Here's why LOCAL is needed

[Tim]

Why little or no local? Station owners don't believe paying employees to provide local content is worth it to improve their bottom line. They see people as an empty, unnnecessary expense.

The opinions that count the most are station owners...since it's their stations, their money. And, pretty much, it's all about maximum revenue at minimumal costs, re: THEIR opinions....not ours.

 

[HHH]

So then by your estimation WHK should do well in the ratings. Prager, Hewitt and Medved have opposing views on their shows and are level headed conservatives. Is that not what people want?

This is evidently NOT what most talk radio listeners want, at least judging by the ratings.

I will say it again:

Seems that most people who listen to talk radio (regardless of political bent) want "entertaining" red meat.....affirmation of their biases and stereotypes presented simplistically, not an actual dialog or measured analysis.

 

[Tim]

Like most of us on these boards, I love local radio and hate voice tracking and most networks. But, like you, I don't own radio stations.

For many decades I worked for radio station owners...I know how they think, and I've gotten to know some of them...and observe what they do.

And sadly, in the past 10 to 15 years it's been to elminimate live, local employees whenever possible to save as much overhead as possible, as irrational as that might seem to many radio fans, employees, and observers.

p.s.: I agree with HHH: talk format listeners want polarized, argumentative dialogue...especially when it comes to politics.The amazing reality is little of any significance changes to most average people's lives regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans control Washington. But, most average people simply don't understand that...and would rather argue and debate with their fellow citizens rather than demand real changes to what's done with their tax dollars to all politicans. It's hysterical.

 

[johnbasalla]

I would like to see Salem Communications build a strong local presence in one or two of their most lucrative markets to see if they would have growing ratings and revenue success. If things work well for them, then extend it to other markets where they have decided to stay.

 

[Tim]

Observe what non-radio fans do when riding in a car with the radio turned on: as soon as a song comes on they don't like, and nearly always when an announcer begins talking or commercials come on....most average people will change stations instantly.

Live/local was the rule forever til inexpensive automation/VTing became available.

If being live/local made THAT much difference in ratings and ad revenues, every station would be live and local. Listeners to most formats, sadly, could care less about live/local..and owners know that. Radio fans, apparently, don't.

Personally, I can't stand VTing/automation. I'm afraid radio hobbyists and radio folks are simply longing for "the good old days". They're gone.

.

 

[johnbasalla]

One thing that will not change is the need for people if your station needs legitmate news and sports departments. An automation system or computer can't go out and interview the mayor. The jobs may change, but technology can't react to current events without the aid of people to import the information, so it still adds up to people. Automation can't do giveaways unless programmed by a person to do so, and then a person has to answer the phone to take the winner.

 

[Tim]

Ironically, the biggest recent reduction in radio on-air staff in the past couple years is newspeople, traffic & sports reporters....even at news-talkers....and for sure at music stations or AMs that used to have big news/sports staffs.

It seems most stations feel TV owns the news/traffic/sports image...and they do cursory coverage with as few people as possible.

And, on-air giveaways that require live announcers? Seems like they are happening less and less.

Again...I'm with you guys. I can't stand the automated, much less live/local environment that exists in 2012. But, it's simply a re-set...a new reality at many, many stations.

That's why I say...the way radio is these days, why not just put a few thousand songs on an MP3 player? That's what I've done these past few years.

 

[Capulet]

I would like to see Salem Communications build a strong local presence in one or two of their most lucrative markets to see if they would have growing ratings and revenue success. If things work well for them, then extend it to other markets where they have decided to stay.

That would seem to be a viable plan. Viable to any compnay but Salem.

Salem built their company by buying AM signals that no one wanted. They sold brokered time slots to preachers. " You got $300.00 then we have an hour for you!" Ka-chinge!

Talk about Cost Efficiency!

No need to pay a program director or on air staff.
No need to pay for Arbitron because they weren't selling ratings or spots.
No need to pay ASCAP or BMI licensing fees.
No marketing fees.
No station van.
No inflatables.

All they needed was a GM who doubled as GSM.
Add another sales guy or two, a chief engineer, a business manager, a receptionist, and some board ops.

When you consider all this you wonder why they ever got in the Cristian Music on FM business in the first place? ( How many Fish stations are left? )

Anyway, trying to convince these guys at Salem to do live and local news to attract audience is a way of thinking that for most of the life of the company was a foreign concept.

Its just so much easier to say " If you've got $300.00 I have an hour for you! "

I think this is why most of their news-talk WHK-like stations are just inventory holders for their network. Sadly they designed it that way.

The only way they could get some listeners for these stations is to invest in local news product at each outlet. This is not the plan.