Is this the Future of Radio?

[johntherogger]

terrestrial radio's continued de-emphasis on real talent, IMO, is helping drive listeners AWAY from local radio.

But that's not true. The facts show that the only reason why listeners leave radio is when the music stops and the DJ starts talking. The other factor is certain formats are no longer available. But when DJs start talking, listeners leave. The other point I'd make is listeners don;t care if a DJ is full time or part time. So the employment status of a DJ has nothing to do with listeners staying or leaving a radio station.

Not true at all...I can show many cases where DJ's are still the reason stations even get listeners....biggest case is 97.3 The Coast in Miami with Gnarly Charlie....people know the Coast know Gnarly...and he make it worth while to listen to.

It all depends on if the talent is really...a talent....or a part time wannabee. Talent is what made Radio great, and it always will. This VT pathetic non-live scripted jock stuff is what's killing people's attention span...it's boring. LET THE JOCKS BE THE JOCKS OR GIVE UP!

 

[TheBigA]

Not true at all...I can show many cases where DJ's are still the reason stations even get listeners....biggest case is 97.3 The Coast in Miami with Gnarly Charlie....people know the Coast know Gnarly...and he make it worth while to listen to.

If he's the main reason the station gets listeners, why is he only on the station on Saturday nights?

This thread is about part-time air talent, and that's obviously what Gnarly Charlie is. He does a great job, and he's part time.

 

[tomservo]

Not true at all...I can show many cases where DJ's are still the reason stations even get listeners....biggest case is 97.3 The Coast in Miami with Gnarly Charlie....people know the Coast know Gnarly...and he make it worth while to listen to.

If he's the main reason the station gets listeners, why is he only on the station on Saturday nights?

This thread is about part-time air talent, and that's obviously what Gnarly Charlie is. He does a great job, and he's part time.

He didn't say Gnarly Charlie (ugh) was the only reason people listen, just that people tune in just to hear him when he's on.

When our local CHR got sold to the God Squad, all the personalities fled to the competing company's CHR and the ratings, Facebook likes and show participation followed them. (They eventually did a swap with the God Squad and took over the old heritage CHR frequency and other than one letter in the call sign, are "back to normal".)

 

[Rob]

I know people in Jacksonville who either listen to 99.9, don't turn their radios on, (told her about 1010 for the game..) or just listen to their own thing

You also forget, Jacksonville is the home to the one of the last remaining stations - smooth elevator music. "Stereo whatever" and owned by a local college, too.

Back in the day, they took pride in "stereo" now it's second nature.

Yes, radio is dying a slow death. If this keeps up, the FM band will be gone and it's a shame. We need to bring back local talent, local flavor and local sports.

I'd like to take a glance 20 years from now to see where FM radio lies, if it still exists

-Rob

 

[Groove1670]

When our local CHR got sold to the God Squad, all the personalities fled to the competing company's CHR and the ratings.

The station staff did a excellent job in getting the word out to TV and other media sources about the demise of WABB. The nostalgia factor probably played a bigger factor in the ratings bump.

Cumulus decided to jump on the hype, and thus WABD was born. If it wasn't for the history of WABB, it would of not been a big deal.

Keep in mind 107.3 tried to do the same thing, and results have been mixed.

 

[TheBigA]

He didn't say Gnarly Charlie (ugh) was the only reason people listen, just that people tune in just to hear him when he's on.

Once again, this thread isn't about eliminating local talent. It's about making them part time employees. Gnarly is a part time employee, and it hasn't hurt his ability to do his job and attract an audience.

Yes, radio is dying a slow death. If this keeps up, the FM band will be gone and it's a shame. We need to bring back local talent, local flavor and local sports.

Radio isn't dying, it's changing and adapting. It has to, because the audience is also changing and adapting. And the fact is that the new audience wants something different from their parents and grandparents. Local talent and local flavor is fine for some people, but others obviously don't care. So radio has to offer both.

 

[Tibbs4]

Big A - let's look into this "dying" situation a bit more.

1.) Radio listenership - where is it today compared to five and ten years ago on TSL, revenues brought in and relative importance/connection to audience.

2.) With the average listener that was heavily invested in radio at a younger age back in the 70s and 80s now being thrown away by ad buyers and thusly formats shifting to younger listeners, where will radio be in listenership growth or decline in the next five years and next ten years?

3.) Along with #2, above: As radio attempts to capture an audience that is younger and younger each year, those exact listeners have never been as connected to radio as old skewing listeners. The younger listener expects medias to be about "them." They can create their own music stations online etc., but there still has to be a source that allows music to be discovered, blossom, sweep the nation and hit the charts. Is radio that top choice for new music? Will it be in the future?

Radio does have to evolve and actually grow positively, no doubt. My concern is that all this cost cutting and mediocrity is what is eventually going to hang radio from both ends of the radio demographics and leave it with a painfully thin audience base to attempt to entertain and keep being loyal.

I don't disagree with many of the realities of radio 2012. You throw out some pretty obvious points on a regular basis. But, I haven't seen you say a lot about the future. Feel free to disagree on my points above, but heck, if ya are up for it...create your vision of what a small radio station company should be evolving into in the next few years.

And also, will moves like the WKDF in Nashville really matter in the scheme of listenership, etc? (maybe staying on topic...like that ever happens.)

 

[TheBigA]

Be prepared for a long answer:

Big A - let's look into this "dying" situation a bit more.

1.) Radio listenership - where is it today compared to five and ten years ago on TSL, revenues brought in and relative importance/connection to audience.

The drop in TSL began 23 years ago, when people began replacing radios with personal music devices. But it hasn't changed the fact that 239 million people, 94% of the public, listen to OTA radio. That number is up from last year.

2.) With the average listener that was heavily invested in radio at a younger age back in the 70s and 80s now being thrown away by ad buyers and thusly formats shifting to younger listeners, where will radio be in listenership growth or decline in the next five years and next ten years?

As I said, radio needs to adapt to the needs of younger audiences, because the boomers aren’t going to be around forever. It has nothing to do with ad buyers, it has to do with life expectancy. In ten years, the people who grew up with radio will be over 70 years old. That means a guaranteed decline in audience due to death.

3.) As radio attempts to capture an audience that is younger and younger each year, those exact listeners have never been as connected to radio as old skewing listeners. The younger listener expects medias to be about "them." They can create their own music stations online etc., but there still has to be a source that allows music to be discovered, blossom, sweep the nation and hit the charts. Is radio that top choice for new music? Will it be in the future?

Ever since the Walkman and MTV were introduced over 30 years ago, radio has had to share its audience with other devices and media. The monopoly radio enjoyed in the 60s and early 70s has been over for a long time. That’s why TSL is down. So radio has had 30 years to learn how to be one of several ways the audience hears music. But radio is more than music. Radio is news, talk, and sports. Those formats are on the increase now, and it’s likely as younger listeners use other devices for music, they will still be drawn to radio for news, talk, and sports. Radio isn’t in the music business. Radio companies don’t make money when people buy music. In fact, radio PAYS money to play music, and it’s likely that record labels will demand MORE money for that privilege. So how listeners discover new music really isn’t radio’s job. As long as it attracts an audience, there is some synergy. But music has become more diversified and more individualized, making it impossible for radio stations to satisfy individual music tastes. That’s why you’re seeing more radio stations devote less time and money to their music stations, and more to the news, talk, and sports stations.

My concern is that all this cost cutting and mediocrity is what is eventually going to hang radio from both ends of the radio demographics and leave it with a painfully thin audience base to attempt to entertain and keep being loyal.

You don’t see radio budgets, so you don’t know this, but what appears to be cost cutting to you is really cost shifting. Ad rates haven’t increased in over five years, due to increased competition, but costs have increased. That means salary, benefits, rent, utilities, and local taxes have all gone up. In addition, radio companies have invested in online content, because digital is the future, and radio wants to be there. So that means shifting money from on-air. Nobody wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so everyone is trying to keep some of the elements the older audiences want. But the money has to come from somewhere. For now, digital costs more than it makes.

And also, will moves like the WKDF in Nashville really matter in the scheme of listenership, etc? (maybe staying on topic...like that ever happens.)

The WKDF situation is unique in that it is co-owned by Cumulus with another country station: WSM-FM. Having two country stations in one market gives it a larger share, so that’s good. But they have the cost of running two stations without twice the income. So perhaps the strategy is to begin to shift the country audience away from WKDF to WSM-FM, which has the better signal and country heritage. If the WKDF listeners dislike having a part-time afternoon DJ, all they have to do is listen to WSM-FM. Problem solved. If they don’t like local DJs, they can listen to the syndicated Big D & Bubba at WSIX. Problem solved. It’s all about providing choices. As long as radio does that, the audience will take care of itself.

 

[nfladxer]

Very interesting replies to this thread so far, thanks for the input, expertise, opinions, and "passion"! As far as the future of Radio, The Big A has probably nailed it. The role of music radio on FM may very well be on the decline, as the spoken word format on FM increases. Even though FM became the go to place for contemporary music starting in the '70's through the '90's, the internet, ipod, and now, smartphones, etc., have changed the music landscape rather dramatically, especially amoung the younger demos. The fact is, music radio has always been a compromise, since the playlist is essentially different in everybody's head! Now that it's easy to program your own unique playlist, and carry it with you on your personal device, or play it back in your vehicle, radio has lost that edge. Don't get me wrong, I love radio, and still feel it's the most convenient, intimate broadcast medium, but it's role is evolving, and hopefully, will still provide excellent full-time career opportunities for those drawn to the medium!

 

[mediawatch22]

Very interesting replies to this thread so far, thanks for the input, expertise, opinions, and "passion"! As far as the future of Radio, The Big A has probably nailed it. The role of music radio on FM may very well be on the decline, as the spoken word format on FM increases. Even though FM became the go to place for contemporary music starting in the '70's through the '90's, the internet, ipod, and now, smartphones, etc., have changed the music landscape rather dramatically, especially amoung the younger demos. The fact is, music radio has always been a compromise, since the playlist is essentially different in everybody's head! Now that it's easy to program your own unique playlist, and carry it with you on your personal device, or play it back in your vehicle, radio has lost that edge. Don't get me wrong, I love radio, and still feel it's the most convenient, intimate broadcast medium, but it's role is evolving, and hopefully, will still provide excellent full-time career opportunities for those drawn to the medium!

I agree with everything you said in your summary except the part at the end about "excellent full-time career opportunities". That's not going to happen, sadly. I wish it would happen but it's too far gone and radio consolidators like CC and Cumulus certainly aren't going to change their business model in favor of adding more financial liabilities to the balance sheet. Say hello to network radio!

 

[TheBigA]

I wish it would happen but it's too far gone and radio consolidators like CC and Cumulus certainly aren't going to change their business model in favor of adding more financial liabilities to the balance sheet. Say hello to network radio!

Two things: All of the major radio companies still only control less than 10% of all radio. There are still lots and lots of smaller places. And those companies you mentioned need live bodies to staff their various national or regional shows. So there still are "career opportunities," but not as many.

 

[nfladxer]

I wish it would happen but it's too far gone and radio consolidators like CC and Cumulus certainly aren't going to change their business model in favor of adding more financial liabilities to the balance sheet. Say hello to network radio!

Two things: All of the major radio companies still only control less than 10% of all radio. There are still lots and lots of smaller places. And those companies you mentioned need live bodies to staff their various national or regional shows. So there still are "career opportunities," but not as many.

mediawatch22, as TheBigA said, there are "career opportunities", but not as many, and the "excellent career opportunities", even fewer! And, that seems to be "The Future of Radio", at least in the near term!

 

[John FL]

Radio employment mirrors today’s economy. In many sectors, the workforce has evolved moving away from full-time jobs to part-time and even contractual positions. Still, a part-time gig in radio could lead to full-time based on performance and results. To me, a part-time position beats no work at all.

I’ve noticed that the majority of on-air gigs seem to go to those who don’t have large gaps in employment. When I read the usual management press release, it usually talks about the skill set of that individual and how they will make a difference. While that’s all same old same old, with fewer positions available the person who lands a position has probably done his/her homework proving their value, getting social media and demonstrating how they can relate to the P1s even if their gender and age are not the same as the target audience.

Those in the PD/OM/GM role have a choice. These individuals can regard talent as an asset or a liability. Sometimes, things just don’t work out for all sorts of reasons to include talent not having what it takes. I still believe the right manager can make all the difference if they are truly vested in the success of each individual who makes up their team.

For Jax, I don’t anticipate any additional hiring unless it is a replacement for a critical daypart on a leading station. It was disappointing to see two new morning shows added that are syndicated but this is a trend elsewhere as well. I don’t like seeing talent from station A also have shifts on Station B in the same market. To me, it’s very bush league and cheesy and yeah - cheap. But then, it doesn’t seem to matter to listeners, if they even notice. I just see it differently because I believe you have to show pride in your product. Utilizing local talent for another market – I have no issue with that and that could add value to that talent.

TheBigA brought an interesting perspective to this string. I don’t question his knowledge and expertise on the business of radio. A good number of his opinions are based on results and come without emotion. I’m just not a defender of the radio status quo. Even I will admit, it’s not an easy sell to propose anything that goes against those results the status quo brings.

Each of us who contribute opinions on the boards is entitled to them. In Jacksonville, I look at the current state of things that status quo brings and I just shake my head. This subject is also supposed to be about the future of radio.I believe when a market has more of a live and local feel, offers a variety of formats that are inclusive of the community without being totally fragmentary and when there is more creativity in music programming, terrestrial radio becomes a stronger alternative to other competition.

Others markets show evidence of what I described above to include personality radio – example – the CBS Radio Classic Hits stations. Radio is at its' very best when it is a personal medium. They also do an outstanding job giving a lot of latitude to the local management building playlists, offering music specials and rotating songs that reflect the market avoiding being cookie-cutter. At any rate, it is said change is constant. We can only hope changes are in the works that will bring much needed excitement back to the Jax market.

 

[nfladxer]

JohnJax, I was wondering when you were going to weigh in on this topic. As usual, well thought out - an excellent post. You obviously "got" what I was attempting to convey. IMHO, in the face of ever increasing competition, Radio needs to be accentuating the talent that contributes to make it a unique medium, not downplaying it. Apparently, some of the large radio operators, in some larger markets, have decided that "part time" air talent will serve their needs as well as a "full time" air talent. Obviously the listeners won't know the difference, and hopefully, it will work out for the stations, but I see this as a disturbing trend. While we saw some big changes in Jacksonville Radio over the past year, I wouldn't call most of them improvements, especially as regards listener choices! For example, a promising Classic hits station, with an excellent air staff, has become nothing more than a Selector based computer on steroids! I understand the business reasons, but, at least for this listener, it means one less choice! Despite inevitable changes in audience taste and preferences, and business trends, I believe an excellent product will ultimately contribute more to the bottom line. I realize this is all somewhat subjective, but mediocre programming and talent will not help "The Future of Radio"!

 

[TheBigA]

I realize this is all somewhat subjective, but mediocre programming and talent will not help "The Future of Radio"!

The employment status of an announcer has nothing to do with quality.

 

[nfladxer]

I realize this is all somewhat subjective, but mediocre programming and talent will not help "The Future of Radio"!

The employment status of an announcer has nothing to do with quality.

The Big A, I totally believe a radio station staffed with involved, engaged talent is much more attractive to most listeners, regardless of what PPM might tell us. Obviously, PPM isn't going away, and successful operators are making decisions based on the current methodology. They're paying big bucks for this, and for digital platforms, and new royalities, that didn't exist in the '80's and '90's. I realize priorities have changed. If the trend is for more and more full time on-air positions to become "part time", don't you think quality will tend to go downhill in the long run? I do. The reason I'm so concerned, other than a personal stake, is my observation over the past several decades is that when a talent left a station, in many cases, he/she was replaced by management with someone less expensive. I'm sure there were short term economic considerations, managment bonuses, etc., I realize that. This has been the trend in radio for many years, and more recently in TV (local newscasters). It almost seems like there's been a conscious effort to downplay and "squeeze" radio talent out of the picture. Hopefully, that's not the case, but I do believe you get what you pay for!

 

[TheBigA]

It almost seems like there's been a conscious effort to downplay and "squeeze" radio talent out of the picture. Hopefully, that's not the case, but I do believe you get what you pay for!

Not necessarily in any subjective business. The public doesn't care about the cost of their entertainment. There are thousands of YouTube videos made for nothing that are getting millions of views. So there;s no connection between the money spent, and the entertainment value. Local radio stations are competing for audience with YouTube and thousands of hobbyists with their home internet radio stations. Only local radio is spending money on talent. The others are not. Yet those others are attracting growing audiences, not because of the money they spend on talent. As I said, there are lots of part-time on-air people doing great work engaging audiences at radio stations around the country, including the aforementioned Gnarley Charley. If they're professionals, the amount of money they make has nothing to do with the quality of their work.

 

[nfladxer]

As I said, there are lots of part-time on-air people doing great work engaging audiences at radio stations around the country, including the aforementioned Gnarley Charley.

I personally know and have worked with Gnarly, you're exactly correct, he's a tremendous talent and has a loyal following. He loves radio, and, I'm sure that's a big part of the reason he's maintained a part time position on The Coast in the 11 years since we worked together in South Florida. I know what his preference is, as far as part time versus full time. My next position in radio may very well be part time. And if it is, I'll be grateful and enthusiastic. and as professional as possible. But the problem is, there will be some talented broadcasters that MUST take a full time position out of radio,to survive and feed their family, especially in the example of the WKDF full time-part time position. That, my friend, is radio's loss, not that you or anyone else cares!

If they're professionals, the amount of money they make has nothing to do with the quality of their work.

Yes, I can attest to that!

 

[TheBigA]

But the problem is, there will be some talented broadcasters that MUST take a full time position out of radio,to survive and feed their family, especially in the example of the WKDF full time-part time position. That, my friend, is radio's loss, not that you or anyone else cares!

There's a waiting line out the door of similarly talented individuals waiting for someone to get out of the way. This ain't brain surgery, my friend. I learned when I was a teenager that being on the air is a job best done when you're young.

 

[nfladxer]

But the problem is, there will be some talented broadcasters that MUST take a full time position out of radio,to survive and feed their family, especially in the example of the WKDF full time-part time position. That, my friend, is radio's loss, not that you or anyone else cares!

There's a waiting line out the door of similarly talented individuals waiting for someone to get out of the way. This ain't brain surgery, my friend. I learned when I was a teenager that being on the air is a job best done when you're young.

Are you telling me something I don't know? The fact is there are MORE radio stations on the air now then when we started out as kids, but, unfortunately, not necessarily more good opportunities. But since the rules changed in the late '90's, with the entrance of huge radio companies, and a different business model, combined with several major RIF's, that, in fairness, included many other employees, as well as On-Air talent, that line has grown. Yes, Radio has always favored young performers, and some of the smart ones who really weren't that good on the air, got into management, some very successfully. Maybe that tainted them. While there are big exceptions to the rule, and as someone who has made a living talking on the radio for many years, being either a part time or full time On Air Personality is generally undervalued in comparison with many other professions. It's a good thing, that in many cases, it's a labor of love! While most anything I say here can be contradicted, I'm still hopeful there will be a positive "Future" for radio, however it plays out!