Is TV Stealing Morning Drive Radio Shares?

[chas108]

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.
[/quote]

It's true that in PPM the "inside conversations" drive the meter to the floor...we even have to watch what we say to artists - even A-level stars - because that can get "too inside" and drive PPM to the floor too. It was a "gulp" moment for us to learn that factoid.

But that's radio. And I know Buf'lo's not on PPM yet and may not be for awhile.

The web's different. It allows the opportunity to "go inside". A co-worker at the HAC in our cluster posts a "when the mics are off" video feature on FB every now and then...obviously she's on an AM show with 3 other people. There are gonna be a lot of "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" moments in this new era of cross-platform brand building. It could well be that the overnight guy (like those exist anymore, but I've put my rose-colored glasses back on) comes up with the smash hit podcast that catches on...and everyone else has to catch up.

Just thinking out loud:

 

[TheBigA]

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.

OK, I stand corrected. So which radio stations are running syndication between 5AM and 9AM? I mean, other than NPR?

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

OK, I stand corrected. So which radio stations are running syndication between 5AM and 9AM? I mean, other than NPR?

WBLK, Buffalo's heritage Urban station, part of the Town Square cluster (WBLK, WBUF, WJYE, WYRK) airs Tom Joyner from 6-10 a.m. and the show performs well. WWKB airs Bill Press in a.m. drive and the show is representative of the 1+ share that KB draws as a progressive talker on life support. Buffalo has two very competitive and separate NPR affiliates airing Morning Edition, WNED-AM and WBFO-FM.

The high profile live and local morning drive performers on FM are WJYE, WGRF 97 Rock, WKSE (Kiss), WTSS (Star), WEDG, WHTT and WYRK. In addition, there are a number of strong signal Canadian FMs that penetrate most of the Buffalo market, especially the Northtowns: CHTZ, CHFI, CKFM, CFNY, CHUM and CILQ. Sports WGR-AM, news-talk WBEN-AM and news-talk WECK-AM are live and local in a.m. drive.

 

[TheBigA]

So then what's the issue here? It sounds like people in radio are unhappy because somebody moved their cheese. If all but a couple of stations are live & local, then the problem is not with radio.

 

[heydaybegone]

So then what's the issue here? It sounds like people in radio are unhappy because somebody moved their cheese. If all but a couple of stations are live & local, then the problem is not with radio

Well hit me with a brick!! I could've had a V-8!! Where's the broad side of the barn? ;D
If I'm interpreting correctly...you ask the grass roots question. Then you state the obvious. Therefore...the problem is NOT in fact radio as a medium...but the CONSUMPTION factor! (Toto, we're not the only game in town anymore...Click your heels 3 times and everyone will begin to LISTEN to the radio again ???)

YES!! Moving the cheese would make for some unhappy people (witness the economics side, of course). Like any good mice would...they go find their cheese, well, where it tastes the best. And NOW (thank you technology), there are several cheese stores to pick from. (and some tasty varieties at that)

I'm not personally trying to answer your issue question (if you were really looking for one)...I'm actually supporting it being asked! It is THE question that should have been asked before the train left the station (well at lease when "All Aboard" was heard)

That's all.

 

[landtuna]

These young adults don't worry about TV schedules they watch shows on DVD or the internet.

Well, not quite all but you make a good point.

When my oldest daughter moved out she didn't even bother taking her TV. Her entertainment is theater movies and her iPod. She sometimes listens to radio in her car but usually it's CD's.

The youngest daughter listens to her iPod. No TV and no radio.

The last remaining son living at home watches '24'....that's it. His other entertainment arrives via the Internet. He never listens to radio.

The son that visits occasionally watches syndicated shows while he chows down (which seems to be most of the day). Other than that his TV viewing is limited to DVD's. He doesn't listen to radio.

None of them watch TV news (except when I have it on during dinner) and get no news from radio. Their ages range from 35-20.

That's the future folks.

 

[TheBigA]

None of them watch TV news (except when I have it on during dinner) and get no news from radio. Their ages range from 35-20.

Which is why radio stations stopped doing news in the first place.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Everybody gets their shorts in a bunch over "kids listening to their iPods". WHAT are they listening to on their iPods? What video are they watching on their iPods & DVDs? What are they seeking out on the Internet?

Kids have largely grown accustomed to alternate delivery of content. They're still watching TV shows on their iPods, just on their schedules. There's still "appointment television", it's just that the appointment is scheduled to fit THEIR schedule, not the network's.

Music is still an important part of people's lives. The biggest problem is that radio stations have abdicated their role as the "introducer" of new music. Repetitive playlists, endless sets of unimaginative commercials, and a station-centric approach instead of a listener-centric approach have turned even casual music listeners to other sources of entertainment. Radio - and record labels - have lost their influence.

News has never been a strong seller 12-35. Technology, whether it be 8-tracks, cassettes, mp3s, CDs, or DVDs, has generally been the province of those people with time to learn the new technology, and play with it. In general, we're talking about young people who don't have kids. Once kids enter the picture, they don't have time to do much more than set their iPod on "shuffle". Sooner or later, even that playlist gets boring. As children grow, the world that they're growing up in becomes more important to their parents. News becomes more important 35+.

As important as music is to many people, companionship and a sense of community are even more important. Radio used to supply that sense of community, that sense of immediacy, that sense of contact with what's going on HERE and NOW. When you give up that, you give up the primary reason to consume radio. Morning TV has recognized that, and cashed in on it. Local shows focus on local news, sports, weather, and feature material. National shows add the national/international layer to the mix.

So, it all comes back to content. When radio gets back to focusing on the LISTENER, radio will "be back". There's nothing wrong with the broadcast model that good, relatable programming can't fix.

 

[TheBigA]

Music is still an important part of people's lives. The biggest problem is that radio stations have abdicated their role as the "introducer" of new music.

First of all, it's NOT radio's role. Show me where in the FCC rules and regs it says that radio's role is to introduce new music. And radio is not in the music business. So introducing people to new music may help sell records, but it's not beneficial to radio. Second of all, radio didn't abdicate it. One day, radio no longer had an exclusive. When that happened, the rules changed. When you're the only source for music, you can take chances introducing new stuff. When people have alternatives and can tune away, it's bad for business. It's very clear that the public doesn't want someone else telling them what's new or hot. They want to be in the position to decide that themselves. There are ways to do that without forcing everyone to sit through the amateur hour on radio. That's the third thing. There are SO MANY new songs and new artists that it's impossible for a radio station to begin to sift through it all and find the two or three songs that will stand the test of time. Lots of things have changed since the 1960s. It's too bad, but that's how it is. Radio is simply trying to find its way in the future. But going back to what worked 40 years ago isn't going to get people to throw away their cell phones and iPods.

So, it all comes back to content. When radio gets back to focusing on the LISTENER, radio will "be back". There's nothing wrong with the broadcast model that good, relatable programming can't fix.

But as we've said in this thread, all but two stations are doing live and local radio. And the public is STILL watching TV in the morning. The audience isn't coming back to radio. They're doing other things. Radio will share its audience with every new piece of technology that comes along, and the audience will dilute even smaller and smaller. There is no changing that trend. There's no program format that will bring back the past.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Oh, so now we're opting for absurdity? Obviously, radio wasn't mandated by the FCC to be the "introducer of new music". And there have always been alternatives to radio for people in search of new music. At one time, you could walk into a record store and audition records. To this day, you can walk into Borders and audition music that doesn't get radio airplay.

The public has more tolerance for new music than you think if it's given the proper context. That used to be one of radio's strengths. The public has LOTS of people telling them what's new or hot - from late night shows to the Today Show concert series to American Idol. The public does decide who's RIGHT, and has a well-developed BS detector to sniff out who's really into "their" music, and who's just pushing product for profit.

I have no idea where you get "amateur hour on the radio". Making stuff up doesn't enhance your point. As far as sifting through all the new releases to find out what's worthy, that USED TO BE WHAT RADIO STATIONS DID. Hard to do that when you're running Selector for 3 radio stations, coordinating with sales, management, and what's left of the Promotions department, pulling an airshift, and tracking another.

What's changed since the '60s, or the '70s, or the '80s, or even the '90s is that radio companies have stopped forcusing on the listener. I don't know of any other industry that's reduced interaction with their audience more than radio. The focus has been on streamlining systems and trying to reduce the role of talent. Talent is seen as an expense, not as a key part of the product. Radio became music-centric, and now there are better ways of delivering music. If there isn't any added value, radio loses other, commercial-free delivery systems.

Radio still has a role in the morning, particularly in the car, and on the clock radio. Is it as robust as it used to be? No, because a richer media experience has invested in live and local programming and is providing the information that radio used to deliver so well. TV doesn't reach the car, and it's becoming clearer that the interactive nature of the cell phone is a detriment to driving. Radio still is blessed with simplicity. If the content is timely and desirable, people will turn on the radio and push their favorite button. Radio personalities who realize that it's about the listener, and not about them, will do fine if they're given the chance.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh, so now we're opting for absurdity? Obviously, radio wasn't mandated by the FCC to be the "introducer of new music". And there have always been alternatives to radio for people in search of new music. At one time, you could walk into a record store and audition records. To this day, you can walk into Borders and audition music that doesn't get radio airplay.

That's the proper place for it to take place. That way, people can buy the music they want after they audition it. The wrong way is to tie up a mass medium with an audition of new music by artists no one knows, and then expecting that they'll buy the music from some other place, with none of the money going to the radio station. Jeff Smulyan talked about tagging music for OTA radio, and that might be a way to return new music to the airwaves. But until then, OTA radio is a very inefficient way to audition new music.

By the way, I used to work in a record store when I was a kid, and they told me about the old listening booths. They shut them down long before I worked there because they didn't work and they were a waste of space.

The public has more tolerance for new music than you think if it's given the proper context.

Most CHR and hot country radio stations play an average of 25% new music. That is the right context. The wrong context is to hear new music on a classic hits station. So it's being done. No need for the lecture about radio abdicating its role. It happens every day. You can read the trades about which new songs stations are adding.

I have no idea where you get "amateur hour on the radio". Making stuff up doesn't enhance your point. As far as sifting through all the new releases to find out what's worthy, that USED TO BE WHAT RADIO STATIONS DID.

That was back in the day where there were a handful of labels with a handful of artists. Today, anyone can be a record label, and my mailbox is filled with new releases, as many as a hundred a week. That is a whole lot more than I ever received back in the old days. That's why I say it's an amateur hour. There is no A&R any more.

What's changed since the '60s, or the '70s, or the '80s, or even the '90s is that radio companies have stopped forcusing on the listener. I don't know of any other industry that's reduced interaction with their audience more than radio.

There you go again with the vast generalizations. I don't know about you, but I carry out a lot more interaction with my audience now than ever, thanks to social media. And it has nothing to do with radio companies. Just do it.

The focus has been on streamlining systems and trying to reduce the role of talent. Talent is seen as an expense, not as a key part of the product.

Look, here's the thing: Talent is not some thing that appears because you get a job at a radio station. What we found out is a lot of listeners don't want interruptions and they don't feel the so-called talent has any. They're going to other devices to ESCAPE the so-called talent. That's why talent is disappearing. If you want talent to be appreciated, they need to do more than sit in a dark studio and talk. That service is no longer needed. If they can do social media, if they can do personal appearances, if they can be entertainers, then they have a chance. But only in certain formats, and only at certain times of the day. This isn't from radio companies, but from the listeners. I can show you emails from listeners crabbing about DJs. My box is filled with them.

Radio still has a role in the morning, particularly in the car, and on the clock radio. Is it as robust as it used to be? No, because a richer media experience has invested in live and local programming and is providing the information that radio used to deliver so well.

Once again, there are only two stations in Buffalo that aren't live and local in the morning. So what are you talking about? There are also many more stations now than there used to be, and all stations can't do exactly the same thing. You want a "richer media experience?" It's available elsewhere. Radio has no exclusive on anything anymore. Just having the weather or the traffic is no unique function. Getting information in the car is easier on the phone, because it's on demand. I don't have to wait for the traffic report. The listener is happy with other media. There's nothing radio can do that will change that.

 

[landtuna]

Big A,
I usually enjoy reading your posts because they are both entertaining and informative. But several items below don't smack of reality (as I see it of course), so......

That's the proper place for it to take place. That way, people can buy the music they want after they audition it. The wrong way is to tie up a mass medium with an audition of new music by artists no one knows, and then expecting that they'll buy the music from some other place, with none of the money going to the radio station.

I always thought radio made its money via advertising and not record sales. Seems if radio played the music listeners want to hear they get ratings and revenue. Is that not the traditional way?

Of course in the old days radio stations (especially Top 40) used to have location broadcasts, contests and lots of spots for the local record stores so there was much more than a casual tie-in between the two businesses.

Other than the incessant blabbering about Lady Gaga's latest fiasco I don't see most DJ's treating record stores (or their modern equivalent) or artists any different than any other advertiser. Matter of fact, there is far more intelligent discussion of artists and their products on my local Smooth Jazz outlet than any of the others.

By the way, I used to work in a record store when I was a kid, and they told me about the old listening booths. They shut them down long before I worked there because they didn't work and they were a waste of space.

Well, maybe your particular store did that but most shut the listening booths down because teens tended to hang out and occupy the booths for a long time listening to music they didn't buy.

 

[TheBigA]

Hi Tuna,

Here are my thoughts:

Other than the incessant blabbering about Lady Gaga's latest fiasco I don't see most DJ's treating record stores (or their modern equivalent) or artists any different than any other advertiser. Matter of fact, there is far more intelligent discussion of artists and their products on my local Smooth Jazz outlet than any of the others.

I think we agree. I don't see the playing of new music by mostly unknown artists as a value to anyone except those artists. It's not very exciting to a listener to say that coming up, they're going to hear some song they've never heard before. Not very promotable, if you ask me. If the labels see value in airplay, they can provide proper promotion (the way they used to) and make it worth a station's while to give a record free airplay. And I think that's the system that's in place for CHR, country, and hot urban formats. And that's why you hear new music in their regular rotation.

But I've worked at progressive rock and non-commercial stations where we had no playlists and played new and unknown stuff all the time, and it wasn't the huge hit with audiences that some people think it is.

Well, maybe your particular store did that but most shut the listening booths down because teens tended to hang out and occupy the booths for a long time listening to music they didn't buy.

Once again, I think we agree. That’s what I meant when I said they were a waste of space and didn’t work. The funny part is that my store continued to receive promo copies of albums for many years afterwards, and the purpose was to put in the listening booths. All we did was give them out to the employees as a bonus. We occasionally played some of the promos in the store PA system, but ultimately that became tied to in-store sponsorships.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't see where anybody advocated playing large amounts of "new music by mostly unknown artists". I do see you defending the status quo, which few observers see as a path to a robust future for radio. A lot of on-line services are doing well because they're offering a greater variety within a genre. Most radio stations don't adjust their rotations as often as they should, or take into account external events (change in season, upcoming concerts, etc.). The attention to detail is lacking, mostly because PDs and music directors have had so many other duties, or multiple stations, heaped onto their plates.

Formatics leave precious few opportunities for most jocks to do more than hype the latest "must run" promotion. That leaves little chance to set up new or less familiar music. There's a lot less entertainment and informational elements that relate to the listener, and a lot more hype for the station. Most of the jocks I know utilize FaceBook and Twitter - if they're not blocked by either ancient browsers mandated by IT or corporate firewalls. That's hardly a replacement for good, relatable radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't see where anybody advocated playing large amounts of "new music by mostly unknown artists". I do see you defending the status quo, which few observers see as a path to a robust future for radio.

Huh? I said very clearly that radio stations that have appropriate formats for the introduction of new music are doing it at the rate of at least 25% of their playlist. That's not defending the status quo. That's saying you are wrong when you say radio has "abdicated it's role." It hasn't. Thousands of radio stations every day play new music. I can also refer you to their web sites, where they continue the process of new music introduction. Yet at the same time, it isn't really leading to increased audience or revenue. Even with the risks radio stations take every day to introduce new music, record labels have launched a strong offensive aimed at getting radio stations to give them 15% of their revenue for the right to play their music. I don't see how that is a path to a robust future for radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Formatics leave precious few opportunities for most jocks to do more than hype the latest "must run" promotion. That leaves little chance to set up new or less familiar music.

Formatics have nothing to do with it. If you look at the data in PPM markets, you can see very directly how "personality" and long informational set-ups affect the ratings. And the ratings mean that listeners have turned the station off. So don't blame corporate or the PD or the format. Blame the shorter attention span of the audience. Most jocks lack the talent to do what you want them to do in a consise and clear way. And it's pretty obvious that these jocks don't listen to the music, or share in the life group of the listeners. That's why the audience is turning them off. One side of your mouth says we need to listen to the audience, while the other side is saying we need to tell them stuff they're not interested in. Make up your mind.

 

[TheBigA]

The assumption is made that syndicated hosts play less new music. Apparently that assumption is wrong. In today's Phyllis Stark country email, she interviews KAJA PD Travis Moon. Here's what he says about new music on his station: "KJ 97 plays about 38 currents in regular rotation, although Moon says, “It looks like a little more only because there’s some Premium Choice stuff that spins [in overnights]. There’s some songs they’re playing and I’m not rotating.” He runs Clear Channel’s Premium Choice programming from 1-5 a.m."

So there you go. Syndicated overnight programming is playing a wider selection of music than he'd likely play if he was doing live & local. Then again, the point of this column is that KAJA is in a pitched battle with another country station. As I've often said, when you're competing in the same format, typically you tighten the playlist. That's what Moon's competition has done, and so far, the tighter playlist is winning.

 

[yugoidar]

The Big A quote:

"That was back in the day where there were a handful of labels with a handful of artists. Today, anyone can be a record label, and my mailbox is filled with new releases, as many as a hundred a week. That is a whole lot more than I ever received back in the old days. That's why I say it's an amateur hour. There is no A&R any more".

I don't know when your "old days" were, but back in the late 60s and early 70s - the record industry was releasing anywhere from 100 to 150 new singles a week. And as far as labels, go back to the early 60s when there were probably more record labels than at any other time in the history of recorded music.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know when your "old days" were, but back in the late 60s and early 70s - the record industry was releasing anywhere from 100 to 150 new singles a week.

Oh come on. I'd like to see that in print somewhere. There weren't that many artists signed total. Large rosters weren't done back then. Large rosters cost money. And there were only six genres. Compare the Grammy categories then and now.

Today there are many more genres, and many more releases in each genre. And most of them are crap. As I said, no A&R. No one is being selective. They're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

 

[heydaybegone]

First - Pastrick...no intent to steal the thunder of the thread ;D

Second - Let's all agree that there are licensing fees to play the tunes on the air, payola still exists, and song selection is a formatic option.
The music industry has it's own problems (which ironically started before the radio problems - gee- that should have been a clue ???)

Now...back to the topic at hand. The loss of ears to other mediums (yes, it's true, radio can only play to the ears - keep that in mind as this thread moves forward)


Excuse # 1 (this came out of the gate sooner than I expected!!):

The attention to detail is lacking, mostly because PDs and music directors have had so many other duties, or multiple stations, heaped onto their plates.

Hmmmmmm............


That's all. Let's keep grabbing for the Grail !

BTW- Radio is heading (not there yet) the way of the typewriter --- it can still produce material, but nothing like the new "stuff"
(Hey, has anyone seen my Selectric around? )