Is TV Stealing Morning Drive Radio Shares?

[JustPastBuffalo]

This isn't an epiphany, it actually occurred to me years ago when I was programming a news-talk radio station. Television is wreaking havoc on morning drive radio.

WGRZ Channel 2 may have the best morning drive radio show in Buffalo these days. It certainly has all the elements that made/make morning drive radio successful for the all-news-talkers, the Zoos, Circuses, Showgrams, etc. and pictures, too!

Until a few years ago, Channel 4 had a strong grip on the morning drive TV-Radio battle, but in the last six to ten months, Channel 2 has surged. Former Rochester radio guy Pete Gallivan did a fine job on Channel 2 with the rest of the cast, but the addition of veteran John Beard has propelled the show to greater success.

Add Channel 4 and 7 to the equation and that's quite a TV line-up competing with some of the best radio morning shows in the business on music and news-talk stations. Much has been written in another thread about "all music" in the morning, but it's clear, at least in Buffalo, that to make it work in morning drive, live (and local) works best: Witness WYRK, 97 Rock, WGR, WBEN, WBFO/WNED, The Edge, Kiss and Star among others.

 

[heydaybegone]

This isn't an epiphany

But Jim, it seems it is!! (by admission- not to you..but the industry as a whole).

Been trying to stimulate some activity on the topic for awhile now, but falling on deaf eyes in the radio industry ???
Your post is the iceberg...and lacks the plethora of real challenges out there. (the ratings are constant numbers...but derived from a whole...meaning same numbers...less ears)

Thanks for the ante up! ;D

 

[TheBigA]

Been trying to stimulate some activity on the topic for awhile now, but falling on deaf eyes in the radio industry ???

Not sure exactly what the radio industry can do about competition, other than torpedo TV towers and transmitters.

This has been a problem since the early 80s when all networks and TV stations began putting a lot of resources into morning programming. There was a time when the Today show was the only morning news show on the air. Not any more. I think radio has known for a long time that the money is in morning drive, and they devote all the resources they have to win in that daypart, even if it means shortchanging the rest of the day.

 

[SirRoxalot]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the TV is the center of attention at home. People may awake to the clock radio, and might even have their shower radio turned on while they're in the bathroom, but the TV is king for the rest of the morning routine. Local stations have put significant resources into capturing the early audience, and the networks have forced even the most recalcitrant (i.e. CBS stations) into carrying their morning shows.

Radio comes back into play in the car, and I don't know many employers who are going to let you watch TV at work. Radio is less objectionable, and doesn't steal bandwidth from their Internet connection. The downside is that a lot of office and industrial space is surrounded by steel, and the selection of stations is limited.

The local numbers indeed show that music doesn't make it in the morning. Information and entertainment are king. Trying to get information off your iPhone while you're driving is not only difficult, but dangerous. Radio that provides local news, traffic, weather, and entertainment is simple, and works. The drive in may also set the table for the rest of the day if a station presents programming compatible with environment that people work in. Syndicated programming may work. Local programming, backed with timely news, information, and entertainment, works better.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

On a closely related tangent, this Op-Ed piece by Fred Jacobs is well worth reading.

http://www.radio-info.com/sections/1-features/columns/13-on-the-mic/essays/1561-the-rules-of-engagement?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=906a9a6732-TRI_05-14-2010&utm_medium=email

I had the pleasure of working with Fred while I was at 97 Rock. He's one of the nicest guys in the biz and unlike a lot of consultants, he "receives" as much as he "transmits," which is probably just one of the reasons he's as successful as he is.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Speaking strictly from a (former) newsperson's perspective, I believe that since many radio stations have either opted to eliminate or reduce local radio news, or rely solely on TV for their local news, many radio listeners who still desire local news are going to Television instead. The exception of course remains public radio.

I've always felt that creditability played a great role in a local news organization's reputation. And with no offense meant, I just don't see any creditability having a morning show "host", or a TV news anchor, reading a few lines out of the newspaper, or off the wire service replacing a qualified radio news person.

While some may disagree with me, I believe there is big difference between radio versus TV news.

I never felt that airing TV news fits into a radio format. TV is designed for video and the last time I listened radio is designed for audio.

Just my two cents, for what its worth.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

With all respect (and I mean that) to the fine people here I believe you are all a bit behind the times. My daughters are both in their 20's. One has moved out of the house and I have observed her and her friends. Most of them have a TV but it's not hooked up to cable or an antenna. It's an analog TV hooked to a DVD player. The computer on the other hand has a broadband cable connection. They find out about things from messages left on Facebook and a few other places. If it's a big story word travels fast. My daughter was happy to find that ABC News is on YouTube.

These young adults don't worry about TV schedules they watch shows on DVD or the internet. Things are changing very fast and broadcasters both TV and radio had better be ready.

 

[TheBigA]

These young adults don't worry about TV schedules they watch shows on DVD or the internet. Things are changing very fast and broadcasters both TV and radio had better be ready.

I agree. The concept of "appointment viewing" or listening is done. Morning drive should be available 24/7. Just like the breakfast menu at my local diner.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

I don't understand. ??? Is it being suggested here that (AM) radio should just flick a switch and do what a station in Toronto Canada did?

CP24 radio 1050 has been nothing more than a repeater of CP24 television for quite some time now. (CP24 is a local TV news channel in Toronto: http://www.cp24.com/ )

 

[TheBigA]

CP24 radio 1050 has been nothing more than a repeater of CP24 television for quite some time now. (CP24 is a local TV news channel in Toronto: http://www.cp24.com/ )

I bet there are quite a few AM stations that might improve their numbers and listenability by doing that. But would their owners be willing to share the revenue? Probably no.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

I don't understand. ??? Is it being suggested here that (AM) radio should just flick a switch and do what a station in Toronto Canada did? CP24 radio 1050 has been nothing more than a repeater of CP24 television for quite some time now. (CP24 is a local TV news channel in Toronto: http://www.cp24.com/ )

Fair question, Yez. The answer is "No." As it applies to what's become of the legendary 1050 CHUM, the answer would be "Hell no!"

The premise of the initial post is: Television has incorporated a number of very successful radio techniques and concepts and implemented them very well in the aural-visual context. TV (especially in Buffalo) has done this so well, that television morning shows offer many, if not all the elements sought by morning drive listeners/viewers. Weather, news, features, a few laughs, demographically targeted "water cooler" topicality and all the other stuff that good radio shows have.

Channel 2 also has strong, identifiable local personalities who fit the casting: The attractive female anchor and a smooth, mature male co-host; a young, energetic meteorologist (with a met degree), traffic reports and a fun-loving roving sidekick "on location."

Simply putting the Channel 2 Daybreak show on WWKB (for example), would not generate much, if any interest for radio listeners because the product is already on TV and that's where viewers and listeners are tuning to find the product: Aural and visual.

Compounding radio's challenge (especially at home in the morning) is this very thing we're on right now, the Internet. Used to be you'd get up and turn on the radio. Now, as Mark Giardina and Mike Sheridan have noted, the information sources and stimuli include Tweets/Twitter, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, Drudge, cell txtg and pix with the transmission and reception of one-to-one information. Sometimes too much of it.

Midday at work listening may be the best protected radio beachhead, especially as many companies enact stricter access to the pipeline and Internet listening/viewing to Pandora and You Tube, forcing prospective customers (listeners/viewers) to rely on that good old standby: Radio.

_________________________________________________
As to 1050 CHUM, it's tough to tune in that once grand dame and hear it gurgling (bad) TV audio. I suspect once the CRTC gave its approval to "Oldies/Classic Hits" stations on FM, it marked the end of the format on AM. It would better serve the public if CHUM went Standards like 740, but that would only dilute the audience. What's left? Ethnic? AM 770 in Youngstown, NY (USA) likely bills very well with a daytimer that puts a big signal over Toronto featuring paid programming that's All Ethnic, All The Time.

 

[Bob1370]

Jim's original question is interesting...and the answer may be, TV will steal morning drive radio listening if we let it.

The Channel 2 morning show with John Beard, which I've seen while visiting Buffalo recently, has a lot of the pre-requisites for a good morning radio show--a likable personality to give it focus and direction, a lot of information (both useful and entertaining) and a good supporting cast. (It reminds me of the morning show we used to do on WBEN, built around Jeff Kaye.) But radio shows that offer all those things, or offer information with breadth and depth you won't get anywhere else, can still thrive competing against either radio or TV competition. Radio's edge over even the best morning TV is its portability--you can carry it with you on the way to work and once you get there, which is something you still really can't do with TV (and in traffic you better not even try). So while TV is picking up in-home audience especially from those radio stations that just rely on music in the morning, it still isn't as easy to use or as portable as radio, once you provide the value-added of information and personality. And once you do provide that value added, a good morning radio show still has a leg up on TV...so why not do it?

The same, by the way, applies for the afternoon drive daypart, where TV newscasts are beginning to encroach especially in the 5 PM hour (though in some markets as early as 4 PM) but a good afternoon radio show can still more than hold its own...

 

[chas108]

Although I don't have the hard numbers to back it up, my gut says "Yes, but".

As a kid in the early 1960's, I remember turning on the local CBS-TV station to watch old Terrytoons, followed at 8AM by "Captain Kangaroo". I don't recall what ABC was doing but I do know the only AM Drive network TV show back then was NBC's "Today", which ran from 7-9 AM. ABC's "Good Morning America" bowed in the 70's IIRC and a few years later CBS joined in with a network morning show.

Today all 3 major networks have well-established AM Drive shows, plus affiliates usually run a local pre-show from 5-7AM, complete with service benchmarks such as "Weather on the 4's"...providing content that was once the sole property of local radio.

A few months ago, I went to http://www.musicradio77.com/ to listen to some old Dan Ingram airchecks. As the radio side of my brain kicked into analytical mode, I began to notice the frequent time and temp updates (even noted in jingles back in the early 60's!) and how seamlessly they were woven into that old Ingram-Flingram personality.

Today, we can get time, temp...today's weather and more right off our smart phone...a bigger threat, I'd presume, to radio than TV since TV can just place the time/temp on a bug in the corner of the screen, enabling them to concentrate on content.

Maybe I'm reading a little too much Jerry DelColliano http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/ but I think it's a legitimate point that Web/Mobile is the ultimate threat to both over the air TV and radio. In any daypart.

What we've started to do at my current station is think more and more of our station as "the Brand"...and how do we grow our Brand across all platforms? Jerry will tell you that unique, compelling content is key over simply re-purposing broadcast radio (although I'd argue that if the over-the-air content is compelling, why not re-purpose it for web? Take a "Both/And" mentality, not "Either/Or"). In this new world, fans of the morning show may choose to download a podcast of the show for consumption when they feel like it. Or better yet, they listen to the show as they do now and then download unique web content made by the AM hosts for later listening. Yes there's the (BIG!) question of how to capitalize it but the first and most significant issue is compelling content. Live, local and compelling wins, be it radio, TV or web.

I like Bob's qualifier: "TV will steal morning drive radio listening if we let it" But I'd add, if people find the most compelling content on the web, then both radio and TV lose. Let me add one more element: Web and mobile availability enables people to consume entertainment and information when they want it. Ok we all know this but watching how my oldest son watches TV and discovers music on his laptop...when he wants to, not when a program is scheduled...drives the point home. He'll listen to the radio (occasionally) when driving...or when he feels like hearing his dad...but no other time. Maybe he'll have it on sometimes in his dorm at college. But his radio/TV habits seems pretty typical of the younger generation.

Allow me to speak this heresy (and I pray that it's proven to be heresy) but I can see the day coming...and soon...when dayparts will mean a lot less than they do now. In that day every daypart will have to be equally entertaining to a shrinking over-the-air audience...but hopefully ever-increasing web/mobile audience who more often than not just downloads your latest podcast when they want to hear "your station"..or more appropriately, your Brand.

How stations relying on AM Drive for half their current billing pull this off I don't know...I'm not an expert. But the best and brightest 50-60 years ago led the way from block programming to music formats, a monumental change if ever there was one. The geniuses have to exist out there who can pull this off, if their owners will let them.

 

[TheBigA]

I like Bob's qualifier: "TV will steal morning drive radio listening if we let it" But I'd add, if people find the most compelling content on the web, then both radio and TV lose.

Unless the people who do what they do on radio simply change their platform, or better yet, ADD another platform that allows them to be where the audience is. There is no law I know of that prevents radio stations from putting their content on other platforms. What made Howard Stern the "king of all media?" Nothing, other than his willingness to take what he did and offer it across other platforms. Why was Howard able to do that, and everyone else is holding fast to their transmitters and towers? The past isn't coming back, and the future won't be like the past. What's so hard to understand about this? Why do we think if we only do what worked 40 years ago, everyone will throw away their TVs, computers, and phones, and build their lives around radio again?

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, what you're saying is that the platform matters less than the content? Interesting observation from someone who's been such a big proponent of replacing local content with "better" syndication or out-of-town V/T.

It's been clear for some time that radio stations need to be in the content creation business. Smart radio stations are expanding their content onto the Internet, and not just as a stream. There have been some interesting articles lately about stations taking on local newspapers with expanded on-line news, enhanced entertainment and activities listings, links to Craigslist for classifieds, and links to pages super-serving smaller local areas.

Of course, that requires that the radio group to have some kind of news department, and enough people to aggregate and post information in a timely manner...

 

[heydaybegone]

Well now this thread is finally going somewhere!! To the reality check of the real world! I'm impressed (to a point). The missing elements are the HOW to do it and the WHAT do!! I'm thinking this forum isn't going to allow for "proprietary ideas"...(the BIG idea)...but, on the whole as a broadcast medium...you might consider a think tank here (some call them incubators). Ideas that allow broadcasting to survive among the elements noted...cause it ain't gonna get any better!
sidebar: Chas108 summed it up pretty well. (Rose colored glasses are fogging up)

Beat me with a spoon if you wish...but it doesn't change the real world. ;D
I re-iterate my past posts...the competition isn't among the stations...it's against outside influences.

That might be all!

(PS... I'm curious about a Savage response regarding CUME vs. TSL numbers on his dynamic duo. Mind you..just curious)

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Well now this thread is finally going somewhere!! To the reality check of the real world! I'm impressed (to a point). The missing elements are the HOW to do it and the WHAT do!! I'm thinking this forum isn't going to allow for "proprietary ideas"...(the BIG idea)...but, on the whole as a broadcast medium...you might consider a think tank here (some call them incubators). Ideas that allow broadcasting to survive among the elements noted...cause it ain't gonna get any better! sidebar: Chas108 summed it up pretty well. (Rose colored glasses are fogging up) Beat me with a spoon if you wish...but it doesn't change the real world. ;D
I re-iterate my past posts...the competition isn't among the stations...it's against outside influences.
That might be all! (PS... I'm curious about a Savage response regarding CUME vs. TSL numbers on his dynamic duo. Mind you..just curious)

heydey throws down the gauntlet!

We might start by placing audio and video editing software on a fast, beefy computer in the air studio that would give an air personality the means to dice, slice and upload content to the station website at will. Put it up there, promote it and see how many hits, views it gets. Look what happens with You Tube. "Cat Plays Piano," 17 million views. If you work in a radio station you should be able to generate something compelling... without getting arrested.

What about those "in studio conversations" we've all had while the ten-in-a-row plays? You and a co-worker talking with the mics off... the conversations that listeners never hear. Call the feature... well, you're creative, pick a catchy name and expect it to be co-opted by the company you work for and at least a dozen stations before you get a chance to copyright it. These are the in-studio, off mic conversations that usually stop with the words, "hold on, I gotta do this break" and resume immediately after the mic has been turned off.

Create compelling audio-video content that parallels the on-air product and entices people to check out your on-air show and the station website. Just throwin' stuff up against the wall.

 

[TheBigA]

So, what you're saying is that the platform matters less than the content?

Huh? Are you asking ME? Maybe you can show me where I said that. If I'm using Howard Stern as an example, I'[m obviously not saying platform matters less than content. Howard called himself "kind of all media," not king of all content. Big difference, and he didn't win any awards for community service.

Interesting observation from someone who's been such a big proponent of replacing local content with "better" syndication or out-of-town V/T.

The subject of this thread is that national TV morning shows are stealing shares from local morning radio. Not much syndication in morning drive. Even in Buffalo. That's the cash cow. Yet the public seems to vote for national TV at times over local radio. Am I wrong about that? So platform matters more than content.

It's been clear for some time that radio stations need to be in the content creation business. Smart radio stations are expanding their content onto the Internet, and not just as a stream.

That's right. Some stations are expanding their PLATFORM past towers and transmitters. As I said.

Of course, that requires that the radio group to have some kind of news department, and enough people to aggregate and post information in a timely manner...

Once again, some stations are. And they tend to be large radio groups, not the mom & pops. And it doesn't have to be "news" in the Les Nessman style. The Silver Sow is gone. But even in Buffalo I see morning shows sifting through useful stories and posting them on their site. You guys are talking about this as though it's a new idea, or isn't being done. It is. That doesn't change the fact that the local TV sttaion is doing the same thing, bringing us back to the fact that TV is stealing morning radio shares, just because they're the platform of choice.

 

[TheBigA]

We might start by placing audio and video editing software on a fast, beefy computer in the air studio that would give an air personality the means to dice, slice and upload content to the station website at will.

Every radio studio I've been in, in markets smaller than Buffalo, have exactly that. And it happens every day in Oklahoma City to Boise. Of course it requires the air personality to know how to use the software. And be willing to do the work.

What about those "in studio conversations" we've all had while the ten-in-a-row plays? You and a co-worker talking with the mics off... the conversations that listeners never hear. Call the feature...

Oh God...those inside conversation are what are KILLING radio. The idea that what the DJ and his side-kick say is important. It isn't. If you're going to talk, INVOLVE the audience. Put THEM on the air. Forget about those in-studio conversations, and concentrate on the listeners. Listen to them. This top-down, me telling you crap is done. It ended when Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

"The subject of this thread is that national TV morning shows are stealing shares from local morning radio. Not much syndication in morning drive. Even in Buffalo. That's the cash cow. Yet the public seems to vote for national TV at times over local radio. Am I wrong about that? So platform matters more than content."

The initial post specifically referred to the locally produced and staffed WGRZ Channel 2 morning show, specifically John Beard and Pete Gallivan (Jodi Johnston and Kevin O'Neill) and the local show on WIVB Channel 4.