Is TV Stealing Morning Drive Radio Shares?

[chas108]

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.

BINGO!!!!

I defer to the reason I got into this business: http://rockradioscrapbook.ca/kb-armstrong-nov71-1.ram

Go to the 11:00 mark and listen to the backsell of Yes "Your Move/All Good People", a new add that week. Armstrong explains why he feels Yes is a "supergroup", and notes having listened to the album. Listen to his passion for the music.

I'm not at all advocating a return to 70's-style presentation. (Lest there be any misunderstanding)
But I find three points of this aircheck that transcend the four decades after it was made.

1) PASSION for the music.
2) KNOWLEDGE of the music.
3) HAVING FUN doing 1 and 2.

Think about being in the car with someone and telling them about a new artist or CD that you're all excited about. Or digging out a classic CD you haven't heard in a year or two, and you relish every note. I think this kind of genuine excitement is contagious. A good personality will be able to convey that passion in a genuine, relatable and concise manner.

PPM shows listeners want this type of content. Again, NOT done in 1970's style...but in current, real, I'm-riding-along-with-you-in-the-car-and-we're-having-a-good-time style. Hype leads to tuneout. Genuine excitement builds fans.

WABC/NYC's music policy was such that all the jocks had heard the adds before they went on the station because they had to vote on them before they were added!

The competition from other sources (from morning TV to web and mobile) grows more intense by the day.But when it's "pretty obvious that these jocks don't listen to the music, or share in the life group of the listeners", you've already handed your competition...from all sources...the victory. Pump the latest station promotion all you want. If you're not already engaging your listeners with great content, it won't matter.

 

[Element9]

Ponderous, effin ponderous. Is Don on the phone?

 

[SirRoxalot]

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.

Wrong. Formatics have EVERYTHING to do with it. Jocks have the talent to set up music in a clear and concise way the same way that they deliver station promotional announcements in a clear and concise way. Formatics dictate that they use their limited talk breaks to deliver station promo material instead of material that demonstrates that they DO listen to the music, and share in the life experiences of the listeners. The audience turns them off because formatics dictate that they deliver HYPE (i.e. "stuff they're not interested in"), instead of relatable information or entertainment targeted toward the interest of the AUDIENCE, not the STATION.

You've constantly denigrated the capabilities of talent when talent is generally shackled by requirements imposed - either directly or indirectly - by corporate dictate. Those who don't comply are expendable - and even ratings don't protect you anymore - as we've seen in the Buffalo market at stations in every group here.

 

[TheBigA]

Jocks have the talent to set up music in a clear and concise way the same way that they deliver station promotional announcements in a clear and concise way.

You're attempting to speak for thousands of jocks that you do not know. You can't do that. The station promotional stuff is usually scripted. The music stuff would not be. It would require them to know the music, and quite often they simply DON'T DO THE HOMEWORK. I can't begin to tell you how many jocks not only want their stuff to be prepared by someone else, but they DEMAND it. And I think you'd agree that scripted commentary, especially about music, doesn't carry the credibility that an ad lib does. But most of these folks can't do it.

You've constantly denigrated the capabilities of talent

That's because I have a lot more experience with it than you.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Jocks have the talent to set up music in a clear and concise way the same way that they deliver station promotional announcements in a clear and concise way.

You're attempting to speak for thousands of jocks that you do not know. You can't do that. The station promotional stuff is usually scripted. The music stuff would not be. It would require them to know the music, and quite often they simply DON'T DO THE HOMEWORK. I can't begin to tell you how many jocks not only want their stuff to be prepared by someone else, but they DEMAND it. And I think you'd agree that scripted commentary, especially about music, doesn't carry the credibility that an ad lib does. But most of these folks can't do it.

I'm speaking for thousands of jocks that I don't know in the same way that YOU'RE speaking about thousands of jocks that YOU don't know. Why would scripted promos - which are NOT of great interest to the audience - be superior content to music-centric information?

Most jocks DO their homework IF there's an opportunity for them to use their talents on the air. As far as jocks wanting or DEMANDING that "their stuff to be prepared by someone else", that's largely BS. If we're talking about morning shows wanting a producer to handle pre-produced bits or edit interviews, you MIGHT have a point. That just doesn't happen for the average jock.

One of the hardest things these days is "staying in the game" when automation runs everything, and your 4-5 talk breaks an hour are "scripted promos". Is it any wonder than too many jocks end up paying more attention to FaceBook or Twitter than their radio show? If they had the freedom to prepare and deliver material, they'd be every bit as good as the jocks that built radio's audience in the previous generations.

You've constantly denigrated the capabilities of talent

That's because I have a lot more experience with it than you.

DO tell. PLEASE fill us in on your "expertise". So far, all I've heard from you is that you weren't a good jock, yet you're an authority developing and handling talent. You may have negotiated contracts, but PLEASE fill us in on who you mentored that made it big as an air personality, and describe the role that YOU played that went beyond hiring them.

 

[TheBigA]

Why would scripted promos - which are NOT of great interest to the audience - be superior content to music-centric information?

I didn't say it was superior content. I said it would be presented in a more consise way, because it was written that way.

In a PPM world, consise delivery is important.

Most jocks DO their homework IF there's an opportunity for them to use their talents on the air.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

DO tell. PLEASE fill us in on your "expertise".

I have nothing to prove, but I know that I've worked in more markets, for more stations, and with more talent than you. That's all I have to say on the subject. And I think anyone who reads what I write knows I'm speaking the truth.

 

[yugoidar]

"And I think anyone who reads what I write knows I'm speaking the truth"
-The Big A May 25, 2010

Huh? Boy, you lost a few of us with that line.

 

[Element9]

"And I think anyone who reads what I write knows I'm speaking the truth"
-The Big A May 25, 2010

Huh? Boy, you lost a few of us with that line.

But you're not surprised.

 

[heydaybegone]

Let's keep this thread from being taken outside- we're all friends here :-\

There is WAY too much emphasis on the subtleties of programming. As I sip a refreshing Fuzzy Navel Cooler (from the bottle), I'm reminded that I'm getting exactly what I expected when I purchased it. The same is true of flipping my CD player to radio mode. I'm getting exactly what I expected (by station selection of course). Most of the posts here have had valid points & opinions. Obviously some would disagree...but that's ok.
Returning to the issue...again (so much digression- )....what's the future? As a consumer, when I turn off my MP3, and go back to the radio...I continue to receive what I expect. Some do it better than others (but not the point). Of course, when I have that break at work and peek at my Facebook page...I can get to YouTube by the links my friends post. Casually returning from break, the awesome station I'm streaming out of San Diego, CA sounds pretty good during the thunderstorm outside. Of course, it's always nice to head home after work with my CD player back on (hell, I've been listening to California radio all day ) That 6 CD player is cool cause I can pick what I want! I don't turn on the radio because I know what to expect Then of course the Big Box comes on with HD quality for the game, or race, or The Bachelor (YES -an equal opportunity posting board) ...and who gives a hoot about the radio?

So...Beatles IIRC "A Day in the Life" --- The product is delivered as expected (traditional radio)...but the alternatives are "life style relevant".

That's All

BTW - I'm running out of less than interesting ways to get this party started!! There isn't a right or wrong answer. Creative problem solving. Sidebar: These boards are mega quiet! Must be the weather in WNY!!!

 

[TheBigA]

Let's keep this thread from being taken outside- we're all friends here :-\

You know HeyDay, I like your style. You're hired!

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't have any idea what I'm talking about? I've had a successful career on the air, Bub. How about you?

And, I can at least SPELL concise.

 

[TheBigA]

I was waiting for that.

 

[yugoidar]

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.

First of all, I suspect that you're not old enough to have been in radio during that period-I was. The record business was on a roll with robust sales and plenty of the labels (many more than today) on the lookout for undiscovered talent. Each label promo man would come into the station each week with a stack of releases, hoping to get just two or three of his stack added to the playlist.

Not that I expect this will satisfy you, but I wrote a note to my friend, Claude Hall, noted Billboard magazine radio writer of that time and asked if he remembered the weekly tally of singles released being published in Billboard. Here's his reply:

"Can't help you. And Donny Ovens, who would know, passed a long time ago. I'd guess that easily more than 100 45s were released each week".

FYI-Donny Ovens was Billboard's man in charge of the weekly "Hot 100" charts.

As far as your "not that many artists signed total" comment, that's just an absolutely absurd statement. There were hundreds and hundreds artists with record deals and most of them, obviously never had a hit record.

Someday, you might just realize there are people on this board with far more experience and knowledge about this business than you display in spite of your "truthful" writings.

 

[Silkie]

Depends on how much TV you watch during the "morning drive".

 

[TheBigA]

As far as your "not that many artists signed total" comment, that's just an absolutely absurd statement. There were hundreds and hundreds artists with record deals and most of them, obviously never had a hit record.

If they didn't have a hit, they aren't relevant to the conversation.

Today, anyone with a computer and a guitar can be a signed recording artist, signed to their own label, districuted by MySpace. But that doesn't mean they're being heard or having hits. I get emails with mp3s from a lot of them. That's my point.

 

[yugoidar]

A predictable response from our favorite contrarian! Here's your quote with emphasis added:

"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".

Suddenly, the fact that artists/groups that were signed (but didn't necessarily have hits) aren't relevant to the conversation. Gee, silly me! I thought from the quote above you were challenging my claim that over 100 singles were released weekly back in the late 60s and early70s.

Now, you want to take it somewhere else...huh?

 

[Element9]

As far as your "not that many artists signed total" comment, that's just an absolutely absurd statement. There were hundreds and hundreds artists with record deals and most of them, obviously never had a hit record.

If they didn't have a hit, they aren't relevant to the conversation...

Disagree.

In a way, your rebuff is akin to the argument made by some regarding how radio today attempts to decide what's relevant to the listener, while other platforms continue to attract an audience.

In the context of the thread and the slightly diverted subject and hand, yugoidar's comments are indeed relevant to the conversation, especially as it might apply to the way songs/records/music were "channeled" to listeners/consumers years ago vs what the process is today. He also responded to (what's now become the typical all-knowing tone) of your statement.

To some extent, my interest reflects the way listeners/consumers today do or do not use radio and by extension, how and what readers and listeners find interesting. In the words of a former president, "I'm the decider."

A few years ago, I recall Dan Neaverth (Don't recognize the name? Look it up.) speaking at a symposium wherein he commented about radio, the music business and the local record reps who came to KB every Tuesday (or the one actual day of the week it might have been.) The names mentioned were legend. Jerry Meyers and Frankie Nestro are two that I recall at this writing. Neaverth noted that each record guy would be "pushing" a dozen records. KB, at the time, was responsible for making unknown artists/groups and breaking the hits before major market monsters like WABC and WRKO.

Okay. That was then, this is now. No need to write another one of your screeds using the words, "Go granny go."

For a more recent perspective, especially as it applies to Buffalo and Rochester markets, perhaps Debaser would like to offer his perspective, as he was music director of WKBW for a period of time, IIRC.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Thanks for that "9" can you imagine the power KB had breaking new music?....wow!

Look at all the independent labels that used to be around as well as a generous supply of major labels that were separate and not part of a conglomerate. Lots of music was coming out and being heard on the radio.

When I worked in radio in the '70's at an A/C station the average time a record stayed on the charts was around 12-14 weeks. There were around 5 adds every week to a list of about 40-45 songs. Now I see songs that have been on the charts for a year or longer. It's also common to see stations with no adds for a week or more.

Maybe it's because radio started playing it safe with research rather than exposing new music. This has led to performance fees which I'm not opposed to. The record industry does not need radio to expose new product anymore.

 

[TheBigA]

Suddenly, the fact that artists/groups that were signed (but didn't necessarily have hits) aren't relevant to the conversation. Gee, silly me! I thought from the quote above you were challenging my claim that over 100 singles were released weekly back in the late 60s and early70s.

You're taking my quote out of context.

My quote was in response to this:

Quote from: SirRoxalot on May 24, 2010, 10:57:21 AM

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.

The fact is that radio stations didn't sort through all artists from all genres on all labels to decide what to play. That's what my comment was about. So telling me that there were hundreds of artists signed is irrelevant.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe it's because radio started playing it safe with research rather than exposing new music.

As I said, the average CHR, Urban, and country station plays at least 25% new music. That is a fact, and a requirement in order for those stations to be chart reporters. WYRK plays more than the average. So it's not a one or the other thing. They're doing research, AND they're exposing new artists and new music. Lots of them. A look at a typical chart in those formats has about 1/3 of the chart is on their first album.

This has led to performance fees which I'm not opposed to. The record industry does not need radio to expose new product anymore.

And yet the biggest selling records were first exposed on OTA radio. The record labels spend millions of dollars to promote their new music and new artists on OTA radio. If the labels want a performance fee and don't need radio, all they need to do is cut out promo departments and they'll achieve both. But they won't do it, because they know it'll kill the golden goose. Record labels need OTA exposure, they pay millions for it, and they get rewarded with big hits, sales, and all other benefits, such as TV appearances, awards shows, etc. The charts are based on OTA airplay, and the major TV shows use those charts in making their bookings. In addition, the top tours are with artists who get non-stop OTA airplay. Artists make more money from touring than they do from record sales or any possible performance fee.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know of a single top-selling artist who was broken on platforms other than OTA radio. Other platforms are great for reaching small, narrow audiences. But only OTA can reach a mass audience, have impact, and sell lots of records.