation. We need a government that is by the people and for the people.
 
Enjoying this lively debate. I have no problem with Public Broadcasting on radio & TV. There are things on it that lean to the left. There is much on commercial News/Talk radio that leans to the right. Maybe between the two we have a balance.
 
A...

I may have over-edited....

My statement "...As it currently operates..." should have been more precise. I'm not talking about its governmental funding process. I was discussing NPR and the CBB's editorial decision making.

There is far too many politics in the presentations of current Public Broadcasting. And as with all forms of abuse, someone will eventually arrive with a remedy. In this case, Conservatives have arrived with the possible end of NPR's government underwriting.

J-D
TWR
 
jondavidvox said:
My statement "...As it currently operates..." should have been more precise. I'm not talking about its governmental funding process. I was discussing NPR and the CBB's editorial decision making.

CPB has no editorial decision making. They are merely the funding intermediary to keep politicians out of programming.

Once again, someone has to pay for broadcasting. We have two systems in this country. One way is through corporations, stockholders, and advertisers. The other way is through all Americans paying a dollar or two a year to a non-profit, non-corporate system that favors education and public service rather than profit. You have already noted the abuses being taken by the corporate approach, and there are no solutions to it. No one seems to be talking about reigning in corporate abuse in broadcasting. On the other hand, if there is an abuse in the editorial decision making of the public broadcasting system, the way to handle that is fix it. Not throw it out. You fix it by talking about it, getting everyone involved, and making it stronger. Not pulling the rug out from under it. We the people pay for The White House, even though we don't all agree with the policies of the guy who's in it. We the people pay for Congress, even though we don't agree with all of the people there. We the people need to support a media system that is dedicated to service and education, not profit and greed. The only place that will happen is in public broadcasting.
 
TheBigA said:
OHTBGH said:
They may have cash now. But all it takes is a tremor in market forces and credit is screwed and people will park the cash.

It sounds like you don't watch the market. It's been unstable all year. Banks aren't lending right now. But this is a well-constructed deal that combines equity and debt in a way that won't overburden any one part.
Uh excuse me there Big A. I DO watch the market. I also own stocks. I've been bought out twice (One by another company, the other going private). I also own media property stocks. I also had over 10,000 of shares of Citadel. So yes I know what I'm talking about.

-BGH
 
OHTBGH said:
TheBigA said:
OHTBGH said:
They may have cash now. But all it takes is a tremor in market forces and credit is screwed and people will park the cash.

It sounds like you don't watch the market. It's been unstable all year. Banks aren't lending right now. But this is a well-constructed deal that combines equity and debt in a way that won't overburden any one part.
Uh excuse me there Big A. I DO watch the market. I also own stocks. I've been bought out twice (One by another company, the other going private). I also own media property stocks. I also had over 10,000 of shares of Citadel. So yes I know what I'm talking about.

-BGH

And there is STILL volaitility in the markets. And there is more to come.

They didn't see the last torpedo and this is what they got.

You leverage yourself out too much and get a torpedo hit you start burning cash. Then you need more cash. You revenue streams leave you (Auto ads are now gone) and you go to the bank but the spigot is turned off.


There is more to come. Only needs another crazy torpedo and they can be next.

-BGH
 
OHTBGH said:
You leverage yourself out too much and get a torpedo hit you start burning cash. Then you need more cash. You revenue streams leave you (Auto ads are now gone) and you go to the bank but the spigot is turned off.

Actually we're getting ad money from Chevy, Nissan, Toyota, and Chrysler. So the auto ads aren't gone.

The Cumulus deal was more about equity. So the lenders are part owners and partners. Different situation than Citadel.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom