Great article about Cleveland Radio

[Morpheux]

I'm sure most have read this that post here but for those out of the area,this is a good read:


http://www.cleveland.com/entertainm...and_radio_faces_incursio/2726/comments-2.html

 

[AllMightyVoice]

Heard Lanigan spew some big time hate on this article this morning. I'm paraphrasing but he pretty much called it garbage and horrible reporting. He said that "Clear Channel owns 75% of the stations in town and nobody bothered to talk to them about it." Seems like they made several attempts to reach CC, but nobody wanted to talk.

Honestly this article is stale. Its the same as those articles the PD writes about how awesome and cheap bowling is as a night out. You could write this same article every year, things were so much better back in the day, blah blah blah. But on the same token, Lanigan is either toeing the company line by putting down the article or he is such a dinosaur that he isn't able to look around and be honest about the state of radio.

Personally I've always been a huge believer that had music stations kept running out dynamic personalities, the "gatekeepers" as Gorman calls them, that services like Spotify and Pandora never would have taken hold.

 

[TheBigA]

Personally I've always been a huge believer that had music stations kept running out dynamic personalities, the "gatekeepers" as Gorman calls them, that services like Spotify and Pandora never would have taken hold.

People went to those services for a reason, and the reason was to escape "the gatekeepers." Music fans today know what they like. They don't need someone to pick the music for them. (or maybe they do, but they just resent admitting it) Music taste has become more individual than any radio station can satisfy. And the stars use Twitter and other services to speak directly with the fans, bypassing gatekeepers, so the fans get better access to the stars than DJs. Unless a DJ has a special personal relationship to an artist that allows him to get really unique access, or something that gives them unquestioned credibility, the DJ just gets in the way. Who today could earn the title "The Fifth Beatle" the way Murray The K did in 1964?

 

[CleveFan]

I found the article to be good. Don't know why CC Cleveland wouldn't speak to the PD. They could've defended their practice if they didn't want the paper to make them look bad. Then again, no one from Radio One and Salem were interviewed, and only Hershel represented CBS.

 

[Capulet]

Personally I've always been a huge believer that had music stations kept running out dynamic personalities, the "gatekeepers" as Gorman calls them, that services like Spotify and Pandora never would have taken hold.

People went to those services for a reason, and the reason was to escape "the gatekeepers." Music fans today know what they like. They don't need someone to pick the music for them. (or maybe they do, but they just resent admitting it) Music taste has become more individual than any radio station can satisfy. And the stars use Twitter and other services to speak directly with the fans, bypassing gatekeepers, so the fans get better access to the stars than DJs. Unless a DJ has a special personal relationship to an artist that allows him to get really unique access, or something that gives them unquestioned credibility, the DJ just gets in the way. Who today could earn the title "The Fifth Beatle" the way Murray The K did in 1964?

This comment should have been in the original story. It explains the way consumers have so many more options today and use this alternate media. Forty years ago
those afore mentioned " gatekeepers " had a near monopoly going. Not only do DJs get in the way, most of them are just carnival barkers reading live commercials disquised as " promotions ".

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Clear Channel could have spotlighted the fact that they do still have many popular local personalities...from Lanigan and Triv, to Rover and Alan Cox, to Kasper, and that's just naming five.

They may have been afraid that the article would pay attention to their no personality stations like The Lake and the new tiny alt-rocker 99X.

I agree with Lanigan that CC should have been represented in the article, but that apparently got shot down at both local and corporate levels. Would Lanigan have been "allowed" to comment? Can't he basically do what he wants?

 

[SonoSational18]

Badly written and researched article. There was an obvious anti-radio bias. I often wonder when a writer says "several attempts were made to contact" how hardd they really tried.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I haven't read it in a while, but I believe they made it clear that CC, both locally and nationally, actively declined comment at the management level.

That said, what kind of trouble could a Lanigan or a Triv gotten into for their own perspective? That's the route Yarborough should have taken, if possible, around the CC management's refusal.

 

[CleveRadioInsider]

Just my humble opinion but the best radio in this town is located in the Akron/Kent area on the commercial side. WONE, WAKR, WQMX, and WNIR which is owned by the Klaus family. This is how radio should be done. Clear Channel is clueless on how to program stations. The geniuses over there think by putting a local personality on in the morning and then playing music all day that is pumped in off a satellite is great programming with no interaction. This type of thinking is what has destroyed WMJI, and WGAR. Again just my opinion and anyone is free to disagree but kudos to the Klaus family at WNIR and Rubber City Radio for still trying to keep radio local and in the community.

 

[TheBigA]

This type of thinking is what has destroyed WMJI, and WGAR.

Depends on what is used as a barometer. Right now, those two are among the most-listened-to stations in town. But I agree the Akron stations are good too.

 

[Tim]

Ohio Media Watch makes a great point: it's amazing how many radio stations in Akron-Kent are for the most part live and local. (Some stations do voicetrack...but, it's done by local/staff announcers and recorded the day it runs...and really, even that's pretty limited...and there's local content beyond the music).

Let's face it...when you own hundreds and hundreds of stations...you're technically speaking financed up to your eyeballs...and revenues struggle to get close to where you told your lender you'd be...cutting costs is one of the things you can control. And, that's usually eliminating people and their salaries and benefits.

Besides...on music formats, after morning drive, really....in this dumbed-down "just play the music and shut-up" world: why have live d.j's? Heck, why even have voice-tracked d.j.'s??? That, sadly, is what many big radio chains think.

And, they wonder by Pandora, Spotify, and others, and MP3 players are slowly gaining ground.

 

[TheBigA]

And, they wonder by Pandora, Spotify, and others, and MP3 players are slowly gaining ground.

Right...because they have all those live & local personalities. Not.

 

[Tim]

No, because the radio industry has spent 30 years promoting "more music, less talk" to their audiences. And now, most music-stations audiences have bought it...and hate it anytime the music stops. The industry did it to itself.

Pandora, Spotify and others just play the music, and there's no commercials and nobody's talking. That was my point.

It'd be like Mc Donald's spent 30 years advertising: hamburgers and fries are bad for you...you really don't want to eat that awful food. Sooner or later, their customers would agree...and stop buying burgers and fries.

 

[TheBigA]

No, because the radio industry has spent 30 years promoting "more music, less talk" to their audiences, and now most of the music-station audience agrees: just shut up and play the music.

Back 30 years, the reason they said "more music, less talk," was because the listeners wanted it. Radio has to deliver what the audience wants. If they wanted chatty DJs, that's what radio stations would do. But they don't. When people want talk, they seek out talk stations. When they want music, they want fewer interruptions.

 

[HHH]

No, because the radio industry has spent 30 years promoting "more music, less talk" to their audiences, and now most of the music-station audience agrees: just shut up and play the music.

Back 30 years, the reason they said "more music, less talk," was because the listeners wanted it. Radio has to deliver what the audience wants. If they wanted chatty DJs, that's what radio stations would do. But they don't. When people want talk, they seek out talk stations. When they want music, they want fewer interruptions.

Some perspective:

Album rock radio (especially) utilized "music personalities" (people who were experts on the artists that they played) to present the music. That is to say, tell you the album the track came from, who is in the band, who the guest guitarist is on the track, when the act is coming to town, etc etc. The crowd that listened to AOR (at least in the earlier days) was more musically savvy and desired these bits of information. Some of the hipper AORs would play imports not available in the USA, which required setup and explanation. Also, a good AOR deejay would blend the music in themes or some kind of connection in order to make a compelling presentation. He/she may also interview the act and maybe even MC the live concert. There was a complete, local, cultural connection.

As much as I miss that kind of presentation, there really is no need for it today.

RDS on your radio tells you the song that is playing. The station's internet site will tell you if you don't have a radio with RDS, plus will probably give you links to other information. When I stream on my smartphone, not only does the song title come up, but (in many cases) a picture of the album cover is shown, linked to a page all about it.

With the internet, once you know a song title and artist, you can go to Wikipedia and learn all about them, or maybe the band's own website which will give you bio, tour dates, etc.

Remember: This is important: NONE of that existed back before the internet and streaming/RDS. Without a deejay to frame a lot of the music, the listener would be lost.

Yes, stations always pitched "more music". But equally as important back then (and MORE SO in Cleveland if you look at the pre-internet era ratings) a completely "plugged-in station" was the leader. WMMS destroyed M105 in the ratings even though M105 played lots more music. That's because WMMS was the "go to" station for your connection.

You don't need that today. Radio stopped doing it and the internet picked up the ball.

 

[TheBigA]

You don't need that today. Radio stopped doing it and the internet picked up the ball.

Actually, not the internet, but social media. Music fans are directly connected with their artists and fellow fans through social media in ways that DJs could never imagine. Fans connect with themselves regarding events and activities they enjoy. They have created their own cyber community. The DJs aren't part of that life group, so having them is superfluous.

 

[HHH]

You don't need that today. Radio stopped doing it and the internet picked up the ball.

Actually, not the internet, but social media. Music fans are directly connected with their artists and fellow fans through social media in ways that DJs could never imagine. Fans connect with themselves regarding events and activities they enjoy. They have created their own cyber community. The DJs aren't part of that life group, so having them is superfluous.

True, but in the broader sense, it all ties back to the connectivity that the internet allows.

You can't do Facebook, fan pages, chat boards, etc, without the internet!

That changed everything.

But props to the old deejays. THEY were the social media of their day.

 

[TheBigA]

I agree. But at the same time, radio never "stopped doing it." They just didn't evolve with the audience. Had The Beatles hung on to their pre-Revolver image, they would have faced the same thing. There are thousands of radio DJs working at stations across the country. But as I said, what they're doing, for the most part, is superfluous, and in most formats, they're not essential to the conversation.

 

[Tim]

Times change...styles change. Eras come and go.