JohnJax said:
But our market continues to never offer anything different.
First of all, does that comment include WJCT and other non traditional radio stations?
Second, does it include the contemporary stations, that are 70% currents?
Or is it mainly a criticism of the classics-based radio stations? In those cases, the music doesn't really change. You can retrace the 60s any way you want, but The Beatles still rule, and certain songs are stronger than the rest.
The other thing about different is that for a growing segment in this country, different is bad. Not to get political, but an objection to the current President is his campaign pledge about change. People on the other side say "keep the change." Going back to my experience in classical and jazz formats, the fans absolutely hate any changes or differences in its presentation. They tune in because they expect a certain form of presentation and music choice. That is the brand of the station. They don't want deep cuts from Miles Davis. They don't want Bitches Brew, they want Kind of Blue.
JohnJax said:
I do believe there is room for some local autonomy.
Based on my studies of major broadcasting companies, autonomy is generally something that is earned, not given. You get it because you demonstrate that you possess the ability to lead, not only in programming, but in attracting new revenues from that programming. A company didn't spend money to buy a station in Jacksonville so that station could do whatever it wants. The funny thing is a station like WJCT has all the autonomy in the world, and doesn't take it. But radio stations are no different from any other centrally-owned business, from department stores to fast food to retail to Budweiser. The Bud you buy in Jacksonville tastes the same as the Bud you get in New York, regardless of local taste. Same with Coke and Pepsi. And they all seem to be doing just fine.
JohnJax said:
A GM or PD should be able to decide to feature that song on the morning show or the jock should feel comfortable enough to talk to the boss and request the song be played.
Once again, that's a priviledge that is earned, not given. And you beeter have a better reason than the one you gave. A radio station doesn't program to its employees, but to the public. Just because a small group of people are responding to a particular song doesn't mean it will get the same response when presented to the vast majority who didn't see the local band. That kind of micro experience is better presented in micro media, rather than mass media.
The idea of "trusting the talent" also implies a certain level of musical credibility. Where do they get that credibility? What is their experience or knowledge in being able to recognize talent? Just because one has a job at a radio station doesn't mean he knows music. The radio business isn't the music business. I spent enough time in both to know the difference.
JohnJax said:
But to me that noose is way too tight and it literally is strangling some very good people who literally have no breathing room at all to make a positive difference.
That may be true. If so, there's no law that requires those who work in Jacksonville that they must stay there. I have lived in about a dozen cities in my career, north south east and west. They're all different and offer different opportunities. But at the end of the day, if you work at any type of job and want to diverge from what the boss wants and expects, you better have the knowledge and credibility to do it, and you better be right. Because if you work at McDonalds, and start flame-broiling the burgers, you will get fired. If you work at the local Coke plant and mess with the formula, you will get fired. If you teach in the local school system and diverge from the established curriculum, you will get fired. That's just how it is.