How many feel syndication should be outlawed?

[ricoontheradio]

> I've been reading about all the local jocks that have lost
> their jobs for this syndication crap. Not only do the
> personalities lose, but the listener lose as well. No
> localism.

Where a show is produced, or originates from, has nothing to do with the entertainment factor of the programming. If it entertains the listeners (and ratings prove that), that is what matters.

> It's just like only having the world news to
> watch on tv, with no 6pm or 10pm news. You have to hear
> about everything that's going on in the world, and the only
> way that you hear about what's going on in your area, is if
> it's something major.

It's not just like that. News is news. Programming (syndication) is content. Stations can have out-of-market voicetrackers, syndicated programming, etc. and still offer local information/news service if they feel the need.

> And contests: You have to compete with Jack, John, and Judy
> from Mississippi, Montana, and everywhere else for a $1000.
> It's hard enough competing for that change locally.

Again, the entertainment factor. Contesting keeps people listening longer if they want to participate. Sure, the odds are different depending on circumstances, but it's still the entertainment part of participating that makes the contest compelling to a listener.


> It is sad, but syndication is killing radio. It's just like
> a complete stranger that comes from a whole other country,
> moving into your house with you. You're going to have a
> hard time relating to them.

I wasn't around in the TOO early days of radio, but I believe much of early radio was syndication.

> I miss the way radio used to be.

Radio used to be a losing medium. Many owners were losing money due to the lack of efficiency in operating one station, versus 4 or 5 or more as a cluster. The synergy created between multiple stations under the same owner has helped radio become profitable, therefore allowing it to stick around and still serve the public.

Just my opinion(s)...

 

[Jimprewitt1954]

> > > > > I've been reading about all the local jocks that
> have
> > > lost
> > > >
> > > > > their jobs for this syndication crap. Not only do
> the
> >
> > > > > personalities lose, but the listener lose as well.
> No
> >
> > > > > localism. It's just like only having the world news
>
> > to
> > > > > watch on tv, with no 6pm or 10pm news. You have to
> > hear
> > >
> > > > > about everything that's going on in the world, and
> the
> >
> > > > only
> > > > > way that you hear about what's going on in your
> area,
> > is
> > >
> > > > if
> > > > > it's something major.
> > > > >
> > > > > And contests: You have to compete with Jack, John,
> > and
> > > > Judy
> > > > > from Mississippi, Montana, and everywhere else for a
>
> > > > $1000.
> > > > > It's hard enough competing for that change locally.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is sad, but syndication is killing radio. It's
> > just
> > > > like
> > > > > a complete stranger that comes from a whole other
> > > country,
> > > >
> > > > > moving into your house with you. You're going to
> have
> > a
> > >
> > > > > hard time relating to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I miss the way radio used to be.
> > > > >
> > > > Jamz, this why I gave up on terrestrial radio, save
> 820
> > > (for
> > > > news) awhile back. It been one of the worst business
> > > > decisions the "suits" ever came up with in this
> > business.
> > > > Syndication for programs is one thing, its exposed
> users
> >
> > > to
> > > > new talent they never have heard before. But when it
> > comes
> > >
> > > > to local flavor and contest, its been detramental. Its
>
> > > > another way the CC's and CBS Radios' of the world try
> to
> >
> > > > maximize their dollar,all in the while letting the
> > product
> > >
> > > > quality suffer.
> > > >
> > > JAMZ is dead on with this issue.The arguement being
> given
> > by
> > > those who support syndication is that the Listeners
> don't
> > > care. Unfortunately they right in one respect. Since the
>
> > > stupidity act of 1996 commonlyreferred to as
> > "telecom"todays
> > > listeners have been molded and weened off what was
> better
> > > radio that was local.Today they have accepted the crapof
>
> > > radio and sought out other formsto be entertained
> > > with,internet,mp players,satellite,etc. Satellite is
> > growing
> > > becasue it offers over all what radio was like;new
> > > undiscovered artists, air talent that knew and
> appreciated
> >
> > > the music of their respective formats,without liner
> > > cards,preselected songs to be played when,etc.It has
> more
> > > personality than most terrestial stations today. The
> > owners
> > > complain that they are not making money with the earth
> > bound
> > > stations.That is what brought forth the stupidity act of
>
> > > 1996.Hell,the answer was simple;if you don't make money
> > sell
> > > the damn thing!Let someone else can,but it didn't work
> > that
> > > way.Owners failed to realize that good solid competition
>
> > > could only make their product better and more
> > > invigorated,not homoginized,assemblyline crap that is
> > radio
> > > today. Don't hand me the line there is good competiton
> > > today,and cite that KPLX competes with KLUV or K104
> > competes
> > > with KSCS. Its strictly format vs competitor with the
> same
> >
> > > format. KLUV has no competiton,because there isn't
> another
> >
> > > oldies station in DFW.Same goes for KZPS(the bone is not
> a
> >
> > > serious contender),WRR,KAAM,KLTY and so it goes.These
> > > stations do not compete against stations with the same
> > > format!Period!Thats how radio was and WORKED! They went
> > out
> > > and promoted themselves as a community station,and met
> > their
> > > listeners,and actually did some public afairs shows with
>
> > > them. At the same time they made you feel that listening
>
> > to
> > > their respective station was fun and larger than life.
> Now
> >
> > > its wall paper with the same coat of white paint over
> it.
> > > The basics with one pd who knew how to program,a news
> > person
> > > who knew how to report, on air jocks who knew the music
> of
> >
> > > the format,and could adlib,be conversational,and blend
> in
> > > with the other DJ's was successful radio.. The
> arguement
> > > today is"That was yesterday and yesterday is gone" Yeah
> it
> >
> > > is,and what a damn dirty shame too.Todays broadcasters
> > that
> > > have been in the business 10years or less have accepted
> > > todays way of programming just so they can have a
> gig,with
> >
> > > fewer listeners than before. They will argue against
> what
> > I
> > > said as being "old school".To them I say,you're not
> doing
> > > radio. You're somebody on an assembly line doing what
> your
> >
> > > real estate agent tells you to do. You're not an
> > individual
> > > just someone who collects a check barely enough to meet
> > your
> > > living expenses,while somebody is making money off of
> > > you,when you should share in the commission yourself. I
> am
> >
> > > sure some will pipe in saying I am bitter. Guilty as
> > charged
> > > BUT I am working,and doing well in the media,so my
> > > bitterness is not there,its in the way we have allowed
> > radio
> > > to become,a boring abyss. National contests maybe
> > economical
> > > from a real estate owners point of view but it cheats
> your
> >
> > > listener and frustration is only cultivated in them at
> > your
> > > stations. Being daring,creative,original,are taboo in
> > todays
> > > radio. If one station seems to be a success..xerox
> > it.Don't
> > > dare to be an individual! Be bland and accept whatever
> > > profit comes your way,knowing it could be more only if
> you
> >
> > > try to serve your community and dare to be creative
> along
> > > the way.
> >
> >
> > KPLEX:
> >
> > Same old post again from you. btw....can you let us all
> know
> > what business your doing well in? I assume it's media
> > related? Curious to know. Oh, KLUV DID have competition at
>
> > one time and they still won.
> > >
> >
> DUDE: Same ol' Catfish..when seasons start to change you
> get bitter. KLUV did have competition at ONE Time,before the
> telecom act and BEFORE you worked there. KODZ failed due to
> poor financial backing,and KLUV was well established. I'll
> let your curiousity roam BTW.


I'm Bitter???? Better go back and read YOUR hundreds of posts on here.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Lead, follow or get out of the way...

And remember, the early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

</P>

 

[Steve]

> >
> >
> > KPLEX:
> >
> > Same old post again from you. btw....can you let us all
> know
> > what business your doing well in? I assume it's media
> > related? Curious to know. Oh, KLUV DID have competition at
>
> > one time and they still won.
> > >
> >
> DUDE: Same ol' Catfish..when seasons start to change you
> get bitter. KLUV did have competition at ONE Time,before the
> telecom act and BEFORE you worked there. KODZ failed due to
> poor financial backing,and KLUV was well established. I'll
> let your curiousity roam BTW.
>


Read:

KODZ failed cause they did it wrong...but I'm still on their side. Oh, and sure it's the same ol' rant...and I'm not gonna change. Oh, and I'm not gonna tell you what I do...cause I can't back that up, either.

Basically a non-answer backing up a non-argument.

Oh, and learn to trim the posts. We didn't need the foot long paragraph the first time...let alone over and over.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

> > >
> > >
> > > KPLEX:
> > >
> > > Same old post again from you. btw....can you let us all
> > know
> > > what business your doing well in? I assume it's media
> > > related? Curious to know. Oh, KLUV DID have competition
> at
> >
> > > one time and they still won.
> > > >
> > >
> > DUDE: Same ol' Catfish..when seasons start to change you
>
> > get bitter. KLUV did have competition at ONE Time,before
> the
> > telecom act and BEFORE you worked there. KODZ failed due
> to
> > poor financial backing,and KLUV was well established. I'll
>
> > let your curiousity roam BTW.
> >
>
>
> Read:
>
> KODZ failed cause they did it wrong...but I'm still on their
> side. Oh, and sure it's the same ol' rant...and I'm not
> gonna change. Oh, and I'm not gonna tell you what I
> do...cause I can't back that up, either.
>
> Basically a non-answer backing up a non-argument.
>
> Oh, and learn to trim the posts. We didn't need the foot
> long paragraph the first time...let alone over and over.
>
Whatever "catbox".

 

[slaterradio]

Here's syndication in a nutshell

Syndication is not inherently evil. I agree that podunk radio markets benefit from syndications like Stern and Limbaugh.

If you live in a town of a few thousand and there's one or two stations, do you really want them only talking about local issues--because in a town that small, there aren't enough to fill up an entire bill of programming?
I wouldn't want the morning DJ telling me about the lady that sells donuts across the street. I would be seeing that everyday and hearing it would be overkill.

However, where syndication is rightfully questioned and loathe is in markets less than 40, maybe 50--especially market #5.

There's no reason why KDGE couldn't scrounge up the cash to find either local guys or ship in people to do a local show. Lex and Terry are the bane of the problem.
For years, San Fran did not have a single local morning show. It was all syndicated or VT'd.
This is unacceptable and listeners should not have to put up with this crap.

It's true that we watch Leno and a host of TV shows that are not local. But TV and radio are most definitely not the same thing.
What people want in an FM radio morning show and on primetime television are completely different.
People in a major market deserve to have people broadcasting from their city, who are talking about issues within that city as opposed to Los Angeles.

Houston and Dallas always have something going on and there's more than enough local news and local flavor to support having local morning shows.
And sure, local morning shows cover a lot of national issues, but that's fine.

I don't mind syndication so long as there are options on the FM/AM dial for people who want local radio.

The Stern fans can have their program and the Rod Ryan or Lisle and Hahn fans can have their fix.

What radio should be about is catering to a variety of demographics. Inadvertantly, these variety of people will want different things--some want a music-heavy morning show, others want all-talk.
A market that can successfully provide this is doing a bang up job.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Syndication... another word for "networking"

> I've been reading about all the local jocks that have lost
> their jobs for this syndication crap.

Syndication is just a term for an ad hoc network. The first 30 or so years of radio were based on mostly networked material.

TV is at least 80% network and syndication in all markets. Cable channels are all "virtual networks" of cable systems.

> Not only do the
> personalities lose, but the listener lose as well.

Sticking to the TV comparison, how much viewership do you think a local host in, let's say, Traverse City, MI, would get vs. Jay Leno? It is not about localism, but, rather, about entertainment value.

> No
> localism. It's just like only having the world news to
> watch on tv, with no 6pm or 10pm news. You have to hear
> about everything that's going on in the world, and the only
> way that you hear about what's going on in your area, is if
> it's something major.

TV has replaced radio for news, in many places. The problem is that more and more people are watching cable news channels and services or web-based services and not the local TV news. Many TV stations no longer do local news.

So, let's outlaw cable, satellite and network news in TV, too. And while you are at it, lets outlaw AP and Reuters and France Press as they are not local news organizations.
>
> And contests: You have to compete with Jack, John, and Judy
> from Mississippi, Montana, and everywhere else for a $1000.
> It's hard enough competing for that change locally.

Who cares? Really...very few national contests are being done any more as they don't work and are to legally complicated. Stations, even voice tracked ones, put in local contests. For the 5% of listeners who play them...
>
> It is sad, but syndication is killing radio. It's just like
> a complete stranger that comes from a whole other country,
> moving into your house with you. You're going to have a
> hard time relating to them.
>
> I miss the way radio used to be.

It used to be syndicated network programming. A station only had one network. Today, the syndication nets allow you to pick and choose the programs you carry, so you might have shows from three or four nets on one station.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: All radio staitons compete with all others for share.

>. Don't hand me the line there is good competiton
> today,and cite that KPLX competes with KLUV or K104 competes
> with KSCS. Its strictly format vs competitor with the same
> format.

Huh? That is 180 degrees off target.

There are 100 shares of listening in a market in any daypart. No more, no less. Every share _you_ get comes from other stations.

So if KLUV goes up, it must have taken listeners from the country or AC stations or somebody else. And if they go down, it is because listeners left for other formats and staitons they liked better.

In the Arbitron diary based system, the average listener uses 3 stations in a given week. In the PPM, already rolling out in Houston, the average is nearer 6! So if a listener finds one of thier choices less appealing, they increase listening to another... or they find something new to include in thier personal menu of stations they use.

> KLUV has no competiton,because there isn't another
> oldies station in DFW.

KLUV shares listeners with all kinds of other staitons, even some Spanish ones. To say it has no competiton is to say the drug store has no competiton when there is a Wal mart down the street with a pharmacy inside. Different configuration, same issue... people listen to many stations.

> Same goes for KZPS(the bone is not a
> serious contender),WRR,KAAM,KLTY and so it goes.These
> stations do not compete against stations with the same
> format!Period!Thats how radio was and WORKED!

As someone who has consolidation experience going back 43 years, this is not an accurate statement. Just take a look in any Arbitron book going back decades and you will see that the biggest competiton for stations consistes of out-of-format choices. Many people do not switch between two AC stations... they go to a country or oldies or talk station. So the competiton is for who gets the bigger share of the individual's total quarter hours.

 

[TheRover]

> I've been reading about all the local jocks that have lost
> their jobs for this syndication crap. Not only do the
> personalities lose, but the listener lose as well. No
> localism. It's just like only having the world news to
> watch on tv, with no 6pm or 10pm news. You have to hear
> about everything that's going on in the world, and the only
> way that you hear about what's going on in your area, is if
> it's something major.
>
> And contests: You have to compete with Jack, John, and Judy
> from Mississippi, Montana, and everywhere else for a $1000.
> It's hard enough competing for that change locally.
>
> It is sad, but syndication is killing radio. It's just like
> a complete stranger that comes from a whole other country,
> moving into your house with you. You're going to have a
> hard time relating to them.
>
> I miss the way radio used to be.
>
ONE VOCIE - - - -

The Real Hard-On of Corporate Conglomerate Radio.

There is no line they won't cross on the way to their Coprorate Bottom Line<P ID="signature">______________
1968-1978 -- THE "GOLDEN AGE" OF ALBUM ROCK MUSIC . . .
In spite of Disco and Top 40 in that period,
it yielded the "Motherload" of Great Album Rock Releases
--Enough for a Lifetime-- </P>

 

[TheRover]

> I'm going to play both sides of this issue. I for one think
> there are places for syndication. A small hick town with
> one AM and one FM would probably benefit from a satellite
> network like Jones. I see no problem with that market
> flying on the bird all day long. They aren't billing
> millions per year.
>
> My beef comes with medium, large, and major market
> syndication. At that point it's not about being able to
> afford a 24/7/365 airstaff, it's about saving bonus money
> for upper-level management. There's more than enough money
> to hire a competent, talented airstaff, the suits are just
> too freakin' cheap to do it.
>
> If they want to keep their heads in the sand concerning
> satcasters then terrestrial radio had better hope that XM
> and Sirius don't get permanent licenses for their localized
> repeaters. That changes the ballgame completely.
>

If there's a Lesson to be Learned about integrity and the like.....
It's what happended to MTV. What was.... and what is.

USA Radio 1
etc, etc.
Just more of the same Conglomerate Commerical Horse Crap
<P ID="signature">______________
1968-1978 -- THE "GOLDEN AGE" OF ALBUM ROCK MUSIC . . .
In spite of Disco and Top 40 in that period,
it yielded the "Motherload" of Great Album Rock Releases
--Enough for a Lifetime-- </P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

.
> >
> ONE VOCIE - - - -
>
> The Real Hard-On of Corporate Conglomerate Radio.
>
> There is no line they won't cross on the way to their
> Coprorate Bottom Line

Syndication (networks) started in the late 20's. There is no correlation with consolidation in 1996.

 

[grantchester]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

>
> Syndication (networks) started in the late 20's. There is no
> correlation with consolidation in 1996.
>
But the voicetracking trend really blossomed after dereg, as radio owners considered their properties as two classes: Top rated and boutique.
Top rated got live dee jays and aggressive promotion. The boutique stations got cut to the bone, with live shows reduced to just mornings and afternoons. Likewise, the skill level for local programmers and such was reduced. Cookie-cutter formats were shared across markets.
The whole point of consolidation was to reduce competition, and therefore, reduce costs. By eliminating live dee jay shifts, wage competition ended, and labor costs were reduced. More anouncers seeking fewer shifts- it's supply and demand.
g

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

> >
> > Syndication (networks) started in the late 20's. There is
> no
> > correlation with consolidation in 1996.
> >
> But the voicetracking trend really blossomed after dereg, as
> radio owners considered their properties as two classes: Top
> rated and boutique.

No, voicetracking blossomed in the early 70's as automation and technology brought syndicated formats to as many as 3000 of the existing radio stations in the US. Shulke, Bonneville, TM, Drake-Chennaoult, Kalamusic, Peters Productions, IGM, RPM, Musica en Flor, FM100, Churchill and others all had long lists of clients they porovided voice tracked programming to. The first, I believe, was Hit Parade in about 1967 or 1968.

There are far fewer voice tracked stations (3000 was over a third of all stations in the 70's) as a percentage today than in the 70's.

> Top rated got live dee jays and aggressive promotion. The
> boutique stations got cut to the bone, with live shows
> reduced to just mornings and afternoons. Likewise, the skill
> level for local programmers and such was reduced.

You are generalizing. What happened was that niche formats, previously unsustainable, were viable when they shared cluster overhead. I had similar experiences in a cluster of 9 I owned in the 60's, where the economies allowed me to do formats that could not stand alone, like classical.

> Cookie-cutter formats were shared across markets.

Always have been.

> The whole point of consolidation was to reduce competition,
> and therefore, reduce costs. By eliminating live dee jay
> shifts, wage competition ended, and labor costs were
> reduced. More anouncers seeking fewer shifts- it's supply
> and demand.

It is mostly technoogy. Voice tracking started nearly 30 years before consolidation, in the same era when radio also used technology to eliminate transmitter engineers for directionals, First Ticket requirements, etc., reducing engineering departments by at least half.
> g
>

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

> >
> > Syndication (networks) started in the late 20's. There is
> no
> > correlation with consolidation in 1996.
> >
> But the voicetracking trend really blossomed after dereg, as
> radio owners considered their properties as two classes: Top
> rated and boutique.
> Top rated got live dee jays and aggressive promotion. The
> boutique stations got cut to the bone, with live shows
> reduced to just mornings and afternoons. Likewise, the skill
> level for local programmers and such was reduced.
> Cookie-cutter formats were shared across markets.
> The whole point of consolidation was to reduce competition,
> and therefore, reduce costs. By eliminating live dee jay
> shifts, wage competition ended, and labor costs were
> reduced. More anouncers seeking fewer shifts- it's supply
> and demand.
> g
>

You nailed it! Consultants over look the obvious and "spin" to their liking.

 

[grantchester]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

> No, voicetracking blossomed in the early 70's >

Good Morning, Dave! Which airport terminal are you in this morning?

I remember the '70-s, and those big reels on the IGM automation machines were nothing compared to the widespread use of fake-live dee jays in Clear Channel's 'Prophet System'. Those stations you mention were mostly FM's, in an era before most people listened to FM. I respectfully disagree with your assertion:

> There are far fewer voice tracked stations

The reality is that radio chains with multiple formats behave differently than the old 'one am one fm' days. Now, stations concentrate resources on one or two stations, and use others to block competetors, or undercut successful formats on other stations, by splitting their markets.

Voice tracking as employed by the Gulfstar/Capstar/Chancellor/AMFM/CLEAR CHANNEL model has been a deliberate attempt to cut costs by eliminating announcers, and as Lowry Mays once said, make deejays "A dime a dozen".
Profesional broadcasters are being forced out. More and more newscasts originate out of town. Wages are way down, even at stations that are making tons of money.


>
> > Cookie-cutter formats were shared across markets.
>
> Always have been.

Agreed that the glut of consultant-led formats reached flood levels in the '70's, but the successful operators used local minds to decide what they would do with the consultant's reccomendations. Now it all comes from corporate vice president level programmers, with very little control at the local level.

Admit it- it's sheer greed that has boosted the free-cash goals for major operators. To achieve that they have declared war on their employees. More and more stations operate unattended, with no one answering the request line... or even the hot line. There's no one to break into programming when a disaster happens. Forget about reporting from the courthouse or the city hall. The managers hold talent in contempt, as something they choose not to invest in. Sure, there have been efficiencies acheived to cut overhead, but what we've seen in the past 10 years is de-contenting of what had been successful stations, even profitable ones. By controlling a larger chunk of the available frequencies, the owners thought their leverage would allow them to take a larger portion of advertising revenues. The reality is that the whole industry is being crippled, as listeners point their ears elsewhere.

And for people who love radio, it has been a total disaster.
g

 

[RadioKnob]

Re: Here's syndication in a nutshell

> However, where syndication is rightfully questioned and
> loathe is in markets less than 40, maybe 50--especially
> market #5.
>
> There's no reason why KDGE couldn't scrounge up the cash to
> find either local guys or ship in people to do a local show.
> Lex and Terry are the bane of the problem.



FYI: Lex and terry are moving their show in April to base out of Dallas.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

>
> And for people who love radio, it has been a total disaster.
>
> g
>
AMEN!!!

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

> > No, voicetracking blossomed in the early 70's >
>
> Good Morning, Dave! Which airport terminal are you in this
> morning?
>
> I remember the '70-s, and those big reels on the IGM
> automation machines were nothing compared to the widespread
> use of fake-live dee jays in Clear Channel's 'Prophet
> System'. Those stations you mention were mostly FM's, in an
> era before most people listened to FM. I respectfully
> disagree with your assertion:

Tell shulke and Bonneville that their voice tracked beautiful music staitons that were usually #1 in their markets that they were in an era when most people did not listen to FM. Tell Drake Chennault and TM that some of thier pop and rock formats did not make top 5 in many markets.

There were markets through the 70´s where the top 5 had 3 2 or 3 automated, voice tracked stations in it. I know of a top 15 market where the #1 and #2 and #3 stations well into the 80's were automated and voice tracked. They are all live now, by the way.
>
> > There are far fewer voice tracked stations
>
> The reality is that radio chains with multiple formats
> behave differently than the old 'one am one fm' days. Now,
> stations concentrate resources on one or two stations, and
> use others to block competetors, or undercut successful
> formats on other stations, by splitting their markets.

Actually, I have NEVER seen that to be true. One looks for some top ratings and top dollar positions, but we also look for positions like WFAN has... #15 in ratings but 3rd or 4th in billings. For example, in LA, two stations that are not even top 20 are $30 million plus a year billers because of the appeal of thier niche formats.
>
> Voice tracking as employed by the
> Gulfstar/Capstar/Chancellor/AMFM/CLEAR CHANNEL model has
> been a deliberate attempt to cut costs by eliminating
> announcers, and as Lowry Mays once said, make deejays "A
> dime a dozen".

The fact is that there is less of this, at Clear and anywhere, than at the beginning of consolidation. In many cases, voice tracking was used to remove horrible announcers from new acquisitions and, over the years, go to more live and local dayparts.

> Profesional broadcasters are being forced out. More and more
> newscasts originate out of town. Wages are way down, even at
> stations that are making tons of money.

I see our people getting automatic rases, bonuses and more money all the time. I see no one paid less.
>
> Agreed that the glut of consultant-led formats reached flood
> levels in the '70's, but the successful operators used local
> minds to decide what they would do with the consultant's
> reccomendations. Now it all comes from corporate vice
> president level programmers, with very little control at the
> local level.

It has always been that way, even with small groups. In 1970, I got Scott Shannone falling out of a plane in my market twice a year, and it was invaluable to have an outside brain to go over programming with and to help keep the staiton fresh.
>
> Admit it- it's sheer greed that has boosted the free-cash
> goals for major operators.

Smaller operators were greedier in the 60's and 70's because the small-business nature of radio forced owners to milk stations, with high spot lpoads and no insurance and vast and overwhelming insecurity. The U-haul jokes came from those decades, not today.

> To achieve that they have
> declared war on their employees. More and more stations
> operate unattended, with no one answering the request
> line... or even the hot line.

That is due to technology, not consolidation. In 1975, as soon as I could proove my DA was stable, I let go of 10 transmitter operators. they did not contribute to the competitiveness of the station, and kept me from making more moeny innecessarily. Same today witn unrated dayparts, etc. If we could have done it in 1962, we would have.

> There's no one to break into
> programming when a disaster happens. Forget about reporting
> from the courthouse or the city hall.

The first station I was at, in a top 12 market at the time, had no news, no teletype and just used ABC net news. Today, at least, it has Metro to provide news and traffic,a nd can get a report from metro if ther eis a breaking item of significant interest.

> The managers hold
> talent in contempt, as something they choose not to invest
> in.

I do not see that anywhere I go.

> Sure, there have been efficiencies acheived to cut
> overhead, but what we've seen in the past 10 years is
> de-contenting of what had been successful stations, even
> profitable ones. By controlling a larger chunk of the
> available frequencies, the owners thought their leverage
> would allow them to take a larger portion of advertising
> revenues.

They get revenue in proprotion to ratings shares. Bigness in number of staitons sells no advertising. Listenership does.

>The reality is that the whole industry is being
> crippled, as listeners point their ears elsewhere.

No proof of that, either. Very minor erosion over the last 15 years, and that is actually to radio's extreme credit.
>
> And for people who love radio, it has been a total disaster.
>
> g
>

 

[grantchester]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

>
> Tell shulke and Bonneville

OK- Shulke, Bonneville, in the markets I've visited, your formats stunk up the airwaves and were a waste of electricity
>the #1 and #2 and #3 stations well into
> the 80's were automated and voice tracked. They are all live
> now, by the way.

name names, Mr. Gleason.
.
>
> The fact is that there is less of this, at Clear and
> anywhere, than at the beginning of consolidation. In many
> cases, voice tracking was used to remove horrible announcers
> from new acquisitions and, over the years, go to more live
> and local dayparts.

Gee, I don't know about markets 150 through Bohmfolk, but the places I've been and the people I've spoken with have not seen this.


> I see our people getting automatic rases, bonuses and more
> money all the time. I see no one paid less.

Lets see- Tempie Lindsey, Chuck Brinkman, Larry Dixon and hundreds more... they weren't let go because they were bad. They were let go because they made more than 15 dollars an hour.I've never met Dillon, but I'll bet he's not making what he was five or 10 years ago. I see everyone outside of a handful of morning stars being paid less, if they can find work at all. I can make a list of dozens and dozens of talented people I know who are working for traffic services, or have left the industry because they can't make a living.
>
h
.
>
> Smaller operators were greedier in the 60's and 70's because
> the small-business nature of radio forced owners to milk
> stations, with high spot lpoads and no insurance and vast
> and overwhelming insecurity. The U-haul jokes came from
> those decades, not today.

And once you learned your craft, you left the minor markets and moved up. Now there is no reason to move up. You can't afford the move, they won't pay for it. And the wages aren't better.
>

>
> That is due to technology, not consolidation.

So what was the point of consolidation?
>

>
> The first station I was at, in a top 12 market at the time,
> had no news, no teletype and just used ABC net news. Today,
> at least, it has Metro to provide news and traffic,a nd can
> get a report from metro if ther eis a breaking item of
> significant interest.

Metro does breaking news? Cool. If true...
When I worked in S.A. in 1985, there were individual offices at city hall for each station. there was KTSA, KKYX, WOAI, KRNN, KSJL, and KSAQ. KCOR and KONO sent reporters too. Now there's just WOAI's Bud Little. If he is still there.


>
> I do not see that anywhere I go.

I see it. A lot. Talk to some of the people spit out by CBS. Clear Channel is notorious for it. Others I have heard about aren't much better.
>
>
> They get revenue in proprotion to ratings shares. Bigness in
> number of staitons sells no advertising. Listenership does.

See above... what was the point of consolidation if not to drive down costs (wages) and firm up rates?
>
for people who love radio, it has been a total
> disaster.

I stand by my comments.

Great visiting with you, David. Have a good spring break.
> > g
> >
>

 

[radiomojo1]

Re: As a listener I like some syndication.

People know Leno's based in another city. A more apt parallel would be newscasters in New York City doing your local Live At 5 with backdrop of Dallas' city hall, while pretending to do a live broadcast from the City Hall steps (with a wind fan, to add that "realistic" touch). Bonus points if they mispronounce the Mayor's name, major street names, or banter about the cold and ice when it's 85 and sunny. Oh, and while a five-alarm fire burns the warehouse district to the ground, they're bringing you a heart-warming dog wedding story or the celebrity gossip update. Do you think the viewers would notice?

> OK... let's ask the same question about a parallel medium -
> television.
> Are people upset that Jay Leno is not local? Are viewers
> pissed that channel 11 runs "Survivor" instead of a Jody
> Dean interview show? Don;t people just want the best
> programming possible?
> That said, I hate the loss of localized radio, but
> recognize that all businesses are getting franchised and
> syndicated. The main difference is that the airwaves are
> owned by the American people and they should better served.
> The FCC and congress seem to think that the airwaves belong
> to the corporations and they should be allowed to use them
> any way they want. And politicians don't want to piss off
> broadcasters or lose their cheap political ad rates.
>
> OK...enough rambling.
>
> Eye Lipson
>

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Re: Nothing to do with consolidation.

> >
> > Tell shulke and Bonneville
>
> OK- Shulke, Bonneville, in the markets I've visited, your
> formats stunk up the airwaves and were a waste of
> electricity
> >the #1 and #2 and #3 stations well into
> > the 80's were automated and voice tracked. They are all
> live
> > now, by the way.
>
> name names, Mr. Gleason.
> .
> >
> > The fact is that there is less of this, at Clear and
> > anywhere, than at the beginning of consolidation. In many
> > cases, voice tracking was used to remove horrible
> announcers
> > from new acquisitions and, over the years, go to more live
>
> > and local dayparts.
>
> Gee, I don't know about markets 150 through Bohmfolk, but
> the places I've been and the people I've spoken with have
> not seen this.
>
>
> > I see our people getting automatic rases, bonuses and more
>
> > money all the time. I see no one paid less.
>
> Lets see- Tempie Lindsey, Chuck Brinkman, Larry Dixon and
> hundreds more... they weren't let go because they were bad.
> They were let go because they made more than 15 dollars an
> hour.I've never met Dillon, but I'll bet he's not making
> what he was five or 10 years ago. I see everyone outside of
> a handful of morning stars being paid less, if they can find
> work at all. I can make a list of dozens and dozens of
> talented people I know who are working for traffic services,
> or have left the industry because they can't make a living.
> >
> h
> .
> >
> > Smaller operators were greedier in the 60's and 70's
> because
> > the small-business nature of radio forced owners to milk
> > stations, with high spot lpoads and no insurance and vast
> > and overwhelming insecurity. The U-haul jokes came from
> > those decades, not today.
>
> And once you learned your craft, you left the minor markets
> and moved up. Now there is no reason to move up. You can't
> afford the move, they won't pay for it. And the wages aren't
> better.
> >
>
> >
> > That is due to technology, not consolidation.
>
> So what was the point of consolidation?
> >
>
> >
> > The first station I was at, in a top 12 market at the
> time,
> > had no news, no teletype and just used ABC net news.
> Today,
> > at least, it has Metro to provide news and traffic,a nd
> can
> > get a report from metro if ther eis a breaking item of
> > significant interest.
>
> Metro does breaking news? Cool. If true...
> When I worked in S.A. in 1985, there were individual offices
> at city hall for each station. there was KTSA, KKYX, WOAI,
> KRNN, KSJL, and KSAQ. KCOR and KONO sent reporters too. Now
> there's just WOAI's Bud Little. If he is still there.
>
>
> >
> > I do not see that anywhere I go.
>
> I see it. A lot. Talk to some of the people spit out by CBS.
> Clear Channel is notorious for it. Others I have heard about
> aren't much better.
> >
> >
> > They get revenue in proprotion to ratings shares. Bigness
> in
> > number of staitons sells no advertising. Listenership
> does.
>
> See above... what was the point of consolidation if not to
> drive down costs (wages) and firm up rates?
> >
> for people who love radio, it has been a total
> > disaster.
>
> I stand by my comments.
>
> Great visiting with you, David. Have a good spring break.
> > > g
> > >
> >
>
Grant,absolutely brilliant! Consultants and their ilk don't get it,and refuse to make an attempt to get it. They don't wear rose colored glasses,only green greedy ones for themselves no matter the cost of quality and service to the public. If they ever agreed with your real assessment rather than their fabrication,they surely would be out of a job.