-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Hyper Local" Media Promoter Praises Voicetracking
- Thread starter smedge2006
- Start date
Because I believe you're trying to tie a traditional media line of thinking with alternative media. It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison; granted both are fruit perhaps but clearly not the same.
Voicetracking was developed to increase the quality of a smaller or mid-market radio sound without the high cost. For 99% of the listeners surveyed over the years, none knew that the morning show host at their local station was actually located elsewhere, nor did they care. Only people who find voicetracking distasteful generally are radio hobbyists or third-tier radio talent who maybe lost their employment due to voicetracking.
Unlike traditional media, on-line or social media presents a unique opportunity to the traditional media industry to allow for collaboration and feedback from consumers. In order to work well in the new two way social environment, broadcasters must adapt their 'broadcast', or one-way world of thinking, to super-serve the communities which they already have properties via the Web. Someone in Europe couldn't care less about the WXYZ website, but the key is to make the website relevant to someone in the WXYZ listening area. You do that by building-in something that fits well with the on-line user located in the WXYZ market. What that secret sauce is may depend on the interests and values of that community; local sports, local industry, local schools, etc. If done correctly, most of the hyper-locally derived content actually comes from the community via the users, whether that is video highlights from a local high school football game, or a recipe for pumpkin pie.
That is what Mr. Michaels is referring to when he talks about hyper-local.
Voicetracking was developed to increase the quality of a smaller or mid-market radio sound without the high cost. For 99% of the listeners surveyed over the years, none knew that the morning show host at their local station was actually located elsewhere, nor did they care. Only people who find voicetracking distasteful generally are radio hobbyists or third-tier radio talent who maybe lost their employment due to voicetracking.
Unlike traditional media, on-line or social media presents a unique opportunity to the traditional media industry to allow for collaboration and feedback from consumers. In order to work well in the new two way social environment, broadcasters must adapt their 'broadcast', or one-way world of thinking, to super-serve the communities which they already have properties via the Web. Someone in Europe couldn't care less about the WXYZ website, but the key is to make the website relevant to someone in the WXYZ listening area. You do that by building-in something that fits well with the on-line user located in the WXYZ market. What that secret sauce is may depend on the interests and values of that community; local sports, local industry, local schools, etc. If done correctly, most of the hyper-locally derived content actually comes from the community via the users, whether that is video highlights from a local high school football game, or a recipe for pumpkin pie.
That is what Mr. Michaels is referring to when he talks about hyper-local.
Exactly. A lot of people confuse hyper-local with someone hiring lots of people. Instead, it's turning users into reporters. You can do that with multi-point distribution. Harder to do with towers and transmitters.
A lot of out-of-work radio people dream of the day when someone hires them with a big salary and benefits to play the music they like and say whatever they want. Those days are gone. The listeners will do it for free. It's hard to compete with free.
Broadcasters need to let go of this idea of top-down communication, where they are given credibility because they happen to have a job. New broadcasters are empowerers who find ways to give the audience ways to do the work for free, attract an audience, which can be sold to advertisers. Sorta like message boards.
A lot of out-of-work radio people dream of the day when someone hires them with a big salary and benefits to play the music they like and say whatever they want. Those days are gone. The listeners will do it for free. It's hard to compete with free.
Broadcasters need to let go of this idea of top-down communication, where they are given credibility because they happen to have a job. New broadcasters are empowerers who find ways to give the audience ways to do the work for free, attract an audience, which can be sold to advertisers. Sorta like message boards.
While I see the use of voicetracking, I think your description of those who find it distasteful as "third-tier radio talent who maybe lost their employment due to voicetracking" is a bit insulting.
I understand the financial benefits. I understand most of today's jock content doesn't benefit from a live body in the booth.
HOWEVER, I guarantee that a voicetracked jock will, by necessity, be less engaging than a properly performing live jock. If that live jock is monitoring local scanners and news channels, if that live jock is taking live calls for things like traffic, if that live jock is tracking storms moving into the area...
That, also, is that hyper-localism that you're talking about. Sure, it takes more money. And yes, it is a greater risk, both that the live jock won't justify his cost and / or that a personality of that strength might take their audience across town... but success could be VERY big in this sort of situation.
One of the most fun things I ever heard on the radio was maybe 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter or texting, when a CHR did a countdown every night and EVERY break was a different listener announcing the next song on the countdown.
You're right that the listeners are key to a sucessful radio show. You're wrong that voicetracking is the best way to achieve it. That is, in fact, the most difficult way to do it. You have to set up voicemails, etc to record the listeners, then the listeners don't hear themselves on the air until what, the next day? The next week?
Attention spans today are WAY too short for that.
Before you ask, I am happily employed doing afternoon drive at a popular station. I'm live; our morning show is piped in live from another time zone.
Please stop bashing out-of-work professionals in an attempt to justify the "saving costs at all costs" of today's radio. All you're doing is giving yourselves an "At least we're not like THEM" ego stroke. It's tacky, and I'd hope you'd be better than that. You're not helping the unemployed with your ugly comments, either.
I understand the financial benefits. I understand most of today's jock content doesn't benefit from a live body in the booth.
HOWEVER, I guarantee that a voicetracked jock will, by necessity, be less engaging than a properly performing live jock. If that live jock is monitoring local scanners and news channels, if that live jock is taking live calls for things like traffic, if that live jock is tracking storms moving into the area...
That, also, is that hyper-localism that you're talking about. Sure, it takes more money. And yes, it is a greater risk, both that the live jock won't justify his cost and / or that a personality of that strength might take their audience across town... but success could be VERY big in this sort of situation.
One of the most fun things I ever heard on the radio was maybe 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter or texting, when a CHR did a countdown every night and EVERY break was a different listener announcing the next song on the countdown.
You're right that the listeners are key to a sucessful radio show. You're wrong that voicetracking is the best way to achieve it. That is, in fact, the most difficult way to do it. You have to set up voicemails, etc to record the listeners, then the listeners don't hear themselves on the air until what, the next day? The next week?
Attention spans today are WAY too short for that.
Before you ask, I am happily employed doing afternoon drive at a popular station. I'm live; our morning show is piped in live from another time zone.
Please stop bashing out-of-work professionals in an attempt to justify the "saving costs at all costs" of today's radio. All you're doing is giving yourselves an "At least we're not like THEM" ego stroke. It's tacky, and I'd hope you'd be better than that. You're not helping the unemployed with your ugly comments, either.
My intent was not to insult, but the fact remains if you're working on the air in a small to medium market, you are considered third-tier radio talent. My point was that most of the displacement of on-air positions to voice tracking were those of third-tier. It's a definition of tiers, not intended as a put-down. First or second tier talent are usually the ones who are in the larger market and providing the voice tracks for the smaller or medium markets. I think you'd agree that a bit part as an extra or with a single line on a TV series does not make the actor a first-tier actor. They are considered by profession as an actor, but clearly not first-tier yet. The stars of the show are in the first-tier.
The argument about how local talent creates a "connection" or "engaging" element to the audience is completely unfounded arbitrary. Just because a local person is giving time and temp or is "with you" (don't even get me started with that overused small market crutch cliche'), doesn't mean they relate to the audience any better than a more recognized, higher quality air talent from a larger market. In fact, one would argue that the average listener prefers the higher quality talent as compared with a local, lesser-talented voice on the radio. That's why voice tracking or satellite delivered formats work so well for smaller markets. You get a higher quality, larger market sound for less cost. And no, setting up a voicemail box is much less costly than hiring a warm body to answer the phone at a radio station. Those who call a radio station request line on a regular basis, make up less than 1% of your audience.
The debate ended years ago; voice tracking works well for the listeners and the station where cost of operation while maintaing a consistent quality sound is a concern.
The argument about how local talent creates a "connection" or "engaging" element to the audience is completely unfounded arbitrary. Just because a local person is giving time and temp or is "with you" (don't even get me started with that overused small market crutch cliche'), doesn't mean they relate to the audience any better than a more recognized, higher quality air talent from a larger market. In fact, one would argue that the average listener prefers the higher quality talent as compared with a local, lesser-talented voice on the radio. That's why voice tracking or satellite delivered formats work so well for smaller markets. You get a higher quality, larger market sound for less cost. And no, setting up a voicemail box is much less costly than hiring a warm body to answer the phone at a radio station. Those who call a radio station request line on a regular basis, make up less than 1% of your audience.
The debate ended years ago; voice tracking works well for the listeners and the station where cost of operation while maintaing a consistent quality sound is a concern.
In addition, there is a more direct and more personal connection made between listeners and the station via the internet and social networking, where geography also isn't an issue. In fact, I'd suggest the growth of the internet as a social medium has contributed to making local DJs obsolete. Along the way, it's opened the door for radio stations to better use their resources on various internet and mobile technologies.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.