Is live & local radio dead?

[AMRadioGuy]

Charlemagne is vastly more influential than Casey. He is important to the music world because he is the most listened to African American in the audio medium. But going way beyond that, he is a very significant sociopolitical voice in many areas, enough so that I believe his opinion can influence elections and general perceptions among Blacks.

Yet they likely have many more listeners in their weekday shows than Casey had early Sunday morning or late that night.

Yet Seacrest is now a video star, and Steve is nowhere near as significant in audio as Charlemagne

I'm not sure, David. Charlemagne might be popular in the black community but that's a subset of the population. If every African American in the US followed him, that's only 15% of Americans, give or take.

Do you think Charlemagne's current shows will go into syndication 50+ years on, or still be listened to at that point as has happened to AT40? 50 years on and Casey is still airing weekly on my closest city's #1 station. Yes on Sunday mornings but he died over 10 years ago and he's still got a regular timeslot on my market's #1 station...

Casey was retired by the time I started tuning in radio stations yet his shows were very influential on me. My parents both tuned him in when they were teenagers pretty much every week. Most people I know who were teens in the 70s or 80s tuned Casey in.

Steve Harvey is primarily known as a game show host, I'd say.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Times change. I know people who could once make a living bagging groceries or working as a bank teller. There are entire businesses that have disappeared such as brick & mortar record stores. Times change. It leaves old people talking about how things used to be. Radio is part of that. You either change with it, or find something else to do. You chose the latter.

Yes, times do indeed change. And yes, I've moved on to a different line of work. No, radio is not going back to what it once was. I "talk about how things used to be" in part because it's more fun to talk about throwing a bunch of bumper stickers and t-shirts into the station vehicle and surprising listeners on a street corner (in a hot zip) than it is talking about "that one time I managed to track an entire weekend shift in under 15 minutes." It's more fun to talk about that time I had to spend hours trying not to laugh at a client that insisted they produce their own (terrible) jingle than it is to talk about batch file converting old Casey Kasem shows into Wide Orbit.


Someone up the thread said that live and local radio might not be dead, but it is on life support. My contention is that "radio" (and I know you hate the generalization) is also rapidly approaching the point where the doctors and nurses ask the family "does your grandmother have a DNR?"

I wish it were otherwise, but it's out of my hands. Yes I chose to find something else to do that isn't as fun as radio used to be, but it is rewarding in other ways. It also gives me a perspective that I might have missed if I stayed inside the radio bubble. I work with people half my age who are brilliant, dedicated, and think about things differently than this "old guy" does. When Drake's new albums dropped, it was a hotly debated topic at work. The Drake fan on my team was like "yo, this shit is fire, bro" while the Kendrick fan was like "this stuff is ass." I'm in the latter camp, but nobody was asking "what radio station is it on?" Nobody was waiting through 10 minutes of spots, promos, and "added value" to get to the next track, and nobody cared about what the on-air jock was saying about the music, because there wasn't one.

 

[TheBigA]

it's more fun to talk about throwing a bunch of bumper stickers and t-shirts into the station vehicle and surprising listeners on a street corner (in a hot zip)

If you had the opportunity to speak with people who were in radio in the 1930s, they'd tell you that you don't know what fun is. Imagine doing radio drama that was so realistic, the entire country thought it was being taken over by men from Mars. That was real fun.

Nobody was waiting through 10 minutes of spots, promos, and "added value" to get to the next track, and nobody cared about what the on-air jock was saying about the music, because there wasn't one.

Radio isn't in the music business. The music business changed in 1988, when the major labels were sold to international conglomerates. They're way bigger than local radio stations. They used to send their artists to radio stations to promote their music. Not anymore. They changed, and radio stayed the same. Big mistake. Now radio is changing, and everyone is wringing their hands as though it's a national catastrophe. Radio needs to find the next big thing, just as it did many times before. Hanging on to the past is only good if you're a museum. The future won't be like the past.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Radio needs to find the next big thing, just as it did many times before.

And that "next big thing" is...?

I'll admit it's been a minute since I tuned into a terrestrial commercial radio station, but I'd love to hear about this mind-boggling "next big thing" y'all have come up with.

 

[TheBigA]

And that "next big thing" is...?

I'll tell you when it happens.

I'd love to hear about this mind-boggling "next big thing" y'all have come up with.

It hasn't happened yet. That's what makes it the next big thing. Nobody knew about streaming radio and Spotify until it happened.

It was a long process from 1988 to Sirius to Limewire to Spotify. Where we are now didn't just happen yesterday.

 

[davideduardo]

If you had the opportunity to speak with people who were in radio in the 1930s, they'd tell you that you don't know what fun is. Imagine doing radio drama that was so realistic, the entire country thought it was being taken over by men from Mars. That was real fun.

Real fun? Most people were scared to death. The show was horribly presented as anyone tuning in late did not realize it was a dramatization.

Idiots at Radio Quito in Ecuador did the same mistake. Local citizens were so upset, they burnt down the building where the station and "El Comercio" newspaper were located, killing a number of people.

And, not getting the point, WKAQ in San Juan did the same thing to the same results in Puerto Rico.

Radio isn't in the music business. The music business changed in 1988, when the major labels were sold to international conglomerates. They're way bigger than local radio stations. They used to send their artists to radio stations to promote their music. Not anymore.

In my experience at American radio stations in the 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's, we were constantly having to convince labels not to send artists on station visits as so many of them were great performers but horrible guest for a radio show.

Of course, as far back as the 70's at a number of stations I had signs in the studios saying "Unless Jesus returns and visits us, we don't interview anyone":

They changed, and radio stayed the same. Big mistake. Now radio is changing, and everyone is wringing their hands as though it's a national catastrophe. Radio needs to find the next big thing, just as it did many times before. Hanging on to the past is only good if you're a museum. The future won't be like the past.

One-to-many is the only system radio has. It is not on demand. Each station has one channel.

The change in radio has nothing to do with who owns the record companies. It has to do with new technology for the delivery of content to consumers.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I'll tell you when it happens.

It hasn't happened yet. That's what makes it the next big thing.

Well there's the rub. The "next big thing" doesn't just happen. One of the big questions in my line of work right now is "how does this scale?" We've convinced a few "early adopters" to buy into the product, but what happens when it really takes off? What challenges will we face when we go from a handful of customers who think "this is cool" to the point where massive numbers of people not only expect the product to exist, but expect it to be almost second nature? Who will be on the teams we'll eventually need to deal with problems? What systems will we need to have in place when that happens? More importantly, what does the budget for that look like? How long until this is profitable?

Throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know, but I'll let you know when it happens" is not an acceptable answer.

 

[TheBigA]

Real fun? Most people were scared to death.

It was fun for the people involved. Radio was exciting new technology back then. The big technology companies of the day owned radio stations. Westinghouse, RCA, and GE were movers & shakers. Today the technology companies own streaming services, not broadcasting.

One-to-many is the only system radio has. It is not on demand. Each station has one channel.

Only if the companies restrict themselves to broadcasting. There is no law that requires them to. iHeart and Audacy also own streaming platforms.

The change in radio has nothing to do with who owns the record companies.

It is if you consider your programming to be playing recorded music. That's the mistake here. People want radio stations to be free music distribution services. That's not practical. And the record labels hate that concept. They want to impose a new royalty to prevent it from happening.

 

[TheBigA]

Throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know, but I'll let you know when it happens" is not an acceptable answer.

Personally I've put my money in technology. Not broadcasting. When David Ellison offered me money for my old Viacom stock, I took it. That's what I'm doing. I'm not throwing up my hands.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Personally I've put my money in technology.

And personally, I work in the tech sector. I'm...invested, if you will. I do miss "the good old days" of radio, but I stopped clinging to the past awhile back.

 

[landtuna]

The change in radio has nothing to do with who owns the record companies. It has to do with new technology for the delivery of content to consumers.

When the content is crap it doesn't matter what the delivery technology is.

 

[davideduardo]

When the content is crap it doesn't matter what the delivery technology is.

To you, who are way, way, way outside of the target advertisers… and thus stations… want to reach, of course lithe content will be less likable. Nobodyis designing radio formats for people in their late 60’s and beyond.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

To you, who are way, way, way outside of the target advertisers… and thus stations… want to reach, of course lithe content will be less likable. Nobodyis designing radio formats for people in their late 60’s and beyond.

Well of course stations aren't going after the "in their late 60's and beyond" audience. I passed from my "late 50's" a year ago myself, and am under no illusion that I'm in the "target audience" for anything other than "Silver Singles" dating sites and potential "retirement communities." But what - exactly - is radio doing to attract that early 20's Drake fan I mentioned above, or the late 20's fan of Kendrick who turned me onto the (now a decade old) album "To Pimp a Butterfly?"

Of course "the kids today" aren't going to be wowed by bumper sticker campaigns or "ten songs in a row" the "wacky morning show with funny parody songs" but while Mr. Tuna may be in his "late 60's and beyond," what's your age and why does it make you an expert on what a 20-something considers compelling content? From what I've been able to gather, you're not exactly a spring chicken, and from where I sit I'm not seeing radio companies (at least domestically) stampeding to attract the 18-24 demo.

More to the point, what does "radio" offer that can't be served better elsewhere? The company I work for doesn't advertise on radio. The merchants we work with don't advertise on radio. There is no "radio outreach" division of the company. It's not even on their radar. What is "the radio industry" (writ large) doing to change this? Because I'm not seeing it...or hearing it.

 

[Kent]

When the content is crap it doesn't matter what the delivery technology is.

If you graduated high school in 1962, you were likely born in 1943 or 44. What’s currently on the radio isn’t aimed at you, and you’re not necessarily supposed to like it.

My experience has always been that most radio station owners really do want what the rest of us want. They would love to have a live and local staff 24/7, and they really wish they had better options to monetize an audience like your age group, especially with people who grew up with radio being the ones who still use it most. Maybe that has changed with private equity being more heavily involved, but, even Clear Channel under Lowry, Mark, and Randall Mays, seemed to prefer a decentralized operating structure until they pursued a larger business model that required getting money out of previously unprofitable properties.

 

[davideduardo]

But what - exactly - is radio doing to attract that early 20's Drake fan I mentioned above, or the late 20's fan of Kendrick who turned me onto the (now a decade old) album "To Pimp a Butterfly?"

Nothing much. It is obvious that the youngest demos will not listen to ad supported radio for music. There are opportunities with some of the syndicated morning shows, but that does not really work the rest of the day.

Of course "the kids today" aren't going to be wowed by bumper sticker campaigns or "ten songs in a row" the "wacky morning show with funny parody songs" but while Mr. Tuna may be in his "late 60's and beyond," what's your age and why does it make you an expert on what a 20-something considers compelling content?

I do whatever a target group of listeners tells me to do. It is called "research".

A good example would be an FM I was given to program some years back. It is in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the second largest metro area in our hemisphere. I had never lived the, but had visited many times going back to the mid-60's.

Research told us the best format (audience size and income level) was 100% locally produced Argentine rock. I knew nothing about that. But we did the deepest music test I've ever been involved with. We debuted with less than a month on the air #1 with an 18 share, and got to over a 20 share the next month. In "average persons" that meant the most listened to station in the Western Hemisphere.

From what I've been able to gather, you're not exactly a spring chicken,

And the station this non-spring-chicken programmed is still in the top 4 or 5 26 years later. I asked listeners what they wanted and gave it to them.

and from where I sit I'm not seeing radio companies (at least domestically) stampeding to attract the 18-24 demo.

Very smart. Stations can move content to streams and even create podcasts out of their OTA content. Or they can take the money as long as it continues to arrive and sustain the existing format with minor adjustments.

More to the point, what does "radio" offer that can't be served better elsewhere?

There are some issues like station personalities, live mixes done in real time, contests, and even old stuff like weather and traffic. Surprise, but some folks like news, weather, scores, songs, an entertaining host and such all in one place. That is why nearly 90% of adults use radio at least a little bit each week.

Will it last forever? No. But while it makes money, we are not going to leave it on the table. Remember, radio's issue is old debt, not operational losses. Radio generally has profits on operations. It is that consolidation era debt that is the killer, not programming.

The company I work for doesn't advertise on radio. The merchants we work with don't advertise on radio. There is no "radio outreach" division of the company. It's not even on their radar. What is "the radio industry" (writ large) doing to change this? Because I'm not seeing it.

That has always been the case since radio "died" when TV came on the scene... over 70 years ago. But enough advertisers do find radio to have the best reach and efficient costs... enough so to dedicate part of their budget to the medium.

 

[TheBigA]

More to the point, what does "radio" offer that can't be served better elsewhere?

It's not a one-thing-or-the-other situation anymore. People use everything. They don't use media like a silo. Their phone gives them access to everything, including local radio.

The advantages of radio are it's free, easy, and accessible. That's about it. Combine it with other options. Radio doesn't program for 24/7 listeners. It programs to people who listen in short bursts. That's how people use radio. They no longer "turn it on and rip the knob off." Unless they;re retired.

 

[ted chittenden]

Well of course stations aren't going after the "in their late 60's and beyond" audience. I passed from my "late 50's" a year ago myself, and am under no illusion that I'm in the "target audience" for anything other than "Silver Singles" dating sites and potential "retirement communities." But what - exactly - is radio doing to attract that early 20's Drake fan I mentioned above, or the late 20's fan of Kendrick who turned me onto the (now a decade old) album "To Pimp a Butterfly?"

Of course "the kids today" aren't going to be wowed by bumper sticker campaigns or "ten songs in a row" the "wacky morning show with funny parody songs" but while Mr. Tuna may be in his "late 60's and beyond," what's your age and why does it make you an expert on what a 20-something considers compelling content? From what I've been able to gather, you're not exactly a spring chicken, and from where I sit I'm not seeing radio companies (at least domestically) stampeding to attract the 18-24 demo.

More to the point, what does "radio" offer that can't be served better elsewhere? The company I work for doesn't advertise on radio. The merchants we work with don't advertise on radio. There is no "radio outreach" division of the company. It's not even on their radar. What is "the radio industry" (writ large) doing to change this? Because I'm not seeing it...or hearing it.

The biggest problem for commercial radio these days (and here I'll agree with you) is that it's chasing after an audience that doesn't want it. While baby boomers and Generation Xers used radio as their primary source for hearing music, the same reality is not shared by either Generation Z or by millenials. Radio could solve this problem in the short term by programming to those people who will listen but as the generations pass away, it will continue to lose listeners. Furthermore, advertisers are putting more money into the Internet because 1) that's where their target audience is; and 2) they can more easily reach their target audiences because Internet listening is so spread out between stations, and radio cannot compete on those terms.

 

[TheBigA]

The biggest problem for commercial radio these days (and here I'll agree with you) is that it's chasing after an audience that doesn't want it.

I don't see it that way. When I look at the top radio stations in most cities, a lot of them have the word "classic" in them. That means they're playing older music, usually to the exclusion of anything current. Then you have news, talk, and sports, all of which appeal to older people.

So where are the stations chasing the audience that don't want it? To me, that audience is almost completely ignored.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Will it last forever? No. But while it makes money, we are not going to leave it on the table.

Something something turnip. Something something sqeezing juice...

 

[TheBigA]

Something something turnip. Something something sqeezing juice...

I feel like I say this a lot, but radio companies are merely licensees. They don't really own broadcast radio. We're all just renters. We'll use the frequency as long as it works. Then move on to something else. The big companies are all building the next phase. It's right there in front of you.

Same with the TV companies. I really expect one of the big 3 networks to get sold in the next two years, and get out of the broadcasting business.

Consumers need to be concerned about the future of free media. What happens when the only places to get what you want require a subscription?