Is live & local radio dead?

[Kent]

What ever happened to the idea that you have to spend money to make money in all your business endeavors?

Broadcasters ARE spending money. They're just not spending the bulk of it on studios and transmitters. If you look at where they're hiring and who escapes the cuts, it's the digital side. We can debate the wisdom of that, but the big broadcasting companies do invest in their product. Also, if you want a job in a smaller market, Connoisseur has been hiring in the former Alpha markets that had been cut with a machete two years ago. Granted, that hiring has been at somewhat small levels, but not everybody is in pure cutting mode. The days when small market stations could sustain two dozen employees are over, if they ever existed in the first place.

Wasn't there a time when a major LA station was sold for 500 million? Whats that station worth today?

I don't remember one going for $500 million, but one did sell for $400 million not quite 25 years ago (100.3). Seems like Radio One offloaded it for about $150 million a few years later ($100 million cash plus 104.1 in Washington, DC). After Entercom got it (trading some Denver properties to Bonneville) and sold it as part of the CBS Radio deal, it went for about $55 million. That was 2017; not sure what it would be worth today, but I doubt it would fetch that going to a commercial operator today.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Are their any independent local stations anymore?

Going down nostalgia lane and long for growing up in the 90s and seeing the "mid day matinee"or the late night movie with a block called "up all night" ...does anyone know of any local TV stations who are stuck in this time period? If so can you tell me of some?

radiodiscussions.com

Here is something similar but on the TV side. This is like the very issues we are talking about on radio. But in this one its about "independent" TV stations notable for airing movies at primetime to compete with the network affiliates thats fading given the current business model today with on demand content. If there are independent TV stations in the US today its usually because its an extension for the main affiliate and in some cases rebroadcasting FAST channels on ones I seen.

 

[Alan Smithee]

The question you should ask is why do you need live & local people to introduce music that's not live & local. If the music is the main content, and it's not local, how is it improved by having someone from Sacramento telling you who the performer is?

It's improved by giving you that live connection, something most internet stations and certainly Spotify can't do. A good personality can keep people listening even if they don't like the music being played. I certainly don't understand why station owners can't see this- that could be their main advantage over anything on the internet if they went with it. If something odd happens with the weather for example, they can comment on that right away. With a voice-tracked station, the whole city could be burning down but the station would have a recording of someone pretending to be live saying that everything is fine. The person on the air has to actually know and like the music though, it's one thing to fake enthusiasm for something they really don't want to play and another to enthusiastically share something with the audience that they think is great.

I've heard lots of on-air promos telling people that they can listen to a company's stations online- I'd love to ask them: If I have internet access, I can get FAR better music than your tightly-formatted corporate stations, with fewer or no commercials- and you aren't even live anymore, so why on earth would I listen to YOU given the choice?

Back in the 80s, I remember the only automated stations were low-budget affairs or it was used temporarily as a station changed formats. They always sounded dead and lifeless. I kind of feel the same way about most internet stations, but at least there the music is far better so I can at least enjoy that- and in many cases they really ARE small operations that could never put together a real studio or pay someone to be there 24/7.

 

[TheBigA]

It's improved by giving you that live connection, something most internet stations and certainly Spotify can't do. A good personality can keep people listening even if they don't like the music being played.

I've asked that question here many times: Will a good live & local personality get you to sit through music you don't like, and the answer I always get is no. Would you sit through music in Spanish because the station has an entertaining local host? Would you sit through loud rap music hosted by a creative local mixer?

There are lots of live & local stations in Sacramento. I pointed that out to the OP early in this thread, and he said he wouldn't listen just because of the host. So you're making a statement that is factually incorrect, demonstrated right in this thread.

I've heard lots of on-air promos telling people that they can listen to a company's stations online- I'd love to ask them: If I have internet access, I can get FAR better music than your tightly-formatted corporate stations, with fewer or no commercials- and you aren't even live anymore, so why on earth would I listen to YOU given the choice?

The problem is that most people under the age of 50 don't own traditional radios. The numbers get worse the younger you get. They mainly listen in their car. So the message is meant to tell people that they don't need to buy a radio in order to listen to the music for free and without a subscription.

Once again, there are lots of stations in Sacramento with live & local talent. Dial around and you'll hear them. You may also hear some music you've never heard before. Tell me how long you'll stay with a station that plays music you don't know because of the live & local talent.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Broadcasters ARE spending money. They're just not spending the bulk of it on studios and transmitters. If you look at where they're hiring and who escapes the cuts, it's the digital side. We can debate the wisdom of that, but the big broadcasting companies do invest in their product.

But is it too little, too late? I'm reminded of a night - I think it was a bit before the 2008 financial crisis - where me and a few other people were having dinner after work at a restaurant down the street. The Digital Sales Manager was there, and he really was a "department of one," and was expressing frustration that he wasn't getting much support, and didn't have much of a budget. I was of the opinion that not only did he need more support, but more needed to be spent on the digital side of things. Maybe even a digital program director of sorts? But management (except the lonely DSM) looked at "online" as an afterthought.

Fast forward another 10 years, and we finally did get a "Digital Program Director." He was the APD/MD for one of our stations that also tracked a show on another one and drove Uber on the weekends to make extra money. His first challenge? The previous guy doing all the digital content for the cluster had been laid off, and had taken all of his equipment (cameras, lights, etc.) with him...so we were stuck with an already overworked guy who had nothing to work with.

Not long after, he (and the one guy left in the building who could create good digital content) didn't "escape the cuts." I don't know who took over, because by that time I was gone, too. Then COVID hit.

Anyway, while "broadcasters ARE spending money" on the digital side now, it was delayed far too long. Not only that, but the companies that broadcasters now have to compete with (Spotify, etc.) have been throwing absurd amounts of money to build their platforms and attract talent. A quick search on Alta Vista* says that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth a quarter of a billion (with a B) dollars. Does any broadcast company spend that kind of money on talent?

* (did anyone get that reference?)

 

[kwthom]

* (did anyone get that reference?)

Nobody under 60 years old, I'd bet.

 

[TheBigA]

Does any broadcast company spend that kind of money on talent?

Talent fees are generally based on results. They're not the same as receiving a salary plus benefits. So if you host a podcast that has hundreds of millions of viewers, you get a percentage of the money it generates. The money varies based on the views.

Investment is about taking a risk. Ten years ago, a digital sales person was taking a risk. If things worked out, he could make a lot of money. If it took too much time, then he didn't. Most employees don't like taking risks. It's hard to raise a family that way. It's better to get the sure thing, the guaranteed money. But sometimes taking a risk can lead to more money.

Are broadcast companies spending money on talent? Apparently Don Bongino signed a lucrative deal with Cumulus for his podcast. There are similar stories at iHeart and Sirius. Yes, you have to spend money to make money, and podcasters who have a proven track record can make good money. But they also have to deliver, and the companies can see very clearly how many views a podcast gets. The question is are you willing to take a risk for a potential reward? Or do you want the sure thing?

 

[Kent]

But is it too little, too late?

Like I said, the wisdom of how broadcasters are spending their money is something we can debate all day long. Deciding the bus has already left the station and that you can't catch up, however, is a clear path to failure.

I'm reminded of a night - I think it was a bit before the 2008 financial crisis - where me and a few other people were having dinner after work at a restaurant down the street. The Digital Sales Manager was there, and he really was a "department of one," and was expressing frustration that he wasn't getting much support, and didn't have much of a budget. I was of the opinion that not only did he need more support, but more needed to be spent on the digital side of things. Maybe even a digital program director of sorts? But management (except the lonely DSM) looked at "online" as an afterthought.

Around the same time, iHeartRadio was a single row of cubicles in Clear Channel's New York office. You could count the number of employees on one hand.

Not long after, he (and the one guy left in the building who could create good digital content) didn't "escape the cuts." I don't know who took over, because by that time I was gone, too. Then COVID hit.

A friend and former competitor of mine took a big market job with Entercom about 15 years ago. She eventually got moved to the digital side, and, for a long time, that was the only side that seemed to remain the same, or even grow, after round-after-round of corporate cuts. She ultimately got laid off two or three years ago. Digital, though, still seems to get most of the investment and experience fewer cuts.

Anyway, while "broadcasters ARE spending money" on the digital side now, it was delayed far too long. Not only that, but the companies that broadcasters now have to compete with (Spotify, etc.) have been throwing absurd amounts of money to build their platforms and attract talent. A quick search on Alta Vista* says that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth a quarter of a billion (with a B) dollars. Does any broadcast company spend that kind of money on talent?

Of course, no broadcasting company spends that kind of money on talent. Spotify is funded largely by venture capital. Broadcasters don't have access to that. I'll admit I don't follow the industry like I once did and that this could've changed since I last saw the numbers, but, at least in the US, Spotify hasn't turned a profit and wasn't on track to make money anytime soon.

* (did anyone get that reference?)

I remember AltaVista, though not well.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Talent fees are generally based on results. They're not the same as receiving a salary plus benefits. So if you host a podcast that has hundreds of millions of viewers, you get a percentage of the money it generates. The money varies based on the views.

Investment is about taking a risk. Ten years ago, a digital sales person was taking a risk. If things worked out, he could make a lot of money. If it took too much time, then he didn't. Most employees don't like taking risks. It's hard to raise a family that way. It's better to get the sure thing, the guaranteed money. But sometimes taking a risk can lead to more money.

Are broadcast companies spending money on talent? Apparently Don Bongino signed a lucrative deal with Cumulus for his podcast. There are similar stories at iHeart and Sirius. Yes, you have to spend money to make money, and podcasters who have a proven track record can make good money. But they also have to deliver, and the companies can see very clearly how many views a podcast gets. The question is are you willing to take a risk for a potential reward? Or do you want the sure thing?

It’s gotta be a 50% for risk/reward and 50% for the sure thing the way broadcasting approaches it. Yes each time when risk/reward is done the results varies by project and company.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Of course, no broadcasting company spends that kind of money on talent. Spotify is funded largely by venture capital. Broadcasters don't have access to that.

That's the challenge, isn't it? Venture capital is going to go after that "next big thing" rather than invest a bunch of money in a 20th Century technology.

Broadcast radio companies are throwing what money they can into the digital side of things, but with some of them teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, they can't afford to compete with that sort of investment. The time to throw money at it was closer to when "iHeartRadio was a single row of cubicles in Clear Channel's New York office." There were (IIRC) a few people at Entercom (now Audacy) who grasped the nature of the problem, but then they saddled themselves with a billion dollars of debt and that seriously hampered their ability to spend on long term goals.

Investment was limited to "what can we afford now that will get us the most bang for our buck in the short term?" That's not enough to go up against venture capital/tech bros who - you might be surprised to learn - think a bit more long term.

In my current job (at a small R&D division of a tech company that's now quite profitable) the product we're working on has been in development for 7 years. It was finally introduced to the public just 7 months ago. Will it become profitable eventually? The company seems to think that it will be once it scales up. But they're not "hoping" it scales...there's a bunch of smart people (smarter than me) who have a strategic plan to make that happen.

I don't see that kind of long-term thinking happening in the broadcast radio space.

 

[K108 Sacramento]

Classic rock now has more recent music. Typically no Doors or Hendrix. But there are also people your age who are looking for current music. For them, typically, they prefer AAA or Americana. People in your area might stream KPIG or something similar.

Commercial music stations are aiming at people about 20 years younger than you. That's why you can't find what you want. There may be non-com stations that have music for you.



Unfortunately, most of them have either passed away or retired.

Most of them are very gone indeed a lot of great memories from them all.

 

[K108 Sacramento]

Did you read what I wrote in Post #2? I identified a number of live & local radio stations in Sacramento. That's what this group is about.

I know you live in Phoenix, and there are lots of live & local stations there too.



That's your view. You're welcome to it. My view is people want cheaper when it comes to music. That's why they listen. They have other options but they require a subscription. How many people would PAY for live & local if they had the option? So radio gives them the music they want for free. For now. At some point the foreign companies that own the music will require broadcasters to pay, and that will end free music.

Free music???? Thats a good one. My subscription to XM Satellite then SiriusXM has been going on from 2005 to now. Broadcast radio is nearly obsolete with the exception of in car listening. YouTube music is all most folks need to hear anything they want from any era of music history. New music is for others not for me and that's okay. Self publishing should be the next big thing for artists. Why they summit to the idea of getting permission from some foreign music publishing company to sell their music is crazy, with today's technology.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Free music???? Thats a good one. My subscription to XM Satellite then SiriusXM has been going on from 2005 to now. Broadcast radio is nearly obsolete with the exception of in car listening. YouTube music is all most folks need to hear anything they want from any era of music history. New music is for others not for me and that's okay.

I've been thinking of ditching my satellite subscription and sticking with just Spotify, because the latter is slightly cheaper, and I can listen to what I want, when I want. Curate my own playlists rather than waiting for my favorite song to pop up on a channel. It suggests playlists and "stations" based on my listening, but at the end of the day I have control of what entertains me on my commute. I do enjoy discovering new (or at least newer) music, and lately I've been listening to a lot of Lord Huron.

Anyway, people WILL pay for music, if the "free" option is something they don't control and have to suffer through unskippable ad breaks, contest promos, and "added value" or barter spots before the music starts up again. If "free" music was truly competitive, then streaming services would have to fight for every single listener if they were able to survive at all. Now, would people PAY for live & local if they had the option? I dunno...maybe?

On many videos on YouTube, you hear some combination of the words "like, ring the notification bell, and subscribe." Many channels promote their Patreon, sell merchandise, and offer member perks. While it is not "live and local," there are plenty of channels that exist because people PAY to support the content. Yes, YouTube runs ads, but the cut of that revenue is akin to what music artists get from streaming services...pennies on the dollar if that, but it is also true that if the content/music is compelling enough, people will indeed pay for it.

 

[TheBigA]

Self publishing should be the next big thing for artists. Why they summit to the idea of getting permission from some foreign music publishing company to sell their music is crazy, with today's technology.

Lots of people self publish. But they find out they need other partners to get their music heard. This is where you need a lawyer. There are two copyrights in music: The "P" for publishing the composition, and the "C" for the recording. When I was talking about the foreign companies, those are the recording companies. They own the copyright to the recorded file.

Why do you need a label? It takes money to get people to HEAR your music. You can place your recording on Spotify by yourself. But you need to get people to find your needle in the haystack. That's what a label does. They invest in your music, spend the money to put your music in front of people, and get lots of people to listen. The technology isn't the problem. It still comes down to the fact that music taste is subjective. It takes money to make things happen.

The topic of this thread is "Is Live & Local Radio Dead?" At one time, radio stations were part of the marketing push that record labels used to introduce music. Some still do, depending on the format. However, using local radio is expensive and inefficient. There are thousands of radio stations, and you need to visit all of them personally if you want to make an impression. Another way is contact iHeart and take part in their new music program. They will guarantee that your new song will get heard on all of their stations in your particular format. From the artist & label perspective, it's a lot more efficient. But it removes the local input from the process. Does that matter? If you're an artist who wants to be heard, the answer is no. Sirius. Spotify, and Amazon all have similar things. So the question the recoring industry is asking is why do we need live & local radio?

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Lots of people self publish. But they find out they need other partners to get their music heard. This is where you need a lawyer. There are two copyrights in music: The "P" for publishing the composition, and the "C" for the recording. When I was talking about the foreign companies, those are the recording companies. They own the copyright to the recorded file.

Why do you need a label? It takes money to get people to HEAR your music. You can place your recording on Spotify by yourself. But you need to get people to find your needle in the haystack. That's what a label does. They invest in your music, spend the money to put your music in front of people, and get lots of people to listen. The technology isn't the problem. It still comes down to the fact that music taste is subjective. It takes money to make things happen.

The topic of this thread is "Is Live & Local Radio Dead?" At one time, radio stations were part of the marketing push that record labels used to introduce music. Some still do, depending on the format. However, using local radio is expensive and inefficient. There are thousands of radio stations, and you need to visit all of them personally if you want to make an impression. Another way is contact iHeart and take part in their new music program. They will guarantee that your new song will get heard on all of their stations in your particular format. From the artist & label perspective, it's a lot more efficient. But it removes the local input from the process. Does that matter? If you're an artist who wants to be heard, the answer is no. Sirius. Spotify, and Amazon all have similar things. So the question the recoring industry is asking is why do we need live & local radio?

Yes same with TV and movies I seen similar questions there about why it’s rare to have local independent TV stations do movies, and syndicated TV shows with very similar answers, such as that syndication companies that do exist today are focusing on putting their content on various TV apps from Netflix to YouTube and everyone else in between because of the same reasons it’s more efficient to have shows that run on various TV apps rather than local independent TV stations today. It’s for the same exact reasons being said for artists and labels go to Iheart for the same reasons.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Roku Doubling Down on Creators With Dedicated Destination and New FAST Channels (Exclusive)

Roku will also expand its licensing of creator content, its content chief tells THR.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Samsung TV Plus flips on creator mode as platform expands FAST channel offerings

Samsung is taking the next step in the evolution of its free streaming TV platform by leaning into top digital creators and delivering their video content through dedicated channels.

thedesk.net

Tubi And TikTok Launch Incubator To Help Creators Make Long-Form Series

Fox-owned streaming service Tubi has teamed up with TikTok to help the latter's talent expand their work to long-form series.

deadline.com

Here is some of them on the TV side that can answer the question why shows are not live and local outside of Sports and News programming.

 

[cc333]

For me, as someone who enjoys radio, this discussion is too depressing because it reminds me of how radio was so much better even 20 years ago.

c

 

[TheBigA]

radio was so much better even 20 years ago.

That could be said about a lot of things

 

[cc333]

That could be said about a lot of things

So true.

Even money was better; It didn't cost so much to buy things or services.

c