Healing Broken Radio

[DavidKaye]

A chain is a chain is a chain. Chronicle Broadcasting was no less corporate than any current chain in terms of operating policies. Same with Sonderling, RKO, or McLendon.

How wrong you are. I've known people who worked for both the Chronicle and KRON. Apparently you haven't.

This is like taking something one doesn't like, and then extrapolating it to everything. The Mafia is made up of Italians, so therefore all Italians are in the Mafia. Clear Channel owns a lot of stations, so all MSOs are bad. That logic doesn't work.

We're in 100% agreement. My point has been that "corporate radio" is not bad simply because it's corporate radio. In fact, some of the larger corporations give better benefits and treat people better than the small owners do.

 

[DavidKaye]

And yet they have come up with lots of new programming ideas, and lots of format ideas. And not all of them have worked. Like FreeFM.

That being said, they're not going to play unknown music by unknown artists. They are not in the artist development business.

For a number of years Clear Channel operated the Format Lab, a website with all kinds of streams people could listen to. With this they tracked listenership, demographics, etc., in order to discover what new format might work on their stations. They've since ended the experiment, but I remember lots of testing they were doing on format tweaks and new formats.

 

[Dick Skinner]

This is the most preposterous thing I've read here in awhile.

Agreed. Typical of posters who'll write anything to see themselves in print.

 

[DavidKaye]

Agreed. Typical of posters who'll write anything to see themselves in print.

If you don't like egos why are you interested in broadcasting?

 

[MarioMania]

You forgot Vallejo's 1190

 

[DavidKaye]

You forgot Vallejo's 1190

Oh I left out a bunch. I was just doing this from memory in order to show that even during the "golden age" of local radio, stations weren't very innovative, even though they were owned by the little guys.

 

[davideduardo]

Let's look at the radio ownership footprint circa 1960:

How about looking only at stations home to the San Francisco radio market:

AM stations buy freq:
KSFO - Gene Autry, singing cowboy

Golden West had Radio and TV in LA, SF, Portland, Seattle and through a partnership, in Phoenix and Tucson, too... that was a significant group.

KFRC - General Tire
KNBR - NBC
KCBS - CBS
KGO - ABC

KEWB - Crowell Collier (former magazine publisher)

Colliers was a significant magazine for a while... and the three stations were LA, SF and Mpls. Big markets.

KABL - Gordon McLendon, who owned 3 other stations at the time

I think he had San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Houston (an early FM), Buffalo, Shreveport and Louisville when he added San Francisco. That forced the sale of El Paso. He also had XETRA, X-tra news over Los Angeles around that time.

KKIS - local folks
KSAY - Grant Wrathall and family
KOFY - Scott Kilgore, maybe that was a little later, but anyhow, a small owner
KFAX - Judd Sturdevant & Al Krisik

KYA

Was bought by Bartell in 1960... definitely a group.

KDIA - Egmond Sonderling

Significant group.


KSAN - Patterson family

Neither KSAN or KSAY had much in the way of ratings... or signal. Wasn't 1960 when the 1010 transmitter was responsible for RF arcing at a nearby wharf's cranes?

KKHI - Buckley/Jaeger (small investors with I think 4 stations at the time)
Was silent in 1960, pending a sale.

Then we have KRE... not much of a factor.

The real issue is that the ones with ratings were the ones under group owners. Local ownership in big markets did not seem to create better programming or even more "critically acclaimed" programming.

I skipped the FMs as the sum total of them did not equal one of the lower rated AMs.

 

[DavidKaye]

Golden West had Radio and TV in LA, SF, Portland, Seattle and through a partnership, in Phoenix and Tucson, too... that was a significant group.

Yeah, group owners to be sure, but hardly what exists today. Yesterday's group owners where the equivalent of the Ships restaurant chain in LA or Zim's or Doggie Diner in the Bay Area. Today's group owners are the equivalent of McDonald's or Denny's. I think that's a big difference.

The real issue is that the ones with ratings were the ones under group owners. Local ownership in big markets did not seem to create better programming or even more "critically acclaimed" programming.

Far be it for me to endorse big corporations, but big corporations do indeed have the resources to develop specific products and services that mainstream people want, and to promote them well. Goodness knows that your former employer got its high quality Spanish language programming into markets where it likely wouldn't have happened under small or local owners.

I'm all for quirkiness -- I have quirky musical tastes -- but I know that quirky doesn't sell. Most people don't want quirky. They don't want the avant garde looking shoes that doesn't fit well; they want the comfortable bedroom slippers.

 

[weav]

And small ownership is no guarantee of quirky programming....

A Certain Radio Station licensed to a town on an island in the bay, whose transmitter is on a condo building in SF, is owned by a small-group owner, but goes head to head (with the smallest stick in the market mind you) against two much larger, better-funded stations in the same format.

The fact that they have zero spot load is evidence to the brilliance of that plan.

 

[LKellerIII]

A good example from the past is James Gabbert. He and one partner owned 101.3. I wasn't around for KPEN, but by the time it increased power, moved to SF and became K-101, it was mainstream CHR. He allowed a few programming 'quirks' from time to time - I recall that Sam Van Zandt would do occasional short special segments during his show. But on the whole, the station was very mainstream. When Gabbert later tried to buy KKCY as a small owner, all the KKCY fans went nuts- figuring he would wreck 'The City 's' quirky programming. They were right, of course.

 

[DavidKaye]

A good example from the past is James Gabbert. He and one partner owned 101.3. I wasn't around for KPEN, but by the time it increased power, moved to SF and became K-101, it was mainstream CHR. He allowed a few programming 'quirks' from time to time - I recall that Sam Van Zandt would do occasional short special segments during his show. But on the whole, the station was very mainstream. When Gabbert later tried to buy KKCY as a small owner, all the KKCY fans went nuts- figuring he would wreck 'The City 's' quirky programming. They were right, of course.

Actually, KPEN had 4 partners as far as I'm aware, but that's another story. At first he had a mix of programming, with oldtime music on weekend afternoons, classical in the evenings, marching bands on Wednesday nights, and whatnot. By the mid-60s he had to abandon that because he just couldn't compete. By the late 60s the format went more mainstream and KIOI made boatloads of money. The listeners who liked the quirky old days were up in arms, but there weren't enough of them to matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Madmansam]

A good example from the past is James Gabbert. He and one partner owned 101.3.

I believe that one partner was "Michael Lincoln"?

 

[Silkie]

They used to be. Maybe there aren't any decent new groups to develop as there were back in the day.

 

[DavidKaye]

A good example from the past is James Gabbert. He and one partner owned 101.3.

I believe that one partner was "Michael Lincoln"?

Michael Lincoln came along later, after Gary Gielow. As far as I'm aware the original partners in KPEN (Pacific FM, Inc) were James Gabbert, Gary Gielow, Jerry Jensen (anchor at KRON at the time and then later at KGO-TV) and a 4th silent partner whose name escapes me. I don't believe Michael Lincoln was a business partner with Gabbert until he became station manager of KIOI. Now, given romantic partnerships and the like, there may have been other arrangements made that could have kicked in in the event of death or incapacitation.

John Wickett was the 4th guy's name. (Courtesy of Bay Area Radio Museum: http://www.bayarearadio.org/audio/kioi/index.shtml )

 

[RadioStarOne]

Anyone out there have the "Total Stereo Radio" TOH ID from K101 back in the day? Early 70's vintage.
KIOI

 

[recto101]

the mistake the corporations make is to put the cart before the horse in expense to advertsing revenue projections. It is because as public corporations, they are playing with other people's money. They have little ability to lay out substantial dollars without guarantee of profit.
So they don't try new ideas.

But this is nothing new. In the late 50s, Top 40 was so big in the Bay Area that when Gordon McLendon (a Top 40 legend in Texas and Florida) bought KROW and turned it into KABL, people were sure he was going to put up another Top 40 station. The columnists and pundits were bemoaning the fact that KROW would become yet another station aimed toward "the kids".

But McLendon saw that there were so many Top 40s around here that they were cannibalizing each other. So, he put on a beautiful music station instead and shot KABL to #1 within a couple books. Nearly all the stations that were copying each other were owned by small companies, not corporate America.

Remember, that in those days, there was the 7-7-7 rule, so we can't blame the state of radio format imitation on "corporate America" because most stations were mom 'n' pop ownerships, not corporations, since corporations could own only 7 AMs and 7FMs. In fact, during that era, only CBS had the full limit of radio stations.

That was 50 years ago and it was exactly the same situation: people imitating success rather than taking the risks of trying out new formats.

You can't tell Cumulus, CBS, Entercom and CC to enforce the 7 stations rule in 2012 because they can send out lobbyists and lawyers will argue and say but SiriusXM can run 100 stations within their programming studio and Live365, loudcity, shoutcast and other web audio broadcasting formats and say but they can have thousand of stations from their users by paying the royalty fees.

I know in broadcasting class teachers tended to talk about "Fairness Doctrine"
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=fairnessdoct

The law stated that all broadcast stations must air all points of view on a limited amount of frequencies. I don't know if this will work today.

 

[recto101]

the mistake the corporations make is to put the cart before the horse in expense to advertsing revenue projections. It is because as public corporations, they are playing with other people's money. They have little ability to lay out substantial dollars without guarantee of profit.
So they don't try new ideas.

But this is nothing new. In the late 50s, Top 40 was so big in the Bay Area that when Gordon McLendon (a Top 40 legend in Texas and Florida) bought KROW and turned it into KABL, people were sure he was going to put up another Top 40 station. The columnists and pundits were bemoaning the fact that KROW would become yet another station aimed toward "the kids".

But McLendon saw that there were so many Top 40s around here that they were cannibalizing each other. So, he put on a beautiful music station instead and shot KABL to #1 within a couple books. Nearly all the stations that were copying each other were owned by small companies, not corporate America.

Remember, that in those days, there was the 7-7-7 rule, so we can't blame the state of radio format imitation on "corporate America" because most stations were mom 'n' pop ownerships, not corporations, since corporations could own only 7 AMs and 7FMs. In fact, during that era, only CBS had the full limit of radio stations.

That was 50 years ago and it was exactly the same situation: people imitating success rather than taking the risks of trying out new formats.

You can't tell Cumulus, CBS, Entercom and CC to enforce the 7 stations rule in 2012 because they can send out lobbyists and lawyers will argue and say but SiriusXM can run 100 stations within their programming studio and Live365, loudcity, shoutcast and other web audio broadcasting formats and say but they can have thousand of stations from their users by paying the royalty fees.

I know in broadcasting class teachers tended to talk about "Fairness Doctrine"
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=fairnessdoct

The law stated that all broadcast stations must air all points of view on a limited amount of frequencies. I don't know if this will work today.