• 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

Is an all news format an option?

J

johnnyrichards

Here's a stupid question: why doesn't Darryl turn 1360 into all news? He could run CNN/Fox/ABC feeds and have local news headlines on the "eights". I know there aren't many real all news stations left - but I like listening to WBBM and WTOP .

The pacing on NPR and WVXU is too slow for my taste, I guess that is what I find so appealing about WBBM and WTOP.

'BBM is a powerhouse but without searching on Radio Locator I never would have found 'TOP, in fact I can hear it only over the 'net.

OK, there is more than one question, really:
1. Is all news a viable format?
2. Can it be done profitably?
3. Can it be done profitably on 1360's stick?
 
How about broadcasting a local television feed? Or selected TV feeds of primarily vocal tv shows. Doesn't even necessarily have to be live.

I always wondered why car radios were never equipped with TV Band reception. Theres many times I would listen. I have a TV band on my clock radio and it gets used quite a bit.
 
Don't you dare mess with WVXU! :mad:

I think its schedule is great and a very nice reprive from the insanity of syndicated talk radio. Its BBC during the overnight is something irreplacable by the domestic radio production mills.
 
All-News is obviously successful in major markets. About the only thought I would have is that news, in
general, is expensive. You simply can't do it on the cheap. Excessive reliance on network feeds and
TV news rehashes just don't cut it.

It would require a strong local news presence from a news staff with the backing to actually unearth stories,
do live "on scene" coverage and be able to put a local spin on late breaking national events. Sure, network
can be used...but the perception of the public would have to be that it's all news...all the time...live and when you need it. Oh yeah. Then it would have to be on a signal that matters. A 1 KW day with a crappy
night signal...or a rimshot FM that doesn't cover the metro wouldn't be able to pull it off.

It could be done, though I just doubt many of today's publically held companies would spend the money to do it...but, who knows?
 
KevinFodor said:
All-News is obviously successful in major markets.It would require a strong local news presence from a news staff with the backing to actually unearth stories,
do live "on scene" coverage and be able to put a local spin on late breaking national events.
Click to expand...

I'm with KF, I'd love to see it, but All-News would have to have a heavy local componant to be successful. Is there enough local news coming out of City Hall to warrent all-news. Doubtful, but with the myriad dysfunctional local govt entities (city, county, port authority), racial unrest in Cincinnati, and countless school levy elections, it would be interesting to follow...:)
 
Having once been a Cincinnati Radio News Director, I can tell you that you hit the nail on the head
calling city hall "dysfunctional"! That word, though really understates it, but I can't think of a better one,
so "dysfunctional" will stand.
 
I would think 100% news would probably become not only boring, but expensive. You would think it would have to be interspersed with, basically, someone just talking.... but talking live and local. This is probably how talk radio developed. Unless there was a constant supply of 'new' news, it would become ridiculous to keep repeating the same stories over and over.

Actually, simply having a real local person talking live and inserting 'commentary' would seem to serve nearly as well as hard news, considering the overwhelming % of syndicated talk programs pushing away any sources of live local information.
 
Not exactly.

The reason news would become "boring" is if a station did it the way you say...one anchor droaning on reading AP copy.

It becomes "interesting" when you add "live shots" of developing local news, team coverage with many different voices, good production value, up to the minute traffic, etc. Remember, just because it's "news"
or "talk" doesn't mean production values don't count. It's more important than one would think.

But, you are right on one thing. It is expensive to do. That's why so far, you really only see these types of stations in markets such as New York, L.A. and Chicago.
 
I grew up near NYC and had two news stations available around the clock.

WINS ran a 22-minute cycle. That's because some yuppie research outfit figured out that the average American attention span is 22 minutes. So WINS fit it all into that time frame. When there was a lot going on, it could get rapid-fire. They always made it move along. The point is, you only need that much material.

WCBS ran more to an hourly structure with sports, financial news, and so on at certain times, the hour beginning with CBS network news. I preferred that format as once you were familiar with it you could pop the radio on when what you were interested in would be coming up. Again, with the right structure, you could go a long way with little material on a "slow" day.

Done right, it will be intensive and expensive for sure. WLW has a strong, professional news department. It's one of the things about that cluster that most impressed me. I think they could pull it off. However, the format had better be in place and rolling from day one. Also, there must not be any perceivable slant whatsoever or all credibility will fly out the window. Do not sloganeer, do not offer opinions. Talk shows are the place for those. Above all, get your facts as straight as you can and report the entire story - don't cherry-pick. The WLW news department understands all of this. So does Darryl Parks. Think about why WLW does not carry Fox "News".

Anyway. I think Cincinnati is big enough for a well-done news format to work.

Given the present tight-fisted climate in broadcasting, however, I don't think anyone around here will try it.
 
Though certainly not necessarily the case in the largest markets (where commute times can be longer),
it's also true in many cities, 22 minutes is the average audience "turnaround" time, necessitating that
all necessary stories be heard within that 22 minute "window".
 
A pure all news format is extremely expensive. It requires a huge staff plus expensive infrastructure (fancy equipment, vehicles, etc). But the big problem is the sheer number of employees required to pull it off successfully. There is not enough radio revenue to support it in a market as small as Cincinnati.
 
How so? Add a couple of stringers to 700's news operation and NewsTalk1360 is on the air.
 
The news staff at WLW already have jobs. They are not sitting around looking for an entire radio station to run on the side.

There are ten (10) full-time all-news stations in America. They are in markets 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 14.

Their websites all list personnel. KOMO in Seattle, the newest and smallest of the group, lists 24 on-air personalities. KNX in LA lists 57 on-air. All the others include various off-air news/info people, and they each claim between 46 and 91 people.

The worst signal in the bunch is 5000 watts at 980 non-directional for KFWB. One other is a high power FM in DC with a 4500 watt AM repeater in a neighboring city. Every one of the eight other stations has 50kW Am at 1070 or lower on the AM dial. (Lower frequencies reach MUCH further than higher.)

Not a one of these stations cracks a 6.5 share, and the median is around 4. That's great in a big market, but in Cincinnati, with fewer stations competing, it just puts you in the range of the average full-power FM station, but with much higher expenses.

All but two of these stations are owned by CBS. Clear Chanel has no experience running the format.

I kow of two part-time all-news stations, those with more than 50% news: WBZ in Boston, all-news until 8pm with an on-air staff of 26, and KQV, Pittsburgh, which claims to be all news but runs talks shows and radio nostalgia shows after 7:30pm. They do have a local staff but they don't say how big it is. They don't share with another station.

KQV is the most similar signal to WSAI. They have a 5kW 1410. They are literally owned or partly owned by an eccentric millionaire. They are professional on air, but recently they have lower ratings than progressive talk got on WSAI. From how the station sounded, Clear Channel didn't think WSAI was worth having even one full-time programming employee, so it's hard to imagine they would hire a bunch of them in order to run the risk of getting even lower ratings than they had.

On top of all this, if all-news went on 1360, the biggest source of any audience would be listeners stolen from WLW.

All-news could happen here in the future. Stations might learn to use automation well to fill more hours with less staff, and non-broadcast competition (ipods etc) could start wiping out FM music stations, intensifying competition in non-music formats. But anything like that is a long way off.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom