Is this the Future of Radio?

[Tibbs4]

RE: Younger generation -

I think those facts and stats are certainly available, as you probably know and have seen. There is certainly a divide by generation, obviously based upon younger ages, gadgets, TSL and "us old peoples." Proof that one style of engagement does not fit all. I think that is part of what has been misdiagnosed by many in the industry.

To me, the real fun trick is how to position the well-executed formats, with or without the bells and whistles, based upon what the audience is looking for and still do it within financial reason. Add to that, a touch of young people being less into radio and unavailable on one end and the aging population going to the great jukebox in the sky and you see a narrowing of the entire spectrum of radio in the years ahead. That's going to be interesting, as more stations go after a tighter market.

I agree on hearing more from the youth. Heck, I think it would be interesting to read from some radio listeners under 30, who read this board, about what they expect or desire from radio in 2012. Scientific or not, at least it's interesting to read, right?

 

[TheBigA]

I think it would be interesting to read from some radio listeners under 30, who read this board, about what they expect or desire from radio in 2012. Scientific or not, at least it's interesting to read, right?

It's what we do in radio every day. We speak with listeners. That's our job. And yes, it can be interesting if you understand there's a difference between what listeners say and what they do. Our job is to focus on what they do. But listeners who read this board aren't average listeners, so we have to discount some of what they say. I read an article with a college teacher who spoke with his 20 year old radio students about what they wanted to hear on the radio. Not surprisingly, they wanted more emphasis on live and local DJs. Why? Because they're going to be looking for jobs in a year. But that part was left out of the article. There's a self-serving nature to some of what people say. Not that there's anything wrong about it, but it's not scientific, and it hurts the credibility of the information. When you look at what listeners DO, as opposed to what they say, our course of action as broadcasters becomes very clear.

 

[Tibbs4]

What's your take on that course of action. (you can send that info privately if you prefer.) I find all of this very interesting. It helps to paint the elusive picture that is radio. It applies in many other businesses, in various ways.

 

[TheBigA]

What's your take on that course of action.

First of all, there is no one-size-fits-all single course of action. That's the problem I have with the Nick Michael's article. He appears to simply be confirming Michael Harrison's agenda for more personality, and that's not necessarily the answer. The proper course of action should be targeted at specific listener groups, the way programming is normally done. So while more personality may be appropriate for older-leaning formats, I'd suggest a more varied approach if the goal is to reach adults under 40. That means multi-platform, including social media, streaming, apps, podcasts, and personal appearances. There's more to radio than the air signal.

 

[Tibbs4]

I certainly agree with you on the previous points. I am nicely surprised to see you mention personal appearances for audiences under 40. All the other points are spot-on considerations that I think are strong and competitively necessary. What types of appearances have you found to be most effective? Very interesting! Should you bill me?

 

[John FL]

What's your take on that course of action.

First of all, there is no one-size-fits-all single course of action. That's the problem I have with the Nick Michael's article. He appears to simply be confirming Michael Harrison's agenda for more personality, and that's not necessarily the answer. The proper course of action should be targeted at specific listener groups, the way programming is normally done. So while more personality may be appropriate for older-leaning formats, I'd suggest a more varied approach if the goal is to reach adults under 40. That means multi-platform, including social media, streaming, apps, podcasts, and personal appearances. There's more to radio than the air signal.

I’ve been making these same points for years. However, I’d like to circle back to the 10% large company ownership discussion. While that number may seem small, the big companies nonetheless carry tremendous influence in the industry, especially when it comes to talent.

Since we are talking about the role/need for talent especially in younger-skewing formats, I see the potential for lots of inconsistency that can not only lead to listener dissatisfaction but it can diminish the benefits of hiring those who could potentially improve a station’s performance to include attracting key demos. Let me explain.

WFLC was mentioned in this string. When that station/format was born (before Telecommunications Act), their tagline was something like “We never talk over the music.” It was the first time I noticed talent had a diminished role. Know what? It was an overnight success. Even I liked it, but I believe the music programming was more of a factor. Still, there were listeners who liked an uncluttered sound.

As time went on and return on investment became more challenging, it’s obvious the larger companies saw opportunities in slashing talent payroll as a way to financial health. Many listeners may have grown away from traditional talk-ups between most of the songs but they may not have wanted no pulse radio either. I always believed there was a smart balance that existed.

Specifically in companies such as Cox, (WFLC owner) I believe they had evidence that listeners liked more music and less talk. They went even further. In a number of formats they eliminated on-air talent all together. Over the past decade or so, listener preferences were further influenced with endless sweepers in effect saying music is good, talk is bad. In Jax, we witnessed the birth of an automated rock competitor that knocked everything the other guys did to include slamming the talent. Well, it worked. We've also witnessed another rock station that has seen a number of morning personality shows fall by the wayside. In between, listeners were reminded just how great more music mornings are. Folks, it's either one or the other - sending mixed messages out to listeners doesn't make sense.

Today, we see a lot of evidence especially via PPM and even through social media that listeners don’t like a lot of talk – especially if they feel it is not relevant to them. We’ve seen automation/vt -ing against live/local win. There are lots of reasons for this I’m sure that go beyond the talent. I believe listener behavior has been influenced considerably over a long time period. No doubt, this has benefited the company. Whether listeners are better off or if the product created has been really good as a result has been a subject endless discussed on these boards and elsewhere.

As we look at the future of radio, perhaps the pendulum is swinging back a bit ever so slowly to differentiate radio from today’s competition by offering personality that can work today. We’ve seen the return of personalities on morning shows where automation once existed. Personally, I don't think they will work in the long run but still it may be a sign of things to come. We'll have to see.

Radio has influenced listeners successfully in the past. I believe we are beginning to see influence taking place not only in what we hear out of the speakers, but via social media too. I may be a boomer but I am not looking for personality radio to be as it once was.

I believe those who know and understand the market and who have a proven track-record AND who make the case they do get today’s listeners should be given an opportunity to make a difference. True, live and local doesn’t always win but decisions that are made hundreds and thousands of miles away and/or syndicated shows don’t always work either. The right people are out there who can help create a really good product. It just makes good business sense to attract the very best. But then I see the right people as an asset.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I’ve been making these same points for years. However, I’d like to circle back to the 10% large company ownership discussion. While that number may seem small, the big companies nonetheless carry tremendous influence in the industry, especially when it comes to talent.

A very thoughtful post, JohnJax.

Some of us live in a very complex world. We have brains that are wired such that they are not happy unless we can touch and feel the complexity.

Some of us live in a very simple, binary-oriented world. There is right and there is wrong. There is good and there is bad. We have brains that are wired such that they are not happy unless we can pigeon-hole every thing in life into the good and the bad. (Maybe the ugly belongs in there!)

We discuss radio as though there is one way to program a station that is a winner, and all other uses of radio are bad.

A smart investor who wishes to be in broadcasting ownership is going to develop a programming style that gathers the largest possible audience of people who have brains wired to that programming style. A couple of generations ago we had a business climate that made it possible for a broadcast owner to develop a programming style that gathered a smaller audience of people with brains wired that demanded a different product.

What is really distressing is the fact that it is apparently much harder, much more complex today and build a viable business around serving an audience that is never going to be anything more than the 11th rated audience size in town.

Why can't we do it? The other businesses that would be the customers of advertising on the 11th rated station hardly exist anymore either. The Walmarts, the Targets, the Home Depots, the Macys have built a business model for retailing that has put the local, independent retailer at a disadvantage. Make that: "The local, independent retailer" as we used to know them. There is a resurgence in mom and pop style businesses, but many of them do include a franchise relationship. This class of retailer does not want or need nor can they justify the cost of radio advertising in too many cases.

My oldest child once told her friends: My dad would have a conversation with a fireplug... if he found one that could talk. Music without conversation bores me. But it obviously is the choice of the masses. That means I find it more and more diffcult to find radio that I will expend the energy to turn on and listen.

How big is my tribe... the disaffected audience? All of us who participate in these conversations who make any noise about "the good old days" of radio are wanting something that is so personalized that if we built it, not enough people would come to make it worthwhile.

Maybe some young person with a love for thing audible and verbal and the genius and creativity of a Steve Jobs will come along some day and show us radio like we don't see today.... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Groove1670]

Personally, I don't think they will work in the long run but still it may be a sign of things to come. We'll have to see.

CC is doing a excellent job moving their base over to the I thing (that is the plan). You don't go one 1/4 hour listening to a CC station without hearing something about it. In fact a I heard a contest on a classic rock station with a major tie in. Also there is the big investment in the annual festival.

The big boss has figured out in the future it will be easier to sell a advertiser a digital platform (every I station / pureplay) with radio as part of the package.

The agreement with record people is also part of the plan.

The other businesses that would be the customers of advertising on the 11th rated station hardly exist anymore either. The Walmarts, the Targets, the Home Depots, the Macys have built a business model for retailing that has put the local, independent retailer at a disadvantage.

Those days will end soon for the 90%. The big guys will chose to spend money on the big digital platforms, 500+ station groups.

Most of those stations won't go after local buys. It will be a great opportunity for smaller stations to work with those who can't afford large radio buys.



The 90% (small owners) will need to figure out a way to stay viable (most are now). Local news, community information, high school/regional sports, and local flavor will keep us alive. National will become one big jukebox, with emphasis on the digital platform.

Numbers in many markets won't matter (and never have) relationships and community contact will.

 

[John FL]

Here’s a little more food for thought. Perhaps in my last post I wasn’t clear given musiconradio’s response. When I said “Personally, I don't think they will work in the long run but still it may be a sign of things to come,” I was referring to two new syndicated morning shows in Jacksonville.

As far as “CC is doing an excellent job moving their base over to the I thing,” from a corporate/future profitability standpoint you are probably correct. However, from a listener perspective it adds to the clutter especially when the “festival” is promoted with acts that are completely alien to the format. A while back I mentioned how I just envisioned many listeners cringe every time they heard Lady Gaga promoted on our former oldies station. Excellent job – no I don’t think so. This one-size way of promotion made little sense. They need a better approach.

There’s another discussion point regarding the future of radio. Talk, especially conservative talk, will probably need a make-over. As I have been hearing all the pundits with their take on the election, I couldn’t believe how it was so “radio strategy” sounding.

As they were explaining how President Obama won, they talked of targeted demos; they talked of “guerilla warfare tactics” and they talked about an approach that reflected the cultural shift and diversity that is our country.

I’ve noticed a lot of discussion on these boards over the last couple years regarding some ratings decline for the format. It’s probably safe to say conservative talk will not remain a viable format if older white males continue to get older and younger, and more diverse listeners aren’t attracted.

At any rate, I believe as we see more non-music programming on FM, conservative news/talk will probably need to do a better job making the case. During this election season, I remember New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez talk about how she didn’t even realize she was a Republican until someone explained the party’s position on this issue and that. There are many talented people on the air who are great communicators. IMO, they need to do a better job explaining positions and how they affect the average person and less time whining and bashing.

In a lot of ways, the future of radio will probably compete more effectively if it truly reflects the community served. Gees, I’ve been saying that forever……

PS – thanks Goat Rodeo Cowboy. I enjoy reading your posts. You have an interesting way of saying things. Often, I have to read your views a few times to get it. LOL. I’m probably showing signs of age but hopefully I’m still relevant on how I see radio.

 

[nfladxer]

I've been enjoying these recent posts. There's been some excellent "food for thought" regarding radio's future, and the role that personality plays. Obviously, the "Future of Radio" lies in more than the AM, FM, or HD signals alone. Regardless of format, Radio's major players would seem to benefit greatly with a strong presence, and by interacting with potential listeners, on social media, smartphones, etc. It's all about communicating on multiple platforms in today's digital world! While many of us have always had a "face for radio", it appears we may need a Facebook for radio!

 

[amfmxm]

I think it would be interesting to read from some radio listeners under 30, who read this board, about what they expect or desire from radio in 2012. Scientific or not, at least it's interesting to read, right?

I read an article with a college teacher who spoke with his 20 year old radio students about what they wanted to hear on the radio. Not surprisingly, they wanted more emphasis on live and local DJs. Why? Because they're going to be looking for jobs in a year. But that part was left out of the article. There's a self-serving nature to some of what people say. Not that there's anything wrong about it, but it's not scientific, and it hurts the credibility of the information. When you look at what listeners DO, as opposed to what they say, our course of action as broadcasters becomes very clear.

Wanting "more emphasis on live and local DJs" may not be all that self-serving. Since we (the radio industry) have been axing as many "live & local DJs" for 20 years-or-so, the concept has become a novelty--something very hard to find. Radio listeners of any age/demo can find plenty of radio stations airing canned/lifeless "DJs" (voices). But, hey, wouldn't it be cool to be able to turn on a station playing music you like AND have somebody just a few blocks away talking about concerts you're going to... restaurants you eat at... and reflecting an understanding of your town that an outsider can't possibly have. Hey, that would be cool.

Instead what they get is "Hit 105... Katy Perry... your chance to win a trip to LA to see Lady Gaga and meet Ryan Seacrest in-person just minutes away on The New Hit 105!"--same as it sounds in Indy and Omaha and Baltimore and Hartford and Orlando and Shreveport...

FWIW, it is too bad that this particular thread got misplaced on this particular "local" board. Shoulda been under formats or Radio Pros... but not North Florida. The issues are the same in North Dakota... North Carolina... North _______,

 

[TheBigA]

But, hey, wouldn't it be cool to be able to turn on a station playing music you like AND have somebody just a few blocks away talking about concerts you're going to... restaurants you eat at... and reflecting an understanding of your town that an outsider can't possibly have. Hey, that would be cool.

Sure, sounds very nice. Part of the problem is that local DJs started to get removed from common activities like that. Instead, they spent their time talking about things like golf at the country club and traveling to expensive resorts. These were DJs in markets not much bigger than Jacksonville making 6 figure salaries, and were now totally out of the life group of their listeners. They didn't watch the same TV shows, they didn't eat at the same restaurants (since their listeners could afford the places they ate at), and they hung with a very different crowd. That's what ultimately led to them either getting fired or told to stop talking. I could give specific examples, but it might be embarrassing to a few.

What radio DJs need is to get back to is to be with their life group. That means CHR air talent that is under 35, not over 50. That means air talent that actually goes to bars and clubs with their audience, rather than the local Mortons. That means doing something the Greaseman used to call "mingling with the maggotry." Not many of the older, more established air talents want to do this. A few of them have it written in their contracts that they don't have to do it. One of the big complaints I read about air talent is how poor the pay is. But that's how most people in the audience live. Radio DJs need to better reflect their audience. I think you'll find that owners don't dislike talent. They just dislike expensive unprofitable talent. There's a difference.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

..... and were now totally out of the life group of their listeners. They didn't watch the same TV shows, they didn't eat at the same restaurants (since their listeners could afford the places they ate at), and they hung with a very different crowd.

You expressed something there that we often overlook in our discussions. In discussing "the business of radio" we talk about the sources of advertising revenue have changed (gone away?) as even small towns move from locally owned mom-and-pop stores and dealerships to nation chains dominating the retail market.

Here is the change we don't talk about. Back when I was on the air, we had three networks on TV. And if you were in a rural area you might have only two networks available. So come Thursday morning, the LIVE on-air radio talent was right in the life-group of their listeners. We ALL watch Andy Griffith or Perry Mason. In neighborhoods of cities and in small markets there were only so many restaurants and bars. The on-air talent had a high probability of experiencing exactly the same food trends, drink trends, political talk treands, local gossip trends as the listener life-group. Even the number of churches was typically limited so if the on-air talent were to mention a bit of humor that Rev. Goodbar dumped into the mix Sunday morning, a significant part of the audience may have been in the particular place of worship that day, and probably more than half of the "life-group" (listeners) actually knew the man.

Today with maybe 300 channel choices on TV, how would today's on air people know which TV anyone in the audience may have watched last night. And the most prominent pastor in town can be totally unknown to almost the entire audience. Today the audience may not even know the name of the mayor!

Live and Local may not be a defineable concept today.

 

[TheBigA]

Live and Local may not be a defineable concept today.

I agree. My parents' generation grew up around their church. I grew up around my school. Now, kids are growing up around their "friends." And those friends aren't always local. Facebook friends can be anywhere, and often are. That really changes the experience these kids have. Their life isn't set at the malt shop. It's in a cyber-city somewhere. Brings new meaning to having your head in the cloud.

Today, kids don't need radio DJs to act as intermediaries for them. They're all following their favorite stars on Twitter. That's how they know what people with similar interests are doing. It's a world way beyond the very organized and proper world of a radio station that has a street address.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Today, kids don't need radio DJs to act as intermediaries for them. They're all following their favorite stars on Twitter. That's how they know what people with similar interests are doing. It's a world way beyond the very organized and proper world of a radio station that has a street address.

What do you see in the crystal ball? Will radio 20 or 40 years from now find a niche that is useful to today "kids" when reach age 30, 40 or 50?

Is radio Cinderella's carriage that will turn back into a pumpkin when the last old angry white man turns off the last Talk Radio program?

 

[TheBigA]

What do you see in the crystal ball? Will radio 20 or 40 years from now find a niche that is useful to today "kids" when reach age 30, 40 or 50?

Yep. Keep in mind that those kids will be running radio then. They'll run it without all the baggage of the boomers. I'm expecting they'll have some fresh ideas. They already do. Nothing stays the same.

 

[Tibbs4]

Big A - what's the baggage (in a nutshell) of the baby boomer mindset? I am enjoying actually seeing something in writing about generational broadcasting. Do you think the bigger corps have done a good job having a different approach to formats and target audiences?

 

[TheBigA]

Big A - what's the baggage (in a nutshell) of the baby boomer mindset?

Every generation carries the baggage of its past. Their starting point is different, their experiences are different, and the Millennials, as the children of the boomers, have an appreciation for the 60s and 70s without being beholden to it. They will interpret the past through their own experiences. Their experiences are built around computers, video games, and social networking, without geographical or any other restrictions. They will discover the advantages of the transmission platform, and won't be restricted by formats, localism, or job descriptions.

Do you think the bigger corps have done a good job having a different approach to formats and target audiences?

They're all approaching it differently. But they all recognize that OTA radio by itself isn't enough to have an impact. That was the lesson learned from consolidation. Fifteen years ago, OTA was enough. Now it's not. So you don't put all your eggs in one basket. I've been enjoying "The Men Who Made America" on the History Channel. When you get inside the minds of people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, you can learn a lot, and can adapt what they did in their time to the present.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Yep. Keep in mind that those kids will be running radio then. They'll run it without all the baggage of the boomers. I'm expecting they'll have some fresh ideas. They already do. Nothing stays the same.

Yes, nothing stays the same! Two of my three adult children are bunked in my house this weekend as we celebrate a "fake" Thanksgiving early because of everyone's personal schedules.

I am sitting here... following the conversation, watching their choices of communication technology, and probing some of their values... political, spiritual and whatever.

One disappeared earlier tonight and I could hear an animated voice somewhere in the house. I checked and found she was occupying my office/studio and something reasonable loud was going on. When she came down, she explained that every Sunday night she and a group of people who all met each other when they all lived in Milwaukee have a video conference call every Sunday night. Scattered to the four winds, they stay connected. I don't of very many if any radio programs that can compete with that event.

I like your observation the today's kids will be in charge of radio someday... without our prejudices, our expectations, our mental limitations. But based on what I have observed in my own little cottage in the last 24 hours causes me to repeat the question... will they even choose to include radio spectrum as we know it in their future? Yes, if it is used... today's kids will be running it based on their interests and their values.

 

[TheBigA]

will they even choose to include radio spectrum as we know it in their future?

My answer is it's up to the handful of them who will choose to make it their occupation. If they do a good job, and find a practical application for it, integrated with other media, and promote it properly, with cool new devices that receive and retain the content, then maybe yes. Lot of "ifs." All it takes is one or two smart, motivated, entrepeneurial people, and it'll happen.