iHeartMedia clusters that have zero local personalities

[ScottBurns]

But that's the thing; your opinion isn't representative of the majority of radio listeners. Your opinion amounts to a rounding error in reality.

Thanks for your kindness. Moreover, do you have empirical data that the majority of listeners, unlike the dominant members of this board, care more about the owners' bottom lines than they do about their own tastes and the welfare of the employees?

 

[ScottBurns]

What does it matter what the employees think? Losing your job sucks, whether it's due to technology, to your position being eliminated, or to a companywide downsizing forced by an economic slowdown. I was downsized after 32 years at the same employer, at 58 years old. It sucked. I moved on, found another job and counted the days to retirement. None of this personal anger and disappointment trickled down to the people who used the product.

What does it matter what employees think? Really?

I guess we just have a difference in values. Employees are human beings. Without them, the owners can't run their businesses or make a profit. Their opinions should matter.

 

[CTListener]

Thanks for your kindness. Moreover, do you have empirical data that the majority of listeners, unlike the dominant members of this board, care more about the owners' bottom lines than they do about their own tastes and the welfare of the employees?

This one cares equally about the bottom line or employee welfare of the radio stations I listen to -- not at all. Just keep the transmitter warm and play the music I enjoy,

 

[ScottBurns]

Back in 2008/09 when the bottom fell out of radio valuations my staff for a class C-FM and fully automated AM got down to two people: One that did traffic (logs) and one part time accountant. My business partner did sales. As Walmart's, Internet car sales, Home Depot, and Red Lobster (who do zero local radio ads) started moving in, our long-standing advertiser base started drying up. It was getting even harder to maintain the staff we had, and the cost of sales doubled, because my partner had to travel much further to drum-up clients. Listeners loved our stations and music, that wasn't the problem. Financial support was. Nobody was getting fat from cutting costs. Cutting costs was necessary to keep the lights on. No adding deeper cuts, or more sizzle in promos, or hiring more people would have helped the business survive. It would have killed it completely. With all due respect; we've listened to you bang on about something you have absolutely no clue about. Until you've run stations in today's environment, your simplification of how to make radio great again, borders on insulting.

You told me you'd cut the personal attacks, but here you go again. You've generally been more respectful than someone else on this board, but this line - "we've listened to you bang on about something you have absolutely no clue about" - is a personal attack. Just because I might be uneducated, stupid, or ill-informed does not mean my opinion does not matter. Let Frank decide that. Let him kick me off this board then. Until then, good day, sir or madam.

 

[CTListener]

What does it matter what employees think? Really?

I guess we just have a difference in values. Employees are human beings. Without them, the owners can't run their businesses or make a profit. Their opinions should matter.

And that employer I referenced earlier treated me as a human being, and very well, for thirty years. If it hadn't, I would have left on my own much earlier. But times got tough, the bottom line had to be preserved, and payroll needed to be cut. Payroll can only be cut by reducing employees' pay or releasing the employees. I gladly took the severance pay and unemployment benefits, found a new job and moved on with my life. So did others who were laid off. I can't speak for them, but I've never had any bitterness toward management or ownership. They did what they had to do to keep the business viable and profitable.

 

[Kelly A]

You told me you'd cut the personal attacks, but here you go again.

I think you have me confused with someone else. Never said such a thing.

You've generally been more respectful than someone else on this board, but this line - "we've listened to you bang on about something you have absolutely no clue about" - is a personal attack. Just because I might be uneducated, stupid, or ill-informed does not mean my opinion does not matter. Let Frank decide that. Let him kick me off this board then. Until then, good day, sir or madam.

Okay, is it fair to say that you have no clue about how the business works from the inside? The reason for asking, is you keep going back to 'the listener' or 'the employee'-opinion. There are millions of radio listeners, with only a very small percentage posting on a radio-discussion board which wouldn't be indicative of the millions of fore-mentioned majority. By saying that professionals need not speak anymore, means you're just fishing for acknowledgement from like-minded others. Remember, it's a radio discussion board, not an agreement board.

 

[davideduardo]

You told me you'd cut the personal attacks, but here you go again. You've generally been more respectful than someone else on this board, but this line - "we've listened to you bang on about something you have absolutely no clue about" - is a personal attack. Just because I might be uneducated, stupid, or ill-informed does not mean my opinion does not matter.

Kelly has given you the "inside looking out" viewpoint. He is very accurate in his evaluation.

A few things that have happened to radio in the last quarter-century:

• Through Docket 80-90, the FCC overpopulated the dial in most places in the US, making it incredibly harder to make money with a station.
• Due to Docket 80-90 and more than half of all stations losing money, the FCC allowed consolidation to permit the economies of multi-station clusters.
• The 2008 recession cut radio revenue by about a third.
• The change to PPM cut ad rates in the larger markets by about a third, based on PUR.
• The Smartphone came out in 2008 and cut into portable radio use.
• The FCC recognized technology changes and no longer required local studios and offices and engineering rules that were decades out of date.
• Automation relieved stations of the need for 24/7 on-duty staff.

Today's radio revenue, in 2000 dollars, is off by over 60%. Stations have to reduce expenses proportionally to remain profitable.

Listeners changed, too. They no longer care to call or visit a station. They mostly don't want old-style DJ chatter.

You seem to want and expect things that practically no listener under 60 wants today. And things which the economy of the industry can't afford, either.

Point of comparison: 40 years ago or so, every business district or strip mall had a TV and radio repair shop. Things changed. They are almost all gone, and nobody needs them. On the station side, there are transmitter sites that we don't need to visit for months on end, not daily or weekly. In Canada, some stations have located to places that have no winter access at all except by helicopter... and they have no need!

Let Frank decide that. Let him kick me off this board then. Until then, good day, sir or madam.

Neither of the moderators is going to "kick you off" for having a different perspective. As Kelly said, this is a discussion board, not an agreement board or a mutual admiration society. It appears that even people who have been downsized in radio disagree with you and understand that, without an economic base and profits, there would be no commercial radio at all.

 

[ScottBurns]

I think you have me confused with someone else. Never said such a thing.

I called you out for a personal attack and you responded with a more respectful tone, asking if "this was better?" But if you are going to continue to engage in personal attacks, I don't want to have any correspondence with you.

Okay, is it fair to say that you have no clue about how the business works from the inside? The reason for asking, is you keep going back to 'the listener' or 'the employee'-opinion. There are millions of radio listeners, with only a very small percentage posting on a radio-discussion board which wouldn't be indicative of the millions of fore-mentioned majority. By saying that professionals need not speak anymore, means you're just fishing for acknowledgement from like-minded others. Remember, it's a radio discussion board, not an agreement board.

I never, ever said that "professionals need not speak." You, sir, are gaslighting me. I never called for agreement. I only called for the inclusion of multiple perspectives, such as the employee or the listener. I have also called for the injection of new ideas and creativity into radio.

 

[ScottBurns]

Kelly has given you the "inside looking out" viewpoint. He is very accurate in his evaluation.

But I can't call for different perspectives? And you're accusing me of wanting an "agreement board?"

A few things that have happened to radio in the last quarter-century:

• Through Docket 80-90, the FCC overpopulated the dial in most places in the US, making it incredibly harder to make money with a station.
• Due to Docket 80-90 and more than half of all stations losing money, the FCC allowed consolidation to permit the economies of multi-station clusters.
• The 2008 recession cut radio revenue by about a third.
• The change to PPM cut ad rates in the larger markets by about a third, based on PUR.
• The Smartphone came out in 2008 and cut into portable radio use.
• The FCC recognized technology changes and no longer required local studios and offices and engineering rules that were decades out of date.
• Automation relieved stations of the need for 24/7 on-duty staff.

Today's radio revenue, in 2000 dollars, is off by over 60%. Stations have to reduce expenses proportionally to remain profitable.

Listeners changed, too. They no longer care to call or visit a station. They mostly don't want old-style DJ chatter.

You seem to want and expect things that practically no listener under 60 wants today. And things which the economy of the industry can't afford, either.

Point of comparison: 40 years ago or so, every business district or strip mall had a TV and radio repair shop. Things changed. They are almost all gone, and nobody needs them. On the station side, there are transmitter sites that we don't need to visit for months on end, not daily or weekly. In Canada, some stations have located to places that have no winter access at all except by helicopter... and they have no need!

All of this does not change the fact that it is OK to have different ideas about how to improve radio. But all I hear is that the current voice-tracked jukebox approach is the only thing that can be done and new ideas are not valid.

Neither of the moderators is going to "kick you off" for having a different perspective. As Kelly said, this is a discussion board, not an agreement board or a mutual admiration society. It appears that even people who have been downsized in radio disagree with you and understand that, without an economic base and profits, there would be no commercial radio at all.

You, sir, are gaslighting me too when you say that I am calling for an "agreement board or a mutual admiration society." I am simply calling for different perspectives - other than corporate owners - such as the employee or the listener. What is so controversial about that?

 

[davideduardo]

But I can't call for different perspectives? And you're accusing me of wanting an "agreement board?"

But you keep beating on subjects that are answered. Your "different perspectives" are either proven not to work or not what listeners in the age ranges that advertisers seek today want to hear.

All of this does not change the fact that it is OK to have different ideas about how to improve radio. But all I hear is that the current voice-tracked jukebox approach is the only thing that can be done and new ideas are not valid.

You have yet to suggest a detailed, affordable "new idea". We have explained in various threads how in the last 70 years there have only been about a dozen or less new formats and a limited variety of variants on them. There are thousands of people in radio today, and lots of them are trying to come up with new ideas every day. Nobody is stopping them except reality.

You, sir, are gaslighting me too when you say that I am calling for an "agreement board or a mutual admiration society." I am simply calling for different perspectives - other than corporate owners - such as the employee or the listener. What is so controversial about that?

Well, for starters, stations research listeners constantly within the limits of today's budgets. Collectively, as an industry, we know a lot about what listeners like and dislike.

At most stations, employees are listened to. Some employers are better at it than others... but then again the store brand cola is not as good as real Coke or Pepsi, either. Station owners are under no obligation to act on employee suggestions, but good management style means they listen and, often, use those moments for training to show staff members why certain ideas are not legal, practical or affordable.

 

[Kelly A]

But I can't call for different perspectives? And you're accusing me of wanting an "agreement board?"

An observation, not an accusation. Two different things.

All of this does not change the fact that it is OK to have different ideas about how to improve radio. But all I hear is that the current voice-tracked jukebox approach is the only thing that can be done and new ideas are not valid.

I've personally been an employee and listener longer than an owner or corporate guy. I can honestly say; I've heard your kind of critique since I worked in Top40 back in the 70's. None of your suggestions are new, nor has proven over the decades to be valid. But sure, you can have an opinion, even if it's not based on facts or historical basis.

You, sir, are gaslighting me too when you say that I am calling for an "agreement board or a mutual admiration society."

That's funny. "You sir" waiting for 'On guard!' or: Prepare to die! Just don't know of many who use that kind of verbiage in modern life.
I was pointing out that just as you have an opinion, if it's not based on modern reality, then someone on the inside will have a response. Chances are, you won't agree. Individual listener's have generally always had a skewed perspective, mainly because they don't get to see how the sausage is made.

I am simply calling for different perspectives - other than corporate owners - such as the employee or the listener. What is so controversial about that?

Call all you want. Expect disagreement or corrections.

 

[ScottBurns]

But you keep beating on subjects that are answered. Your "different perspectives" are either proven not to work or not what listeners in the age ranges that advertisers seek today want to hear.

I have every right to "beat" my subjects. You can be a naysayer all you want. Just because you say it does not work does not mean that I don't have the right to my opinion.

You have yet to suggest a detailed, affordable "new idea". We have explained in various threads how in the last 70 years there have only been about a dozen or less new formats and a limited variety of variants on them. There are thousands of people in radio today, and lots of them are trying to come up with new ideas every day. Nobody is stopping them except reality.

It's not on me to do that, as I am not a radio insider or employee. It's on a dying industry to suggest ways to revive itself. Instead, the industry is doubling and tripling down on strategies that don't work - especially since revenue and listenership is way down. You're the insider, David. Why not suggest something different?

Well, for starters, stations research listeners constantly within the limits of today's budgets. Collectively, as an industry, we know a lot about what listeners like and dislike.

At most stations, employees are listened to. Some employers are better at it than others... but then again the store brand cola is not as good as real Coke or Pepsi, either. Station owners are under no obligation to act on employee suggestions, but good management style means they listen and, often, use those moments for training to show staff members why certain ideas are not legal, practical or affordable.

And clearly, if you know what listeners like, why not try to come up with something within those confines and within budget? Radio is losing listeners. It is bleeding cash. Something else should be tried.

To use your Coke and Pepsi analogy, both companies have introduced new drinks as customer tastes have shifted. What has radio done to evolve?

 

[ScottBurns]

An observation, not an accusation. Two different things.

It is absolutely an accusation, and an inaccurate one at that.

I've personally been an employee and listener longer than an owner or corporate guy. I can honestly say; I've heard your kind of critique since I worked in Top40 back in the 70's. None of your suggestions are new, nor has proven over the decades to be valid. But sure, you can have an opinion, even if it's not based on facts or historical basis.

Thank you.

That's funny. "You sir" waiting for 'On guard!' or: Prepare to die! Just don't know of many who use that kind of verbiage in modern life.

So you have to continue with the personal attacks. Classy.

I was pointing out that just as you have an opinion, if it's not based on modern reality, then someone on the inside will have a response. Chances are, you won't agree. Individual listener's have generally always had a skewed perspective, mainly because they don't get to see how the sausage is made.

Call all you want. Expect disagreement or corrections.

And why can't people just disagree? I am also calling for new ideas to revive an industry that is bleeding money and losing listeners.

 

[frankberry]

Stop this childish behavior. It's gotten very old. Keep beating the same ol' dead horse and you will be suspended.

 

[ScottBurns]

Stop this childish behavior. It's gotten very old. Keep beating the same ol' dead horse and you will be suspended.

In what way am I being childish? I don't engage in personal attacks. I just have a different opinion.

Feel free to suspend me simply because I don't agree with the others?

And childish? I thought that you, sir, were better than the put downs and personal attacks that others on this board use. And because my content - "beating the same ol' dead horse" - will get me suspended, then this really isn't a free and open discussion of ideas.

Good day, sir.

 

[Kelly A]

And why can't people just disagree? I am also calling for new ideas to revive an industry that is bleeding money and losing listeners.

Literally just got off a Teams call, where the head of sales for the company I work for said (to paraphrase): For whatever you've been told; listeners, viewers, and advertisers are all still there. They're just flocking in droves to 'everything-digital'. And by everything digital; translated that means: everything Internet connected. For radio, that's devices like smartphones and smartspeakers.

As David, and many of us have said numerous times: You seem to be going under the assumption that radio hasn't looked at something resembling your suggestion over several decades? Even with literally millions of dollars spent in actual research, not just spit-balling ideas? Seriously? As I mentioned, but you seem to focus on everything else personal and gloss over David's BigA's and my comments; what you're suggesting is nothing new.

If you haven't noticed; few seem to be coming to your rescue on the subject with like-minded thinking.

 

[davideduardo]

I have every right to "beat" my subjects. You can be a naysayer all you want. Just because you say it does not work does not mean that I don't have the right to my opinion.

You can say the things you have been saying over and over. But you are going to get the same reaction from people who are in the business and have lots of experience.

It's not on me to do that, as I am not a radio insider or employee. It's on a dying industry to suggest ways to revive itself.

The issues radio has have to do with two things: the need to run advertising and the fact that radio is one-for-many in a one-for-one world. We can not change either.

Instead, the industry is doubling and tripling down on strategies that don't work - especially since revenue and listenership is way down. You're the insider, David. Why not suggest something different?

I'm working on a system where lower income people get mobile devices that manage their money, even for payments to street vendors and the like. As part of this, the device provides "radio programming" in various formats where the services that use bank-less money transactions are promoted. But that is in a developing nation, and it fits a specific need where 90% of people do not have bank accounts.

Otherwise, stations here are looking for their transitions away from towers and transmitters into forms of new media. There is nothing you can do to satisfy people who want one-to-one services with broadcast radio. So what can be done is make radio as economical to broadcast for those who do like it, and develop talent based national services in the long run.

And clearly, if you know what listeners like, why not try to come up with something within those confines and within budget? Radio is losing listeners. It is bleeding cash. Something else should be tried.

Radio is still profitable on operations. It is not "bleeding cash". Only a few companies that did leveraged buyouts have insurmountable debt service, but they have underlying profitable operations.

Radio still reaches over 85% of all adults, and is a very effective ad medium for advertisers.

Again, what radio is doing is adapting away from the meaningless chatter between and over songs to national or regional talents like Bones, Seacrest and Charlemagne. Eventually, most radio except for local talk and sports will be on broad networks, just like TV. Many radio companies are moving in this direction already.

To use your Coke and Pepsi analogy, both companies have introduced new drinks as customer tastes have shifted. What has radio done to evolve?

Yet original Coke and Pepsi outsell them all, always. My comparison was between those brands and the less-tasty store brands. Just as some radio stations are better than others.

Principally, the evolution in radio is presenting the kinds of music that people want to hear. If you look at playlists, you see that this change is going on constantly.

 

[davideduardo]

In what way am I being childish? I don't engage in personal attacks. I just have a different opinion.

You are engaging in the old "doing it over and over hoping for a different result" and not getting it from any of the people who know, live in and depend on the industry.

Feel free to suspend me simply because I don't agree with the others?

No, because you are beating a dead horse. Your ideas are not realistic and some are just impossibly wrong.

And childish? I thought that you, sir, were better than the put downs and personal attacks that others on this board use. And because my content - "beating the same ol' dead horse" - will get me suspended, then this really isn't a free and open discussion of ideas.

When you bring up the same exhausted points or subjects over and over, that is not a discussion. It is just being a pest.

Good day, sir.

And the same to you.

 

[Kelly A]

What has radio done to evolve?

Automate, reduce yakking DJ's, and eliminate receptionists. Sorry, couldn't resist..

 

[davideduardo]

Automate, reduce yakking DJ's, and eliminate receptionists. Sorry, couldn't resist..

And respond, in each format, to the most liked music without the junk.