How to make any radio station (or any other business) fail.

[cingram]

At most stations, the talent isn't proposing a show, they're following a format that's been established by a station. In a pay-for-play scenario, do you honestly think the owner/operator cares if the show sells? He wants his check from the guy who's desperate to get on the air. It's crap radio at its absolute crappiest.

The owner/operator cares if the show sells because (at the very least) if it doesn't, the show will go off the air and/or he won't get paid for the air time used.

Also, from my experience, most of these people are not "desperate" to get on the air. They have an idea, usually for a specialty show -- I've already mentioned the two hours of Tamburitza music on Sundays -- and this is how they make it happen. Otherwise, it is probably fair to say it would not happen at all.

Finally, many owner/operators care about the show being competent, even though it may be paid programming. It's not all "crap," nor does anybody want it to sound like crap. Every show has its audience, however eclectic or small.

It's obvious you don't like the idea, but it's a viable business model, especially when you're dealing with a 750-watt daytimer in Jeannette. That station is now profitable. But it was a giant sucking sound, financially speaking, for years before that.

 

[cingram]

As for move-ins, the commision had the mv/m contours to abide by until 1996. This is what prevented stations like 100.7 from moving to Pittsburgh any closer than Millvale. The Pittsburgh 'burb stations have never actively served their communities exclusively...at least not since the 70's, when I remembered listening. They served Pittsburgh, and then put local major stories in their news, or saved localism for their public affairs requirements. There should be limits on how far a channel can be moved...despite what an engineer says.

Just as an aside, 100.7 moved to the Channel 53 tower in 1990. I remember the day I noticed it, as 100.7 was listenable in the Kaufmann's parking garage downtown (where it had always done a disappearing act earlier).

The tower was in Russellton before that. It was the studios that were in Millvale until EZ bought the station and moved it to the (now-former) B-94 building on Grandview Avenue.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Perhaps because they don't consider themselves salespersons. Air talent and sales ability so not necessarily go hand in hand.
I respect both talents, but I haven't often found them in the same person.

Good point, sir. Neither have I. All the more reason why talent should be accountable for what they do on the air. If they're doing a show that advertisers certainly won't buy to offset the cost, then what incentive is there for an owner/operator to hire this individual as an employee? Clarke had pointed this out previously...those who do want a show like this usually understand the concept of paid time and are willing to pay for their shows. A good owner/operator can usually spot in a minute whether a program can sell or not, and if it's a considerable risk, then pay-to-play.

Your response makes no sense. It's not an issue of whether advertisers will buy the show, it's a matter of whether the person CREATING the show also has the skills to go out and sell. I don't expect talent to sell any more than I expect one of the salespeople to come into the studio and do three hours of first-rate talk radio.

"A good owner/operator can usually spot in a minute whether a program can sell or not"

At most stations, the talent isn't proposing a show, they're following a format that's been established by a station. In a pay-for-play scenario, do you honestly think the owner/operator cares if the show sells? He wants his check from the guy who's desperate to get on the air. It's crap radio at its absolute crappiest.

And you say MY response makes no sense? "You say At most stations, the talent isn't proposing a show, they're following a format that's been established by a station." If that were the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Naturally a jock that adheres to the format that management has selected for the station, would in most cases, be a paid employee under a standard business model, which is pretty much consistent throughout the day. The "pay-for-players" are those who want to play music or something that is different from what the station generally offers...usually special programming like ethnic music, obscure R&B, or specialty medical, legal or trade talk shows. Or at a station that operates on a time-brokerage business model, which has been the saving grace of many daytime-only AM stations that would otherwise be dark. Crap radio at its crappiest? Doesn't smell like crap...smells like money to me.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Or at a station that operates on a time-brokerage business model, which has been the saving grace of many daytime-only AM stations that would otherwise be dark."

I believe that Radio Boss and I are speaking of the same thing, which is a throwback to the golden age of broadcasting where an independent producer had the chance to convince a station operators to take a chance on a new program. And by "taking a chance", that meant the independent producer would provide production expertise and labor, while the station operator would provide the station's equipment and airtime, along with engineers who did what they did best, and the station's professional sales staff who would do what they did best.

No one disputes that mediocre, brokered time programs are better than a dark station. I wrote a long diatribe about how mediocre is better than dark. But mediocre shouldn't be the best a station operator aspires to. I've worked in situations where mere survival was the number one goal, and it's not a great situation to be in.

A far better situation to be in is to actually take a real, bona-fide risk at winning the really big prize. So you fill 80% of your available time with mediocre brokered programs to survive. But where's the broadcasting entrepreneur willing to take the chance on backing someone with a great idea that could turn out to be the next Delilah After Dark? Why are there so many radio station operators content to be average, or worse, intensely proud of being average, and so few who want to excel?

The broken record of "well, we're making a little profit which is better than losing money" grows stale after a while. If someone is only in any business in order to simply make a little profit instead of losing money, maybe he's in the wrong business. Whatever happened to people who were in broadcasting because they had passion for it? Whatever happened to people who were in broadcasting because they wanted to be the innovators of the next big trend, instead of those who are in radio because they've been there a long time and they're too old to change?

That's why I left radio. It was already turning into "plug the tested elements into the tested holes and stick to the formula" back in the 1970's. What passed for "innovation" was experimenting with slightly different jingles.

Did you ever hear the expression "jumped the shark", referring to a television series that had turned into a parody of itself? The entire broadcast radio industry jumped the shark years ago.

 

[cingram]

A far better situation to be in is to actually take a real, bona-fide risk at winning the really big prize.

Until the real, bona fide risk fails, and you lose the stations, and everything you own, and they end up being sold to another company, or acquired in a hostile takeover, or at a bankruptcy auction.

Stations "stick to the formula" because it works - and because they have to answer to the bankers and shareholders, who are risk-averse to say the least.

On the other hand, we've had a few risks in Pittsburgh radio - blowing up B-94 (which does not look too good right now), putting a news/talk station on the FM band, and Bob FM, which puts the lie to the old radio rulebook about which songs fit together.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"On the other hand, we've had a few risks in Pittsburgh radio - blowing up B-94 (which does not look too good right now), putting a news/talk station on the FM band, and Bob FM, which puts the lie to the old radio rulebook about which songs fit together."

That's my entire point. When putting a dying radio station format out of its misery (even if the replacement was incredibly badly done), putting a tested and proven format that consisted of tested and proven shows (mostly syndicated) on the FM band where the core demographic of the format is tuned to most of the time anyway, and plugging in a canned, off-the-shelf format is what passes for "taking risks", it's no wonder there's nothing at all new on the radio.

I said "What passed for "innovation" was experimenting with slightly different jingles." Those three examples prove I wasn't exaggerating much.

Those things are to "risk" what whispering extra loud in the library is to "excitement".

Where's the innovation? Where's trying something genuinely new? Where's the leading edge programming? Where is there a program on the air in Pittsburgh that's different from several dozen other shows that came before?

 

[Boss Radio]

Doesn't smell like crap...smells like money to me.


Why does the audience care about the profitability of a station? They're getting crap to listen to. There's this corny idea that radio should offer something for the listener, not the handful of people who own licenses.

If you think that's fragrant, then you should listen to Rob Pratte shill for time buyers on KDKA on Sunday mornings. That's exactly the kind of garbage you deserve.

 

[cingram]

Where's the innovation? Where's trying something genuinely new? Where's the leading edge programming? Where is there a program on the air in Pittsburgh that's different from several dozen other shows that came before?

Do you like Tamburitza music?

But seriously, what would you suggest? I realize I'm opening a can of worms here that may not go back in the can, but I'm listening.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"But seriously, what would you suggest?"

To repeat what I've said in this and other threads, I suggest a magazine format talk show with segments about household tips (like the Martha Stewart minute that used to be on Pintek's show), interviews with entertainers and celebrities, interviews with interesting local people, interactive phone-in segments, live, woman-in-the-mall interviews and sound bites, and other such content. This would be a program, not a 24/7 style of programming. If it has to have a quick summary, it would be "Oprah on the radio" or "Monitor for the current millennium".

Imagine Terry Gross's "Freshe Aire", only not so elitist and high-brow and geared to local interests instead of national topics.

Another idea would be a program where classic scripted programs of the REAL golden age of radio are recreated. If a station is successful doing a faithful recreation of radio programing of the late 1950's and gets listeners who weren't even born when that style of radio was on the air, why wouldn't it enjoy some success running recreations of radio of the 1940's?

Better yet, run a contest in conjunction with a local college for radio drama and comedy scripts that will be produced and aired. As long as you don't have to pay AFTRA Scale for voice talent, it wouldn't be that expensive to produce such shows. Local strawhat theatres would probably provide all of the actors in exchange for sponsorship of the show.

 

[cingram]

Oprah is mounting a radio show, backed by John Gehron of WLS fame. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

As for spoken word, golden age recreations, radio comedy, and drama, I don't know if they have a place on radio 50 years after television displaced them, but there are a few (like the new "Twilight Zone" radio series) that offer some hope.

Certainly, music-oriented stations are going to have to find something besides or at least between the songs to keep listeners entertained.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Oprah is mounting a radio show, backed by John Gehron of WLS fame. It will be interesting to see what they come up with."

One thing will be fairly certain. It won't be "local".

"As for spoken word, golden age recreations, radio comedy, and drama, I don't know if they have a place on radio 50 years after television displaced them, but there are a few (like the new "Twilight Zone" radio series) that offer some hope."

No one really knows, because except for the Twilight Zone series (which I've never heard on a Pittsburgh station), it hasn't been tried anywhere other than NPR. And, as I've said many, many times before, no programming idea is so good it can survive bad execution. Howard Stern was capable of doing the Howard Stern Show. David Lee Roth wasn't. David Lee Roth's failure doesn't prove that the format was a failure, it only proved that David Lee Roth was a failure.

And one thing everyone does know, and that is that the short comedy skits that Jim and Randy do on the 'DVE Morning Show work. They worked even better back before Jim and Randy got bored, but even now they work. And the 'DVE Morning Show has interviews with celebrities. It's not all that different from the program I described.

"Certainly, music-oriented stations are going to have to find something besides or at least between the songs to keep listeners entertained."

I have heard or read that same statement made by a great many people active in radio. It's usually followed by, "But I'm not taking any chances on coming up with that on my station. I'll let the other guys be the pioneers."

 

[frothingslosh]

No one really knows, because except for the Twilight Zone series (which I've never heard on a Pittsburgh station), it hasn't been tried anywhere other than NPR. And, as I've said many, many times before, no programming idea is so good it can survive bad execution.

As someone who regularly monitors this board, your grasp of the radio industry always impresses me, old boy.

I believe you'll find the "Twilight Zone" series runs three nights a week on your KQV.

And I think you'll also find that CBS ("CBS Radio Mystery Theater" with E.G. Marshall), Mutual ("Mutual Radio Theater" with Lorne Greene and Andy Griffith), and a variety of syndicators have tried to do scripted radio drama and comedy, with only fair to middling success. There is one remaining in the States: "Imagination Theater" is in distribution, and runs on both XM Satellite Radio and KQV.

Please don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments, though, because they're jolly good fun!

 

[Radio_Realist]

"I believe you'll find the "Twilight Zone" series runs three nights a week on your KQV."

I didn't say it didn't run on a Pittsburgh station, I said I never heard it on a Pittsburgh station. I don't usually listen to KQV, so there's no way I'd know if it was airing on that station or not. And, even if I did know, I can't pick up KQV very well after dark anyway.

"a variety of syndicators have tried to do scripted radio drama and comedy, with only fair to middling success."

As I asked earlier, does that prove that the format won't work, or does it prove that it is not being executed well? As I recall, Lorne Greene died quite a few years ago. Were those syndicators you're mentioning who had "fair to middling success" running new productions of new scripts, or were they recycling old material?

 

[frothingslosh]

I didn't say it didn't run on a Pittsburgh station, I said I never heard it on a Pittsburgh station. I don't usually listen to KQV, so there's no way I'd know if it was airing on that station or not. And, even if I did know, I can't pick up KQV very well after dark anyway.

Ah-ha! Like the Red Queen, your words mean what you say they mean! Good show!

Because you, personally, "don't usually listen to KQV," it doesn't exist. If I have never seen Jay Leno on Channel 11 in Pittsburgh, then by your rationale, "The Tonight Show" doesn't air in Pittsburgh. Q.E.D.

"a variety of syndicators have tried to do scripted radio drama and comedy, with only fair to middling success."

As I asked earlier, does that prove that the format won't work, or does it prove that it is not being executed well? As I recall, Lorne Greene died quite a few years ago. Were those syndicators you're mentioning who had "fair to middling success" running new productions of new scripts, or were they recycling old material?

CBS Radio and Mutual Radio were rather larger than just "syndicators." They were, in fact, networks. If you look up either of the specific shows which I mentioned, I believe you'd find that they were producing new scripts with a mix of old and new actors, including radio veterans such as Frank Nelson, Jesse White, Hans Conried, etc. Producers included Arch Oboler and Norman Corwin.

These names should be familiar to any fan of American scripted radio drama and comedy, no? Suffice to say, these shows were executed superbly.

I shall look forward to your next riposte!

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Because you, personally, "don't usually listen to KQV," it doesn't exist."

No, because I personally don't listen to KQV, that means that I don't know what programs they broadcast. If they went out of their way to inform me, such as by running advertising or promotions, then perhaps I would know. The issue is one of whether or not it is the radio station's responsibility to let potential listeners know what they are broadcasting in order to attract more listeners, or if it is the listeners' responsibility to go out of their way to discover what is on the air.

Personally, if a broadcaster wants me to tune in his station, I believe it's his responsibility to seek out and attract me, not my responsibility to find him. Success or failure of a radio program depends in very large measure on how well the broadcaster has fulfilled his responsibilty of advertising his program to potential listeners. If a broadcaster won't promote what he is broadcasting to potential listeners, then there's very little point in him even bothering to turn the transmitter on.

"CBS Radio and Mutual Radio were rather larger than just "syndicators." They were, in fact, networks."

The operative word is "were". They are a rather distant memory. This is a discussion about what types of programs to put on the air in 2006 and on into the future. CBS Mystery theatre ran from January 6, 1974 through December 31, 1982. And that's the most recent of the shows you mentioned.

"Suffice to say, these were executed superbly."

If one were to compare the scripts to those radio shows of over two decades ago to television programs, would you say the they were "superbly" executed in the same way that high-brow but elitist appealing television shows like the fare on PBS is executed, or were the "superbly" executed in the sense of having the same sort of mass appeal as popular television shows that attracted large audiences were?

In other words, were these "superb" high-brow snob appeal shows, or were they the kind of scripts that would appeal to the masses? Has anyone attempted scripted radio programs with the same kind of humor and mass appeal as television programs like Seinfeld or Married, With Children, and has anyone done so in this millenium?

 

[kenhawk1160]

Why does the audience care about the profitability of a station? They're getting crap to listen to. There's this corny idea that radio should offer something for the listener, not the handful of people who own licenses.

If you think that's fragrant, then you should listen to Rob Pratte shill for time buyers on KDKA on Sunday mornings. That's exactly the kind of garbage you deserve.

Radio SHOULD offer something to the listener, Boss. I don't dispute that. This is the reason why we have so many radio stations on the dial. But at the same time, stations have a right to make a profit. We're not in the age anymore where TV was a fad, satellite radio, the internet and cable TV didn't exist, and newspaper and billboards were way overpriced. We're in an age where there's much more competition and not enough dollars to go around. Whether you think it's crap or not is irrelevant. You can always tune to another station you can tolerate. There's at least ONE out there, I'm sure. What you purport as crap may be king crab to another. You may not appreciate stations that time-broker a variety of programs, but the people who do tune in for those, usually the 50+ crowd, do.

As for Mr. Pratte, I have heard his show and I don't care for it. That's why I don't listen. I have a dial and a set of pushbuttons just like you.

 

[cingram]

[Has anyone attempted scripted radio programs with the same kind of humor and mass appeal as television programs like Seinfeld or Married, With Children, and has anyone done so in this millenium?

No, because those people are all watching television, which goes back to my earlier post. It's sort of like asking "Has anyone done Top 40 radio on AM lately?" No, and I think people understand the reasons.

At the same time, it might be worth a shot on a station like (say) WEDO, which doesn't show up in the ratings, and already runs many old time radio shows (they have some great Garry Moore shows that I suspect only John James and I are listening to regularly).

If Garrison Keillor can work (or Garrison Morfit), what the heck!

 

[cingram]

"Why does the audience care about the profitability of a station? They're getting crap to listen to. There's this corny idea that radio should offer something for the listener, not the handful of people who own licenses."

There's also this corny idea that a radio station should make money, because if it doesn't the format will change and the station's loyal listeners will get screwed.

The audience doesn't care (and perhaps never will) about a station's profitability, but the unprofitable ones don't last long.

The best way to be profitable is to get good ratings (that is, more listeners) and sell that listenership to the advertisers.

As far as "getting crap to listen to," I think most radio these days is more competent, but less interesting than it used to be. There are still some unique and interesting stations to be found, and I don't rule out those stations being mass-appeal either, but you gotta look harder for them.

 

[cingram]

By the way

Wasn't "Sir Reginald Frothingslosh" a character on the Jackie Gleason Show?

Must have been the "Trip to England" episode. ;D

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Wasn't "Sir Reginald Frothingslosh" a character on the Jackie Gleason Show?"

You're thinking of Sir Reggie Van Gleason. "Olde Frothingsloshe" was the pale, stale, ale with the foam on the bottom advertised on the Rege Cordic show and brewed and bottled by Pittsburgh Brewing. And mentioning Jackie Gleason helps me illustrate what I'm talking about. Gleason started with a variety show that included characters doing skits. One of those skits went so well that it was spun off into a regular situation comedy series.

The 'DVE Morning show's skits already have a cast of regular characters, and they do short little comedy bits which the audiences seem to enjoy. What I am proposing is for some station operator to be responsive to airing a scripted radio situation comedy using the same type of characters as the ones on those successful comedy skits, but fleshed out into a 15 minute story with a beginning, middle, and an end. I'm talking about a "driveway" show that's so interesting that if you arrive home before it's over you'll sit in your driveway to listen to the end of it.

I'm also a little dismayed that the primary idea I had, the one I thought had the most chance of success was ignored, and the one I threw in as an afterthought is the one everyone has jumped on to prove me wrong. I think that the locally oriented version of "Oprah on the radio" is the idea with a much better chance of success.

"If Garrison Keillor can work (or Garrison Morfit), what the heck!"

The thing is, while Garrison Keillor appeals to a limited, high-brow audience, when the cast of the 'DVE morning show does their remote broadcasts, they are basically doing "The Yinzer Home Companion". The only thing the 'DVE show leaves out are the bits based on the funny sound effects guy. There's very little structural difference between "Guy Noir" and "Ben Klinkston, Mall Guard".

Which, I think, demonstrates what I've said about how the show is done is more important than a capsule description of the format. Keillor's somnambulistic delivery works for people who like it. It doesn't work for people who don't. And I suspect the people who find Keillor's laid back style that makes Perry Como look energetic boring outnumber the ones who like it.

"It's sort of like asking "Has anyone done Top 40 radio on AM lately?""

Not really. Top 40 is just one slight variation on a single format, which is "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them". That is only one format. There are lots of subtle variations, but any format that consists of "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them" is nothing more than a variation on that same format. This isn't about which variation on that format is better, with the differences between those variations often so obscure and arcane that they only serve as the equivalent of a secret handshake known only to members of the club.

This is about totally different formats. This is about innovating the next incarnation of terrestrial radio. I'm talking about finding the pioneers who will lead radio out of the doldrums of nothing but "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them" into something new.

"Play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them" is already a dying format because of competition from satellite and low-cost personal music recording/playback systems. When television came out, it killed scripted radio programs and gave rise to "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them". There were pioneers who helped create "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them" back in the day.

Radio now needs innovative and imaginative people to come up with the next paradigm for the next wave of radio broadcasting. If the only people working in radio are the ones who think adjusting the jingles or picking slightly different songs for "play recorded songs with a little bit of talking in between them" programming constitutes imagination and innovation, then radio broadcasting as a profitable industry is doomed. There's just too many people milking a tired old format to death, and chasing away their listeners in the process.

And now, I'm going to log off the computer and drive to work. And when I get into my car, I'm going to pop a CD into the player to listen to on the ride.