How Long Does Radio Have Left?

[Don CT]

Also because CBS was in big financial trouble at the time. They were being attacked by conservatives (sound familiar?) Ted Turner, owner of CNN, wanted to buy the whole company. Instead they sold off the record label for $2 billion

Sony Buys CBS Record Division for $2 Billion After Months of Talks

Ending months of on-again, off-again negotiations and widespread Wall Street speculation, CBS Inc. announced late Wednesday afternoon that it has reached an agreement to sell its record division to Sony Corp.

www.latimes.com

How would that timeline have evolved if Ted owned CBS. Would Turner Broadcasting have outlasted the bid by Time Warner.

 

[K.M. Richards]

How would that timeline have evolved if Ted owned CBS. Would Turner Broadcasting have outlasted the bid by Time Warner.

I seem to recall that there is a rule here against such speculation.

 

[Don CT]

I seem to recall that there is a rule here against such speculation.

So what speculation is good then? This thread is trying to predict the future.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I seem to recall that there is a rule here against such speculation.

So what speculation is good then? This thread is trying to predict the future.

Speculation about the industry as a whole is permitted (as I understand the rules) but "what if" type of speculation about past events are frowned upon.

Perhaps @fybush or @lanceventa can clarify any misunderstanding of same.

 

[Don CT]

Speculation about the industry as a whole is permitted (as I understand the rules) but "what if" type of speculation about past events are frowned upon.

Perhaps @fybush or @lanceventa can clarify any misunderstanding of same.

It’s all connected, events of the past have shaped the mess the industry is in today.

 

[fybush]

I think there's a little misunderstanding.

We don't encourage total fantasy posts, especially things like fantasy cable lineups or program schedules.

But there's no issue with "what if X hadn't happened" historical speculation, as long as it's based in some degree of reality.

As ever, please leave moderation to the moderators. It's what we're here for. If there's a question about whether a post follows our rules, use the "report" button and we'll get to it as our limited time and energy allows. If no action is taken, then you can assume we're ok with that post.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I think there's a little misunderstanding.

We don't encourage total fantasy posts, especially things like fantasy cable lineups or program schedules.

But there's no issue with "what if X hadn't happened" historical speculation, as long as it's based in some degree of reality.

As ever, please leave moderation to the moderators. It's what we're here for. If there's a question about whether a post follows our rules, use the "report" button and we'll get to it as our limited time and energy allows. If no action is taken, then you can assume we're ok with that post.

That's why I asked, Scott. I remembered there were some rules but not the specifics.

 

[AM-FM-DXer]

Here's a view from a former big radio PD on what it takes to "save radio"

It Takes Culture - Not Just Content - To Save Radio, Says Steal - Radio Ink

Forget the playlist: programmer Jimmy Steal says talent, culture, and connection are what will keep radio relevant in 2025 and beyond.

radioink.com

The thing is, he's not at an actual station anymore. He's just offering advice.

I love this, but the experts on this board - all of whom I admire - have been de-emphasizing on-air talent for as long as I have been lurking here (I finally joined last year).

I agree completely with Steal's premise that the on-air talent has to offer something that can't be found anywhere else.

 

[TheBigA]

I love this, but the experts on this board - all of whom I admire - have been de-emphasizing on-air talent for as long as I have been lurking here

Because even after layoffs, there are still thousands of on-air talent at radio stations, and having them isn't the solution. There is no one-size-fits-all where adding on-air talent causes people to stop using digital music services, and instead go back go broadcast radio. People want what people want, and not all of them want on-air talent. So stations keep them where they're useful, and eliminate them where they're not. What's wrong with that?

The problem is it costs money to hire talent. In most cases, the money isn't there. So how do you hire more people when there's no money? The only source for money in radio is advertising, and listeners are complaining about the number of commercials. Cutting back on commercials means less money for staff. That's the bottom line.

I agree completely with Steal's premise that the on-air talent has to offer something that can't be found anywhere else.

What would that be?

 

[AM-FM-DXer]

Because even after layoffs, there are still thousands of on-air talent at radio stations, and having them isn't the solution. There is no one-size-fits-all where adding on-air talent causes people to stop using digital music services, and instead go back go broadcast radio. People want what people want, and not all of them want on-air talent. So stations keep them where they're useful, and eliminate them where they're not. What's wrong with that?

The problem is it costs money to hire talent. In most cases, the money isn't there. So how do you hire more people when there's no money? The only source for money in radio is advertising, and listeners are complaining about the number of commercials. Cutting back on commercials means less money for staff. That's the bottom line.



What would that be?

I agree. One-size-fits-all is never the way to go, especially in radio.

To answer your question, here's what on-air talent, on traditional broadcast radio, can uniquely offer:
1. Being local. This is better for talk formats, especially sports radio. Sure, there are local podcasters. But so far, they do not reach the same audience as, say, local sports hosts.
2. Community involvement. Radio has a long history community of involvement, and I'd say that traditional broadcast radio stations are still better positioned that podcasters or digital media to do it.
3. Unique talent. I know the money largely isn't there, but if broadcast radio is the only home of an in-demand personality (say, as opposed to various digital media), it can be a factor in getting people to tune in. If Howard Stern, for example, were still exclusively on terrestrial radio, he would bring a good number of listeners to the table. But many or even most markets have unique personalities that bring people to radio. Jim Kerr is an example. Gary Bryan and Ellen K and Eddie & JoBo are other examples.

But I reiterate that I agree with your main point. Not every radio station needs on-air talent to be successful. KCBS is a good example.

 

[TheBigA]

I agree. One-size-fits-all is never the way to go, especially in radio.
To answer your question, here's what on-air talent, on traditional broadcast radio, can uniquely offer

1: Being local: By definition, broadcast radio is local. The transmitter is local. The commercials are local. The music has never been local. Radio has a long history of using national talent, going back 100 years. There is no rule that stations have to hire local talent. Steve Harvey is very popular, and he isn't local.

2: Community Involvement: How has that been affected? Radio stations sponsor local job fairs and fundraise for local charities all the time.

3: Unique talent: Unique doesn't matter. People began using digital devices 30 years ago when stations were fully staffed. Having unique local talent didn't keep them from trying Pandora or other streaming services. Once again: People want what they want. Some see local talent as annoying. Howard Stern is a great example. Some people loved him, but a lot of people hated him. That's the problem with talent. It's all subjective. But using your Stern example, he wasn't local. He was syndicated. Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, Bob & Tom are all popular radio hosts, and none are local.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Because even after layoffs, there are still thousands of on-air talent at radio stations, and having them isn't the solution. There is no one-size-fits-all where adding on-air talent causes people to stop using digital music services, and instead go back go broadcast radio. People want what people want, and not all of them want on-air talent. So stations keep them where they're useful, and eliminate them where they're not. What's wrong with that?

The problem is it costs money to hire talent. In most cases, the money isn't there.

I like the personalities on Serenade Radio, but they are all volunteers and the online station asks for donations.,

 

[vchimpanzee]

1: Being local: By definition, broadcast radio is local. The transmitter is local. The commercials are local. The music has never been local. Radio has a long history of using national talent, going back 100 years. There is no rule that stations have to hire local talent. Steve Harvey is very popular, and he isn't local.

On the satellite standards and oldies formats I have listened to, the on-air personalities were great. I didn't care that they weren't local. And that's the only way to have such good people outisde of very large markets.

 

[gr8oldies]

Tom Joyner was very focused on service to his national community, so it doesn't have to be about "persons who live in x geographical area". We aren't siloed the way we were before all this technology. With Joyner, I'm talking about all the money he raised (and continues to do through his foundation) for HBCUs. He would also bring his Friday morning concerts to various cities with an HBCU.

 

[Don CT]

1: Being local: By definition, broadcast radio is local. The transmitter is local. The commercials are local. The music has never been local. Radio has a long history of using national talent, going back 100 years. There is no rule that stations have to hire local talent. Steve Harvey is very popular, and he isn't local.

2: Community Involvement: How has that been affected? Radio stations sponsor local job fairs and fundraise for local charities all the time.

3: Unique talent: Unique doesn't matter. People began using digital devices 30 years ago when stations were fully staffed. Having unique local talent didn't keep them from trying Pandora or other streaming services. Once again: People want what they want. Some see local talent as annoying. Howard Stern is a great example. Some people loved him, but a lot of people hated him. That's the problem with talent. It's all subjective. But using your Stern example, he wasn't local. He was syndicated. Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, Bob & Tom are all popular radio hosts, and none are local.

Stern started local, and built a following. When did he get syndicated, 86?

 

[K.M. Richards]

Stern started local, and built a following. When did he get syndicated, 86?

Yes. He returned to WXRK in November 1985, doing afternoons (as he had for WNBC before they fired him a couple of months previous). He moved to mornings in February 1986 and the show began syndication six months later. First affiliate was WYSP in Philadelphia.

 

[gr8oldies]

I will make one prediction and its we might regret free, over the air broadcasting going away completely. The internet can't do everything, and even satellites can malfunction

 

[TheBigA]

Yes. He returned to WXRK in November 1985, doing afternoons (as he had for WNBC before they fired him a couple of months previous). He moved to mornings in February 1986 and the show began syndication six months later. First affiliate was WYSP in Philadelphia.

At the time, WYSP had a local DJ. They replaced him with Howard, and the station went to #1. An example how local talent isn't always what people want. They repeated the process in several other places with very similar results. Why does radio use syndicated hosts? Because they're popular.

 

[AM-FM-DXer]

1: Being local: By definition, broadcast radio is local. The transmitter is local. The commercials are local. The music has never been local. Radio has a long history of using national talent, going back 100 years. There is no rule that stations have to hire local talent. Steve Harvey is very popular, and he isn't local.

2: Community Involvement: How has that been affected? Radio stations sponsor local job fairs and fundraise for local charities all the time.

3: Unique talent: Unique doesn't matter. People began using digital devices 30 years ago when stations were fully staffed. Having unique local talent didn't keep them from trying Pandora or other streaming services. Once again: People want what they want. Some see local talent as annoying. Howard Stern is a great example. Some people loved him, but a lot of people hated him. That's the problem with talent. It's all subjective. But using your Stern example, he wasn't local. He was syndicated. Ryan Seacrest, Bobby Bones, Bob & Tom are all popular radio hosts, and none are local.

Well, I gave four examples of hosts that are local. And they are very popular in their markets.

I am not saying community involvement has been affected. I am listing it as an advantage of broadcast radio.

I know it is increasingly hard for stations to hire local talent. All I am trying to do is list advantages that broadcast radio can bring.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I will make one prediction and its we might regret free, over the air broadcasting going away completely. The internet can't do everything, and even satellites can malfunction

I think the stations that will be able to run cost-effectively will remain on the air for some time to come, but with the expectation that 90% of the survivors will be on FM. The powerhouse AMs will be the only ones that will be able to bring in enough revenue to support the electric bill and keeping that nice expensive real estate for the towers. (The other exception might be for those stations serving ethnic communities, although those will likely migrate to FM as station owners decide to sell out.)

The syndicated sports talk networks will also end up migrating to FM along with everything else, and I actually believe that will be part of the eventual move to license translators as standalone FMs as their associated AMs go permanently silent.

I also truly believe (and yes, that is a deliberate and sarcastic choice of words) that there will be an upper limit to how many stations are "saved" by the religious broadcasters. Given that they are dependent on donations from the faithful, that pie can't be cut into too many more pieces, so the revenue will hit a ceiling.

Music stations are likely to go even farther in the direction of syndicated morning shows and voicetracking from co-owned stations in other markets. It's the simple economy of costs. A lot more stations will sign up for national formats or do a "jukebox" format. (Either approach will make it easier to get enough ad revenue to stay afloat.)

I think that, in the smaller markets, there will be a retrench by the group owners and a possibility of increased local ownership. We are already seeing the downsizing of Townsquare as one example, although they seem more focused on taking stations silent than selling them.

I do not think SiriusXM will survive in the long run, and there is zero chance of any new competitor for satellite radio. As far as online streaming, I expect that to align with the remaining FM stations, with a reduction in standalone (Internet-only) "stations".

Of course, as Dennis Miller used to say: These are just my opinions. I could be wrong.