How will gas prices affect the future of radio?

[tothedj]

There are many companies who are contemplating a "4-day" work week, and
for many of us in the radio industry, gas prices are greatly affecting us, especially
those who have to commute a good distance, the majority who are employed
don't get paid much, and we all know this in smaller and medium markets.
I believe we are at a crossroads where owners are going to have to make very
important decisions, is it possible many positions will be cut?, could we see
stations go off the air?, how will radio survive?, the next several months could
answer these questions.

 

[gr8oldies]

There's going to be some kind of limit to how high gas can go before people literally can't go anywhere except in case of emergency, so then the price will have to drop to a manageable level. I can't say I see less cars on the road, even on weekends, that I did before. Maybe the $4 lattes and $1.50 bottles of water will be cut from the budget first. As far as radio, I don't think it will show that much of an effect. Talent can already voicetrack, do production, and even live shows from home or other remote locations, and even sales functions can be less about driving around and more about the internet, e-mail, web presentations, etc. As long as the car dealers want to advertise economy cars, revenue shouldn't take more of a hit than they already are.

 

[amfmsw]

Excellent points, all.

I think the 4 day work week is inevitable, but possibly at the cost of vacation time. Electronic audio files have eliminated untold nusiance driving of dubs to clients and station pick-ups. Untold hours of more effective selling time, better service. $5 gas is also, it seems, inevitable. Probably before summers' end. Will radio survive? It will thrive.

High gas prices are only the beginning. Natural Gas and Heating Oil have also nearly doubled. Just wait till the winter heating season...talk about sticker shock! And food? Corn was $1/dozen, now 4 for $1.99. Beef, pork, chicken prices up do to feed and transportation. There will be frantic, drastic belt tightening by nearly all consumers. Small "treat-myself" luxuries, $4 coffee, $2 water, $13 satellite radio, cigarettes will be slashed, moving those dollars to energy.

Although driving time will be cut back, local radio will still thrive with net/home office and home/leisure listening...IF IT's LOCAL. The stations with "generic" jocks and formats will wither as LOCAL, LIVE radio superserves it's listeners.

And those high energy prices will shift the focus to new catagories friendly to radio. Think of the opportunities opening to radio sales in home improvement, insulation specialists, window/door specialists, solar heat, solar/wind electric, auto tune-ups/maintenance, efficient lighting upgrades for home and business, energy star appliance upgrades, home entertainment. Dozens of things that have been put off for years are now extremely cost efficient. It's the return of an old term: cacooning.

I see the glass half full, and rising for local radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

No more diesel backup generators!

 

[Roger That]

Although driving time will be cut back, local radio will still thrive with net/home office and home/leisure listening...IF IT's LOCAL. The stations with "generic" jocks and formats will wither as LOCAL, LIVE radio superserves it's listeners.

Wow...we went from talking about gasoline, to sniffing it, apparently...LOL.

You think that because people will drive less, that they'll spend their time indoors listening to radio? Wow. I consider myself optimistic when it comes to the fact that radio will survive yet another downturn, but even this optimism makes me gag a little. First, there is no focus by the big companies on the internet. Sure, they may call their websites "important," but all they do is serve as an extension of the radio station, and a bad one at that. So even if 'net listening increases, your favorite local radio station won't be up to the task to handle the audience the way it should.

And while we're on the subject of local...I've said this in numerous posts, and I'll say it again. Your favorite radio station SUCKS at live and local. They will SUCK at it, even at $5 a gallon for gas.

Being truly live and local can win, no matter what the economy or price of gas. But actually LISTEN to your radio stations. THEY DON'T DO IT. They may THINK they are, but really listen to it. They're not.

Unless the world is ending, listeners would rather be entertained when listening to radio. They come to the station hoping for an EXPERIENCE. And that can come in many forms, but only a little bit of it is "local." It is DEFINITELY not the pukey liner-whore that does PM drive for W-blah blah blah. But wait...he's LOCAL! :

It's the reason why Steve Harvey can come into your market and beat the local hack in one book, and why markets like Miami, whose residents were obviously starved for true entertainment, have rocketed NY-based Elvis Duran into a major player in the first year it was on the air. Radio does "local" badly, and does entertainment even worse. People complain about syndicated talent, but if they're going to be more entertaining than you, the cream will rise to the top, baby.

 

[firepoint525]

How will gas prices affect the future of radio? Well, if gas prices continue to rise, it might put an end to the guy who is so desperate to break into a radio job, that he will drive an obscene distance every day just to work for a station that will hire him and give him his "big break." If that happens, radio might actually have to scrape to find some "air talent" to work for them!

Additionally, I think (at least I hope!) it will put an end to "salaried" positions in radio, in which management forces their staff to work at least six days a week, but only pays them for the equivalent of five! When some of these salaried hacks realize they can't make any more money by working more hours, they will be out of there! Remember, radio, you get what you pay for! If you don't pay what it takes to keep your top talent, they'll be gone! And it'll serve you right!

 

[icycool7227]

I can say one thing - it'll make people like me not want to drive to far away cities just to hear stations lol!

 

[12 In a Row]

"Live and local" has become the popular phrase for those thinking, this is the answer.
What it really means is, "save my job."

I agree the bulk of the "live and local" stations are not very good. OK, they suck.
You can't blame corporate radio for sucking the life out of it. Painful truth is, there are very few people that do it well, break after break.
These are the ones that rise to the top!

Except for the radio geeks, listeners don't know and don't care if you are "live." Heck, most viewers still think Leno and Lettermen are live.

The way I see it, radio's strength has been in-car listening.

Staying home one more day will decrease listenership.
Besides, if I'm working in the home, I have thousands of choices on the internet at my fingertips.
Do I choose the trek "at work live and local station" or something else.

 

[12 In a Row]

How will gas prices affect the future of radio? Well, if gas prices continue to rise, it might put an end to the guy who is so desperate to break into a radio job, that he will drive an obscene distance every day just to work for a station that will hire him and give him his "big break." If that happens, radio might actually have to scrape to find some "air talent" to work for them!

Additionally, I think (at least I hope!) it will put an end to "salaried" positions in radio, in which management forces their staff to work at least six days a week, but only pays them for the equivalent of five! When some of these salaried hacks realize they can't make any more money by working more hours, they will be out of there! Remember, radio, you get what you pay for! If you don't pay what it takes to keep your top talent, they'll be gone! And it'll serve you right!

A "salaried" position, consistent pay and benefits, health, life, dental, 401K.
A "hourly" position, your pay depends on how many or how few hours I need you this week, and NO benefits.

 

[KDRadio]

are there other industries that are looking to do a "4 day" work week besides us?

 

[Roger That]

"Live and local" has become the popular phrase for those thinking, this is the answer.
What it really means is, "save my job."

Brilliant. Heads up...probably going to steal that and forget to give you credit.

Agreed with the rest of your post, too.

 

[12 In a Row]

Roger, feel free to use at will.

 

[firepoint525]

How will gas prices affect the future of radio? Well, if gas prices continue to rise, it might put an end to the guy who is so desperate to break into a radio job, that he will drive an obscene distance every day just to work for a station that will hire him and give him his "big break." If that happens, radio might actually have to scrape to find some "air talent" to work for them!

Additionally, I think (at least I hope!) it will put an end to "salaried" positions in radio, in which management forces their staff to work at least six days a week, but only pays them for the equivalent of five! When some of these salaried hacks realize they can't make any more money by working more hours, they will be out of there! Remember, radio, you get what you pay for! If you don't pay what it takes to keep your top talent, they'll be gone! And it'll serve you right!

A "salaried" position, consistent pay and benefits, health, life, dental, 401K.
A "hourly" position, your pay depends on how many or how few hours I need you this week, and NO benefits.

You obviously didn't work where I did. The only "benefit" I got was insurance and vacation, and I obviously would have had to get sick in order to cash in on the insurance! Do you think the cash value of the insurance and vacation would have been enough to offset the (minimum!) 10-15 hours a week I was being stiffed? I made $220 a week when I left there in 1992. Divide that by 50, because I was having to work a minimum of 50 hours a week, and you'll see that I was making sub-minimum wage there to put up with that anal-retentive manager and his perfectionist demands! And I was having to work six days a week!

Now I'm getting all the benefits you mentioned, plus holidays off, and I "only" work five days a week now. And I'm making more in my post-broadcasting career than I ever would have made in radio! My beginning pay at my current job is more than I ever made, even at my last station, which I left last fall!

 

[12 In a Row]

WOW-$220.00 a week in 92.
I was making more than that in 72.

I'm happy to see you've moved on.

 

[davideduardo]

A "salaried" position, consistent pay and benefits, health, life, dental, 401K.
A "hourly" position, your pay depends on how many or how few hours I need you this week, and NO benefits.

Many salaried positions do not get all those benefits, or even any of them.

An hourly position simply pays by hours worked, with no guarantee. Companies have policies on benefits, and often those working over a certain number, like 28 to 30, get full benefits while those under the established minimum do not.

 

[davideduardo]

The way I see it, radio's strength has been in-car listening.

Staying home one more day will decrease listenership.
Besides, if I'm working in the home, I have thousands of choices on the internet at my fingertips.
Do I choose the trek "at work live and local station" or something else.

In car is only around 30% to 33% of listening (In New York, it is significantly less, even). The biggies are in-home and at work. So, at work listening would stay the same, just be concentrated in fewer days.

But many jobs, like UPS delivery for one example, or retail, work 5 to 7 days a week. If each employee can be given more hours and fewer days, this will change drive times, leisure time, etc. But for it to be a facotr in radio listening and such, a huge percentage of jobs have to change.

I'm reminded that in most markets, as many people start work at 6 or 7 AM as at 9 AM, and 8 AM is often more than the 9 AM start, too. That's because shift work, and all kinds of things like construction and warehousing do not work 9 to 5.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Not to be mean-spirited...

You obviously didn't work where I did. The only "benefit" I got was insurance and vacation, and I obviously would have had to get sick in order to cash in on the insurance! Do you think the cash value of the insurance and vacation would have been enough to offset the (minimum!) 10-15 hours a week I was being stiffed? I made $220 a week when I left there in 1992. Divide that by 50, because I was having to work a minimum of 50 hours a week, and you'll see that I was making sub-minimum wage there to put up with that anal-retentive manager and his perfectionist demands! And I was having to work six days a week!

So, entry-level wasn't exciting. Perhaps that's why it's called "entry-level". That's not so different from a lot of other professions.

Now I'm getting all the benefits you mentioned, plus holidays off, and I "only" work five days a week now. And I'm making more in my post-broadcasting career than I ever would have made in radio! My beginning pay at my current job is more than I ever made, even at my last station, which I left last fall!

That may tell us more about your career that it does about radio. Not that corporate radio isn't doing its best to destroy itself by "saving" its way into oblivion.

Music isn't "product". Advertisers are not the customers. Listeners tune in for more than the same 200 songs over and over and over and over. 12 in a row with nothing in between doesn't work. Information and/or entertainment that are meaningful for the listener, and relatable personalities make radio relevant. Corporate radio doesn't understand that, preferring to listen to consultants who tout "their format" as the panacea that will save money and raise ratings.

Look at the ratings. How many of the top stations are heavily-formatted jukeboxes?

If your live and local radio sucks, blame formats that reduce jocks to liner-card readers, with fewer opportunities to perform than the canned voice guy/gal. Add to that PDs who spend more time with computer software than talent coaching - mostly because they're now forced to program multiple stations simultaneously.

And yet, you say "You can't blame corporate radio for sucking the life out of it."

Have another cup of kool-aid, Bub. Obviously you've drunk deeply from the big corporate punch bowl.

 

[firepoint525]

WOW-$220.00 a week in 92.
I was making more than that in 72.
I'm happy to see you've moved on.

Thanks. I should point out that that was a rural area, and I still lived "at home" at the time. But I knew that when I left home, I would never be able to make it on the chicken feed they were paying me. And being "salaried," I couldn't make more money by working more hours!

I started out there a year earlier, making $180 a week for working the overnight shift in '91. But that was a flat 37 hours a week. When they moved me to days (and made me production director), I suddenly had to work about 15 hours more a week for the same money! Oh, I got raises, but not enough to offset the increase in hours and responsibility!

 

[firepoint525]

Re: Not to be mean-spirited...

You obviously didn't work where I did. The only "benefit" I got was insurance and vacation, and I obviously would have had to get sick in order to cash in on the insurance! Do you think the cash value of the insurance and vacation would have been enough to offset the (minimum!) 10-15 hours a week I was being stiffed? I made $220 a week when I left there in 1992. Divide that by 50, because I was having to work a minimum of 50 hours a week, and you'll see that I was making sub-minimum wage there to put up with that anal-retentive manager and his perfectionist demands! And I was having to work six days a week!

So, entry-level wasn't exciting. Perhaps that's why it's called "entry-level". That's not so different from a lot of other professions.

Now I'm getting all the benefits you mentioned, plus holidays off, and I "only" work five days a week now. And I'm making more in my post-broadcasting career than I ever would have made in radio! My beginning pay at my current job is more than I ever made, even at my last station, which I left last fall!

That may tell us more about your career that it does about radio. Not that corporate radio isn't doing its best to destroy itself by "saving" its way into oblivion.

Music isn't "product". Advertisers are not the customers. Listeners tune in for more than the same 200 songs over and over and over and over. 12 in a row with nothing in between doesn't work. Information and/or entertainment that are meaningful for the listener, and relatable personalities make radio relevant. Corporate radio doesn't understand that, preferring to listen to consultants who tout "their format" as the panacea that will save money and raise ratings.

Look at the ratings. How many of the top stations are heavily-formatted jukeboxes?

If your live and local radio sucks, blame formats that reduce jocks to liner-card readers, with fewer opportunities to perform than the canned voice guy/gal. Add to that PDs who spend more time with computer software than talent coaching - mostly because they're now forced to program multiple stations simultaneously.

And yet, you say "You can't blame corporate radio for sucking the life out of it."

Have another cup of kool-aid, Bub. Obviously you've drunk deeply from the big corporate punch bowl.

That was actually my third station! And as I said above, I was production director!

As for the rest of your b.s., you have quoted me, while attributing comments to me that I never said! : Radio can do whatever they want now! They are in my rear-view mirror now! And I ain't ever looking back! :

 

[SirRoxalot]

Entry Level

...I should point out that that was a rural area, and I still lived "at home" at the time. But I knew that when I left home, I would never be able to make it on the chicken feed they were paying me. And being "salaried," I couldn't make more money by working more hours!

I started out there a year earlier, making $180 a week for working the overnight shift in '91. But that was a flat 37 hours a week. When they moved me to days (and made me production director), I suddenly had to work about 15 hours more a week for the same money! Oh, I got raises, but not enough to offset the increase in hours and responsibility!

Hey, at least you didn't go home smelling like french fries.

Rural stations are entry level. They're not where you plan to have a successful career. Unless you want to work your way up to manager - just like Mickey D's.

Rural stations are where you get experience, improve your craft, then move on to bigger and better-paying jobs. If you're good, that is.