John Hogan lies again!

[TheBigA]

"Too much inbreeding in radio, and it's made the medium stale and boring. Radio needs to look OUTSIDE the system. That is the future."

Baloney. Non radio people rarely work in radio. Oprah show anyone?

Do you want a list of so-called radio people who are now failing at holding their audience? Shall we start with Rick Dees? What a flop.

Radio needs to try something new.

 

[TheBigA]

Adam Carolla, David Lee Roth... so on & so forth.

Carolla got great numbers in LA. Roth would have been a success had he played music. He was mis-cast as a talk show host. But I think he could be great as a music DJ. Dee Snyder has done a great job on the radio. Same with Little Steven. Alice Cooper. Someone mentioned Oprah...when did Oprah do terrestrial radio?

 

[kinetic]

Yeah, but the local talent pool is ever shrinking thanks to CC's way of thinking.

There can only be one person at #1. The goal should be quality, not quantity.

When commercial radio began in the 1920s, they didn't have a farm system or small markets from which to draw talent. They brought in people from burlesque (Jack Benny, Bob Hope, etc). They hired actual musicians! And that led to the Golden Age of Radio.

There is no shortage of talent who can do radio. Steve Harvey is a great example. A comedian who made the transition to radio. Lots of history in that. Radio should draw on the BEST TALENT, not just whoever's convenient. Too much inbreeding in radio, and it's made the medium stale and boring. Radio needs to look OUTSIDE the system. That is the future.

I hope you don't mean to say the multiple and widely diverse choices of radio's "golden age" are analogous to the littany of talk radio clones or FM voice trackers out there today. What Mr. Hogan is proposing seems to me to be precisely what you say radio shouldn't be doing.
Programming decisions are totally a matter of convenience. Radio doesn't draw on the best talent; it just imitates a formula, and with each imitation, the product "loses a generation" (if you'll pardon an analogue reference). Every conservative talker out there is nothing but an imitation of Rush --and not a one of them can touch his talent. The problem decision makers made is that they thought they had to imitate the politics. They didn't realize, and probably still don't, that they should've been imitating the talent, or more to the point, the search for talent. Isn't that inbreeding?
The medium is stale and boring because the choices are limited, but that keeps the parent company's costs down, which is the modus operandi of any business that wants to make money. Generally speaking, no one who wants to make money is willing to do something as radical as look outside the system.
Are there exceptions? Aren't there always?
Of course there's no shortage of talent capable of doing radio, but that business model has been abandoned in direct proportion to the technological advancements that have provide the path to its elimination. At this point, there are some stations --stations with big sticks-- that are so bad they wouldn't be missed at all. They're voice-tracked/syndicated, they're musically safe, they're simply not compelling, there is absolutely no good reason to listen to them and both ratings and revenue reflect that, so quite spending money on the light bill and turn them off. No one would care.
I dare say there may be more stations like that than stations that are worth listening to --music or talk. Can't get your Rush here or your Ryan there? No problem, it's just up the dial.
Someone is going to figure out a way, or have the courage and financial horsepower, to do radio better than the corporates currently are doing it. In the 1980s, as I recall (and I'm happy to stand corrected), Z-100's morning zoo had the ratings but they spared no expense to get them; PLJ --the supposed rival-- was no match in the ratings but the operating costs for Jim Kerr's morning show were considerably less. Result: The distant second radio station wasn't crying all the way to the bank.
Are these the choices?
My frame of reference isn't from a business perspective so I don't speak with authority like some others, but it seems to me that if, say, the news-talk station in a 20-50 market size has no local presence but morning drive, that station is ripe for getting its tail kicked by someone with a comparable AM stick willing to spend the money to go local --more local news, local talk, etc, and of course, done well. You would think that would win, hands down (and with newspapers firing qualified people all over the place, there just might be a sizable and impressive job pool out there), but who's willing to spend, even in a good economic climate? Certainly not Clear Channel. Even if they weren't in such financial distress, even if they were making boatloads of money, they wouldn't do it.
Frankly, I don't know why these companies stay in it. There's little evidence they're in it for any broadcasting reason so if they're in it strictly for the profit motive and they're not only not making profit but they're in the tank for billions (with no sign of getting out from under the debt), why the hell do they bother staying in it? They may not care that they're not doing radio any good, but they're not doing themselves any good. Just get out.
My guess is these owners probably never expected to be in it this long to begin with. Radio to them was like speculators flipping homes or investment banks flipping loans. And just like the speculators and the investment banks, the radio owners got caught with their pants down, too. Unfortunately, they're not the only ones suffering for their bad business decisions.
This Premiere Choice nonsense from Clear Channel seems to be little more than a smoke screen to blow in the face of any potential examination by Congress into the lack of local radio presence across the country. They can tell Henry Waxman and his committee members, "Look, we reaching out to the community, we're doing PSAs, we're giving local programmers the power to choose." Like Waxman, et al are gonna know the difference? I don't expect they will.
Maybe that's why, if you wanna gripe, fine to vent here, but venting to congressional lawmakers who may take up this matter may be a wise course. It may not be as productive as we'd like, but perhaps it will be a little more cathartic.

 

[TheBigA]

I hope you don't mean to say the multiple and widely diverse choices of radio's "golden age" are analogous to the littany of talk radio clones or FM voice trackers out there today.

Huh? There were not a lot of "diverse choices" in radio's golden age. You had Red, Blue, and Yellow, most of whom eminated from New York.

The medium is stale and boring because the choices are limited

Vanilla is still the most popular flavor of ice cream. And all a station needs to make money is to be #1. Not the best. There is no true reward for quality. The best content doesn't win.

There's little evidence they're in it for any broadcasting reason so if they're in it strictly for the profit motive and they're not only not making profit but they're in the tank for billions (with no sign of getting out from under the debt), why the hell do they bother staying in it?

Because, as you point out, they're in the tank for billions. Like the guys in Vegas, they will bet it all on red, hoping to hit a big pot. There are still undervalued assets, still lots of cash flow, and still money to be made once we either get past the current depression.

Like Waxman, et al are gonna know the difference? I don't expect they will.

Realistically, what choice do they have? They're not breaking any laws, and Congress is even more in debt than any of the radio companies. Waxman is Mr. Pot to Hogan's Mr. Kettle. Dumb and dumber. Or debt and debter. And truthfully, it's not like there are better alternatives out there. Bill Gates isn't about to spend money on radio stations.

 

[davideduardo]

I hope you don't mean to say the multiple and widely diverse choices of radio's "golden age" are analogous to the littany of talk radio clones or FM voice trackers out there today. What Mr. Hogan is proposing seems to me to be precisely what you say radio shouldn't be doing.

Two eras have been called the "Golden Age" with the first already covered by Sir A. If we take the mid-30's as the reference point, remember that there were only around 500 stations operating... you can see lists by selecting issues of Radex Magazine at www.americanradiohistory.com

Then, some say the rebirth of radio after the TV freeze was lifted was a golden age... DJs and music formats... and bigger audiences than the networks generated!

But there was no diversity. In my home town, Cleveland, from the later 50's to the early 60's, we generally had 2 r&b stations, 3 Top 40's and 3 MOR stations. Period. Big diversity... and all but 2 or 3 did not even cover the whole market at night... several did not cover it all daytime, either.

Today, top 50 markets (and we are talking abut around half the US population) have dozens of format choices on the average. At no time has there been more choice on terrestrial radio.

Oh, the reason we have AC stations and CHR's and such in every market is that those formats are popular, and people in each market want to hear them... not because we are too cheap to come up with something else. Ever notice that you get the same stuff on TV in Seattle as you do in Spartanburg? Or that newspapers look pretty much the same in every city? Or that the big hits are national, not local?

 

[kinetic]

In response to both David and TheBigA:
A, when you argue that we had Red, Blue, and Yellow, you're talking networks, not programs, and I'm talking programs that were and hour or a half hour, not three or four.
This is not about the number of stations; it's about the number of available programs, many of which were premium products in their day.
To me, Abbott and Costello, Jack Benny, Groucho Marx, or any number of serials were all A-list product in their day. That's the diversity to which I refer and that kind of selection doesn't exist today. As you say, A, it doesn't need to be A-list, it just needs to be number one. I'm arguing that the sub-par imitators or syndicated products can be beaten if someone is willing to spend money on better content. Are you saying that's not possible? If I understood your earlier post correctly, I think you're saying it's always possible to win with A-list product but it's rarely possible to find someone willing to spend the money on it (hence my earlier reference to Z-100 and PLJ in the 1980s).
David, you argue that "at no time has there been more choice on terrestrial radio," as if this was a point of pride for the industry. That's my inference, not your implication. I disagree; there isn't more choice when all or the majority of choices are mediocre. If there were choices --good choices-- alternatives like web platforms and iPods wouldn't be necessary and/or thriving. Did radio eliminate that farm system of grooming new talent when technology availed itself to the reduction of labor costs. Profits in the short term at best because it seems to me that in the process of doing that, radio began eliminating its farm system of listeners. Did the listeners care? No, they began moving on, and who can blame them?
Someone asked me what to do with a couple of marginal AM stations in a major market. I'm no consultant; it was just conversation. The market has an all-news, two news-talker and a sports station. The marginal AMs, which carry syndicated programming --liberal on one and conservative on the other-- just ain't cuttin' it. "What should we do?" Shut 'em off. What is the point of keeping them on? They wouldn't be missed and at the very least, operators could save on the utility costs.
Where I live, I can name five or six stations that no one would miss if you turned them off. Most are FMs, all with substantial signals, and nearly none with local talent, let alone creative ones. (Incidentally, the winning FMs in the market all provide local talent.) And in satellite markets an hour away from here in any direction, if you turned off the local AMs, listeners would still be able to get their fill of the syndicated talk shows. No one would miss Rush if an AM in Dayton, OH, went dark.
It's like Starbucks. You may have more choices in the number of locations but not in the quality of the product. It's not diversity if all the choices are vanilla.


As an aside...
<<Congress is even more in debt than any of the radio companies. Waxman is Mr. Pot to Hogan's Mr. Kettle.>>
The fact the Congress is the pot and someone else is the kettle has never stopped Congress from being pious.

 

[TheBigA]

To me, Abbott and Costello, Jack Benny, Groucho Marx, or any number of serials were all A-list product in their day. That's the diversity to which I refer and that kind of selection doesn't exist today.

I think you have a limited view of radio today. If you put together all the offerings on just non-commercial radio, it would exceed what was available on all commercial stations in the 30s.

I'm arguing that the sub-par imitators or syndicated products can be beaten if someone is willing to spend money on better content.

OK...so how do you convince someone to part with their money? What's your strategy? Especially when we know the best content usually doesn't win.

 

[davideduardo]

This is not about the number of stations; it's about the number of available programs, many of which were premium products in their day.

Programs went to TV, and much of the talent went with it.

People do not look to radio for short form programs now... with a few nice exceptions like some of the NPR shows. Otherwise, radio transformed into a medium that met listener needs for a particular format whenever they tuned in.

To me, Abbott and Costello, Jack Benny, Groucho Marx, or any number of serials were all A-list product in their day.

Groucho Marx was no different than any number of morning radio shows today, except that the morning shows have to entertain 20 to 30 hours a week, while Groucho and a large crew only did it for a fraction of that time.

And you should read issues of Broadcasting from the era... everything from the shows you name to The Lone Ranger were criticized for making America's youth lazy, making people daydream, etc., etc. There were national committees that decried the moral degradation radio shows were inflicting on innocent listeners.

I'm arguing that the sub-par imitators or syndicated products can be beaten if someone is willing to spend money on better content.

Most syndicated product is syndicated because it is so good that one market alone can not keep it to itself. Syndication is nothing but an ad hoc network. How many local shows can you name from the 30's and 40's that were truly memorable? You have named syndicated shows, distributed by the NBC and CBS syndication company... oh, sorry, networks.

David, you argue that "at no time has there been more choice on terrestrial radio," as if this was a point of pride for the industry. That's my inference, not your implication. I disagree; there isn't more choice when all or the majority of choices are mediocre. If there were choices --good choices-- alternatives like web platforms and iPods wouldn't be necessary and/or thriving.

There have always been alternative delivery systems, ranging from the 78 rpm record to cassettes and CDs. None is as easy to personalize as the MP3 player and the like, so now people can have personalized playlists. But radio is still a valid medium, and is not mediocre. "Broadcasting" can not tailor a playlist to your liking. It can provide a list lots of folks will enjoy for those moments when convenience makes radio the better choice.

Where I live, I can name five or six stations that no one would miss if you turned them off. Most are FMs, all with substantial signals, and nearly none with local talent, let alone creative ones. (Incidentally, the winning FMs in the market all provide local talent.)

Since you do not identify the market, we can't analyze your statement.

Guessing it is Dayton, the "winningest " stations are WMMX, WHKO, WTUE, WLQT and WHIO. Three are Clear Channel stations, two are Cox.

And in satellite markets an hour away from here in any direction, if you turned off the local AMs, listeners would still be able to get their fill of the syndicated talk shows. No one would miss Rush if an AM in Dayton, OH, went dark.

No, they would not miss him because a new affiliate would grab him in a matter of hours.

It's like Starbucks. You may have more choices in the number of locations but not in the quality of the product. It's not diversity if all the choices are vanilla.

You dismiss shows that millions enjoy, like Rush. I think I smell elitism.

 

[kinetic]

And in satellite markets an hour away from here in any direction, if you turned off the local AMs, listeners would still be able to get their fill of the syndicated talk shows. No one would miss Rush if an AM in Dayton, OH, went dark.

No, they would not miss him because a new affiliate would grab him in a matter of hours.

David, you're missing my point: When I say no one would miss Rush if an AM in Dayton, OH, went dark, I'm saying no one would miss Rush if all the AM talkers went dark. What market I'm in isn't the issue. How many stations in any given umbrella need to run Coast to Coast? Just one. How many stations in any given umbrella run Coast to Coast? Or Rush? Most of them, if not all. If someone living in Austin wanted to listen to live talk radio some evening and the only thing playing on his preset is a re-run of the local morning broadcast, or even a Rush re-run, where is he going to go, to the San Antonio frequencies. And if it's a Rush re-run there, is that diversity or not?
I understand the business argument. Of course, someone else would pick it up in the sattelite market. That's a no brainer. I'm not talking about business in that sense. It may be a cost-saving move to eliminate live evening programming on the Austin station but at the expense of losing how many listeners over time who'd rather hear what's happening in their town, or at least something live? Is there a need to run the Austin station or not? This is not about a program being so good that one market alone can keep it to itself. If six stations within a 90-mile perimeter are all running Coast to Coast at the same time, where's the value to the listener? There is none. If they were all Jack stations and they were all programmed identically, would you need all six. You could turn off most of those stations and the listener would still be able to get what he or she wanted.
So A, is that me with a limited view of radio or radio that has limited itself through it's own cannibalistic business model? I'm not talking about short form programming; I'm talking about today's radio programming. The choices are limited. I don't agree with you that the best content usually doesn't win. It does if there's a level playing field; I don't believe there is.
How do convince someone to part with their money to put up a product with better content? I haven't a clue, especially when radio is filled with and has been filled with operators who have always been lemmings. Whatever was behind the thinking to put Z-100 on the air in 1983 --that rarely happens, and who'd take that chance today even in a healthy economic climate? You'd need the talent, the marketing strategy, the dollars and so on --whatever it takes to reduce the risk to the owner. I don't know what all those things are; my guess is, based on previous comments on these boards, you and David and some others would have better answers. But I imagine the hardest part is finding an owner that doesn't have a lemming mentality.
A, you've referenced TV a couple of times, maybe you did, too, David. If it were Clear Channel TV, Seinfeld would never get on the air, let alone been renewed after its dismal first season. In the 80s, Z-100 snagged every syndicated comedy service it could get its hands on to deny their availability to WPLJ. I suppose if PLJ had superb comedy writers say, a la Bob & Tom, they could have written brilliant bits and perhaps delivered a funnier morning show. Is that what has to happen to a radio station? NBC was in such bad shape it had little choice and/or little to lose but to renew Seinfeld. I don't expect a radio station to be forced anytime soon to originate its own programming but maybe if it had no choice or nothing to lose, they might actually create a better product. Or they could just turn the signal off because, who'd notice?

"You dismiss shows that millions enjoy, like Rush. I think I smell elitism."
That's twice you've made the wrong assumption.

 

[TheBigA]

So A, is that me with a limited view of radio or radio that has limited itself through it's own cannibalistic business model?

The business model is the same one that existed, for the most part, 70 years ago.

I'm not talking about short form programming; I'm talking about today's radio programming. The choices are limited.

I'm not talking about short form either. What kind of programming do you want that doesn't exist? My case to you is that if it doesn't exist, that's because it couldn't attract enough of an audience to make it profitable. Otherwise, it's there.

The playlists are larger than they were 40 years ago, there are more music formats now than 40 years ago, and there are more minorities being served now (in terms of foreign languages, women, and even religion) than ever before. They aren't always on the biggest signal, or on at the most convenient time, but they're all there. In my town, I even hear radio shows hosted by anarchists who preach the elimination of the government.

How do convince someone to part with their money to put up a product with better content? I haven't a clue, especially when radio is filled with and has been filled with operators who have always been lemmings.

Why? Because no one wants to risk their own personal money on something that's not an obvious sure thing. Would you? Of course not. And the fact is that better content doesn't always lead to more audience or more money.

 

[davideduardo]

David, you're missing my point: When I say no one would miss Rush if an AM in Dayton, OH, went dark, I'm saying no one would miss Rush if all the AM talkers went dark.

95% or more of local listeners would miss Rush in this hypothetical case since, in broad terms, City-dwelling AM listeners don't give much in-home or at-work listening to any AM outside it's 10 mV/m contour... Below that level, the local noise levels in cities and the quality of most receivers does not premit comfortable listening.

Yes, in a few markets there is a decent adjacent market signal that overlaps in part of each market, but as a rule, syndicators protect the coverage of affiliates.

What market I'm in isn't the issue. How many stations in any given umbrella need to run Coast to Coast? Just one. How many stations in any given umbrella run Coast to Coast? Or Rush? Most of them, if not all. If someone living in Austin wanted to listen to live talk radio some evening...

So little AM listening at all takes place in the evening hours that it's almost irrelevant to discuss it.

quote] and the only thing playing on his preset is a re-run of the local morning broadcast, or even a Rush re-run, where is he going to go, to the San Antonio frequencies. And if it's a Rush re-run there, is that diversity or not?[/quote]

Very few people listen to nighttime radio from other markets... in fact, most AMs have much worse night signals than the day ones. In the case of Austin, KLBJ has a poor night signal, but in 25-54 it gets about 5 times the audience in the Austin metro as WOAI does; WOAI's listening at night is mostly in Calwell and Hayes counties in the Austin metro, where WOAI has a at least a 5 mV/m signal.

If six stations within a 90-mile perimeter are all running Coast to Coast at the same time, where's the value to the listener? There is none.

Generally, at night, the stations have such limited coverage that there are many holes even in such a tight zone. The idea is to cover local markets with local stations, as the experience of the syndicators is that using out of market stations results in limited or no listening in the market in quesiton, whether it is Traverse City, MI, or Flagstaff, AZ.

If they were all Jack stations and they were all programmed identically, would you need all six. You could turn off most of those stations and the listener would still be able to get what he or she wanted.

First, Jack would not be on AMs. But for the sake of argument, listeners will not listen today to weak signals on AM or noisy signals on AM... they just don't listen. And whether it is Jack on FMs that don't overlap their 64 dbu contours or AMs that don't overlap the 5 mV/M contours, you need as many stations as it requires to cover the cities of interest with local signals.

Whatever was behind the thinking to put Z-100 on the air in 1983 --that rarely happens, and who'd take that chance today even in a healthy economic climate?

CBS just put two new CHRs on the air in the first and second revenue markets in the US, LA and NYC, in 2009. Why? Like Z-100, they did research and found an opening for an additonal CHR of a different flavor.

You'd need the talent, the marketing strategy, the dollars and so on --whatever it takes to reduce the risk to the owner. I don't know what all those things are; my guess is, based on previous comments on these boards, you and David and some others would have better answers. But I imagine the hardest part is finding an owner that doesn't have a lemming mentality.

Stations find formats by talking with listeners. If there are opportunities that win over existing formats, owners go for them. Sometimes they work, sometimes the ability of the challenged stations to react is underestimated, and they fail.

NBC was in such bad shape it had little choice and/or little to lose but to renew Seinfeld.

You forget also that Seinfeld and his writers saw the results, and the second season was better.

I don't expect a radio station to be forced anytime soon to originate its own programming

Most stations, especially in big markets, are local. Some have a combination of syndicated shows and local ones, but if you look across the markets you will see that there is plenty of local programming.

 

[kinetic]

What kind of programming do you want that doesn't exist? My case to you is that if it doesn't exist, that's because it couldn't attract enough of an audience to make it profitable. Otherwise, it's there.

The playlists are larger than they were 40 years ago, there are more music formats now than 40 years ago, and there are more minorities being served now (in terms of foreign languages, women, and even religion) than ever before. They aren't always on the biggest signal, or on at the most convenient time, but they're all there. In my town, I even hear radio shows hosted by anarchists who preach the elimination of the government.

That's not quite how I define diversity. That's like saying, well yes, we have minority housing in our community; it's just 10 miles out of town and the indoor plumbing should be ready in about two weeks. So when you say it doesn't exist because it couldn't attract enough audience, I would qualify that. Radio is a copycat industry. Their idea of programming isn't to create, it's to imitate. If Rush had been a liberal, we'd have nothing but liberal talkers blathering on the air because everyone would've been thinking, "We have to duplicate that." Of course, they missed the much larger point. Rush isn't successful because of his politics; he's successful because he is a superb broadcaster. But I think he can be beaten; anyone can be beaten. And certainly his many clones could be beaten with less effort.

And when, after over a decade of Rush and Rush imitators, Air America came along, it played it's hand badly. But it didn't fail because of its politics; it failed because it was bad radio --at every level both on and off the air; poorly planned, poorly executed. And that's in addition to being behind the 8 ball to begin with because of an uphill battle against an established habit and comfort zone adhered to by radio imitators. My case to you is that if the playing field is level, good content will win (and Air America had neither).

In a thread you launched called "The Pouncers," someone commented that those pouncers needed three things to succeed: A new idea, gonads and patience. You have said in this thread that radio needs to try something new. How is that possible in an industry filled with imitators working with a business model that's about maximizing quarterly profits instead of sustainable growth, compounded by the anxieties brought on by a deep recession?

Well, you said it's because no one wants to risk their own personal money on something that's not a sure thing. Would I? Yes, if I had the right game plan in place; that would not be the Air America model of launching a new product. To say, "the fact is that better content doesn't always lead to more audience or more money" I think is misdirected; if the talk radio landscape were dominated with liberal blathering, the fact is Rush would stand a chance at landing a job. If radio is to try new things, it's going to require risk-takers who know how to do it. I do think the talent is out there, and as you said, it certainly could be in places outside of radio. The content is available and can win once someone with gonads and patience decides to go against the conventional wisdom. Someone's going to do that and then all the imitators will wonder how that happened and why they didn't think of it.

 

[kinetic]

95% or more of local listeners would miss Rush in this hypothetical case since, in broad terms, City-dwelling AM listeners don't give much in-home or at-work listening to any AM outside it's 10 mV/m contour... Below that level, the local noise levels in cities and the quality of most receivers does not premit comfortable listening.

If stations in Eugene, OR, or Santa Rose, CA, didn't run Rush, those fans wouldn't miss it; they'd listen out of Portland or San Francisco.

So little AM listening at all takes place in the evening hours that it's almost irrelevant to discuss it. Very few people listen to nighttime radio from other markets... in fact, most AMs have much worse night signals than the day ones. In the case of Austin, KLBJ has a poor night signal, but in 25-54 it gets about 5 times the audience in the Austin metro as WOAI does; WOAI's listening at night is mostly in Calwell and Hayes counties in the Austin metro, where WOAI has a at least a 5 mV/m signal.
Generally, at night, the stations have such limited coverage that there are many holes even in such a tight zone. The idea is to cover local markets with local stations, as the experience of the syndicators is that using out of market stations results in limited or no listening in the market in quesiton, whether it is Traverse City, MI, or Flagstaff, AZ.

This kind of detail misses the larger point. You're talking about a daypart; I'm talking about the value of a radio station when saturation makes a signal obsolete. I get your point about nights but I only mentioned those hours to break up the monotony of using Rush as the sole example.
Same with the Jack reference. I didn't think to specify FM because I thought that was assumed --my error.

CBS just put two new CHRs on the air in the first and second revenue markets in the US, LA and NYC, in 2009. Why? Like Z-100, they did research and found an opening for an additonal CHR of a different flavor.

I'm not so sure this was a bold move, particularly in New York where the station slipped into an abyss after Stern's departure. Something had to be done, and I tend to think it's a human character flaw that we are rarely prescient in our actions; we only do what needs doing when no other choices exist. I don't know if if such hemorrhaging was the case in Los Angeles. Either way, though it's too early to know, I applaud both efforts and hope they succeed. Competition makes everyone better.

You forget also that Seinfeld and his writers saw the results, and the second season was better.

I didn't forget; I just don't believe a radio station owner would've had the patience to wait that long before pulling the plug. Fox News lost money in its first five years; today it's a monster. Radio owners would've given up after the first year and look what they'd have lost.

Stations find formats by talking with listeners. If there are opportunities that win over existing formats, owners go for them. Sometimes they work, sometimes the ability of the challenged stations to react is underestimated, and they fail.

This may take us in a different direction but I'm reminded of a recent conversation about the fate of some of the more distressed companies.
Rep firm meetings in LA with this and that GM/GSM, etc... these are firms that rep for Clear Channel and others. After the usual "everyone hates Clear Channel" chatter (and its most recent breakout of Premiere Choice), the conversation dwelled on whether its two equity firms will have the patience to hold on to the massive debt load --$23 billion is it?
I guess the real questions are two: Can Lee and Bain make back their debt? Will the radio business be any better in two years, after Main Street finally catches up with the end of the recession (assuming that's where we'll be economically)? By that, I mean, no station will be worth what it was. It's like housing. The $750k price in '05 has dropped to $450k --probably it's more accurate value. So why would a lender that tried to reneg on owning the CC debt to begin with expect to make up the $23 billion when the properties will be worth less? They're gonna make this back on ad revenue? If they can't make up the debt and the radio properties are worth even less than they were when they assumed the debt, why wouldn't you declare Chapter 11 and let a court sort it out?
Certainly, you can apply this with several other companies (a few of whom are in worse shape than CC). Under these circumstances, what owners are going to go for "opportunities that win over existing formats"?

 

[TheBigA]

That's not quite how I define diversity.

So what do you want that doesn't exist?

Radio is a copycat industry. Their idea of programming isn't to create, it's to imitate.

And your point is? Fast food is a copycat industry. How many ways can you cook hamburger? The goal isn't haute cuisine, but to satisfy customers on the cheap, and make money. Same with radio. You want art? Go to a museum.

How is that possible in an industry filled with imitators working with a business model that's about maximizing quarterly profits instead of sustainable growth, compounded by the anxieties brought on by a deep recession?

Oh well...thus the complexity of this industry, and why so many fail. No one said it was easy.

 

[davideduardo]

95% or more of local listeners would miss Rush in this hypothetical case since, in broad terms, City-dwelling AM listeners don't give much in-home or at-work listening to any AM outside it's 10 mV/m contour... Below that level, the local noise levels in cities and the quality of most receivers does not premit comfortable listening.

If stations in Eugene, OR, or Santa Rose, CA, didn't run Rush, those fans wouldn't miss it; they'd listen out of Portland or San Francisco.

No, they would not. I believe Rush is on KEX in Portland; the 5 mV/m signal stops two countes away from the Eugene market. Santa Rosa is inside and part of the San Francisco MSA, and the San Francisco station, KSFO, is the local affiliate for the market. With 5 kw on 560, the station covers, daytime, the full market.

Those were really bad examples.

You're talking about a daypart; I'm talking about the value of a radio station when saturation makes a signal obsolete.

You brought up the hypothetical person listening in Austin at night. Again, it was apparently a bad example.

In any case, the syndicators are pretty careful about protecting the useful and effective market coverage of affiliates. Where you see several in a small area, it is because there is no overlap in the "usable" signal coverage between the stations.

CBS just put two new CHRs on the air in the first and second revenue markets in the US, LA and NYC, in 2009. Why? Like Z-100, they did research and found an opening for an additonal CHR of a different flavor.

I'm not so sure this was a bold move, particularly in New York where the station slipped into an abyss after Stern's departure

You stated that nobody would make such a move, yet there are dozens of examples just so far this year in major markets...

You forget also that Seinfeld and his writers saw the results, and the second season was better.

I didn't forget; I just don't believe a radio station owner would've had the patience to wait that long before pulling the plug. Fox News lost money in its first five years; today it's a monster. Radio owners would've given up after the first year and look what they'd have lost.

Emmis gave Movin' in LA way too long... two years or so... before switching to a Spanish language format in an LMA. Bonneville is giving bottom-dwelling The Sound in LA over a year to build its AAA format, despite horrible ratings. Those are two real examples.

Rep firm meetings in LA with this and that GM/GSM, etc... these are firms that rep for Clear Channel and others.

Each rep firm represents a different cluster (although most firms are part of a single entity, they are run separately) and they don't share with each other.

After the usual "everyone hates Clear Channel" chatter (and its most recent breakout of Premiere Choice), the conversation dwelled on whether its two equity firms will have the patience to hold on to the massive debt load --$23 billion is it?

Rep firms generally do not "meet with GMs" in the station markets, even markets as important as LA. All have LA offices, and can drop by and chat with the NSM... rep firms meet with corporate folks at the management level, and do the usual four legged calls when the station NSM or other staffer makes calls on the rep in the rep firm's different locations. While they may chat about the state of the industry, most time is spent developing pitches, presentations and discussing rates.

I don't know why you bring rep firms into this, even.

 

[kinetic]

95% or more of local listeners would miss Rush in this hypothetical case since, in broad terms, City-dwelling AM listeners don't give much in-home or at-work listening to any AM outside it's 10 mV/m contour... Below that level, the local noise levels in cities and the quality of most receivers does not premit comfortable listening.

If stations in Eugene, OR, or Santa Rose, CA, didn't run Rush, those fans wouldn't miss it; they'd listen out of Portland or San Francisco.

No, they would not. I believe Rush is on KEX in Portland; the 5 mV/m signal stops two countes away from the Eugene market. Santa Rosa is inside and part of the San Francisco MSA, and the San Francisco station, KSFO, is the local affiliate for the market. With 5 kw on 560, the station covers, daytime, the full market.

Those were really bad examples.

You're talking about a daypart; I'm talking about the value of a radio station when saturation makes a signal obsolete.

You brought up the hypothetical person listening in Austin at night. Again, it was apparently a bad example.

In any case, the syndicators are pretty careful about protecting the useful and effective market coverage of affiliates. Where you see several in a small area, it is because there is no overlap in the "usable" signal coverage between the stations.

CBS just put two new CHRs on the air in the first and second revenue markets in the US, LA and NYC, in 2009. Why? Like Z-100, they did research and found an opening for an additonal CHR of a different flavor.

I'm not so sure this was a bold move, particularly in New York where the station slipped into an abyss after Stern's departure

You stated that nobody would make such a move, yet there are dozens of examples just so far this year in major markets...

You forget also that Seinfeld and his writers saw the results, and the second season was better.

I didn't forget; I just don't believe a radio station owner would've had the patience to wait that long before pulling the plug. Fox News lost money in its first five years; today it's a monster. Radio owners would've given up after the first year and look what they'd have lost.

Emmis gave Movin' in LA way too long... two years or so... before switching to a Spanish language format in an LMA. Bonneville is giving bottom-dwelling The Sound in LA over a year to build its AAA format, despite horrible ratings. Those are two real examples.

Rep firm meetings in LA with this and that GM/GSM, etc... these are firms that rep for Clear Channel and others.

Each rep firm represents a different cluster (although most firms are part of a single entity, they are run separately) and they don't share with each other.

After the usual "everyone hates Clear Channel" chatter (and its most recent breakout of Premiere Choice), the conversation dwelled on whether its two equity firms will have the patience to hold on to the massive debt load --$23 billion is it?

Rep firms generally do not "meet with GMs" in the station markets, even markets as important as LA. All have LA offices, and can drop by and chat with the NSM... rep firms meet with corporate folks at the management level, and do the usual four legged calls when the station NSM or other staffer makes calls on the rep in the rep firm's different locations. While they may chat about the state of the industry, most time is spent developing pitches, presentations and discussing rates.

I don't know why you bring rep firms into this, even.

Being nitpicky is fine, but again, you missed the larger point.

 

[davideduardo]

Being nitpicky is fine, but again, you missed the larger point.

I think the larger point is that you are producing opinions on certain conditions within the radio industry based on inaccurate assesments of the way people actually listen to radio.

First, nearly all your points have been about talk formats and shows; talk generally does not even command 10% of local listening, and in many markets quite a bit less. And, unless the talk has been moved or offered on FM, the majority of listeners are over 50.

Second, you assume listeners will tune to what are, in fact, unlistenable signals, if certain "duplicated" shows are not one in any particular market... which is not so. That point seems to be the keystone to your stance that eliminating this so-called duplication would open up stations for something "better" were such stations not to have to bear the burden of carrying Limbaugo or ACC or some other syndicated fare; the fact is that there is no duplication and struggling AMs are not going to invest in unporoven product anyway.

Third, to avoid duplication, which you so despise, how about truncating the previous posts to that which is relevant to your present comment?

 

[kinetic]

That's not quite how I define diversity.

So what do you want that doesn't exist?

Competition. It's been reduced to a significant degree by deregulation. Do you believe that competition makes everyone better?

Radio is a copycat industry. Their idea of programming isn't to create, it's to imitate.

And your point is? Fast food is a copycat industry. How many ways can you cook hamburger? The goal isn't haute cuisine, but to satisfy customers on the cheap, and make money. Same with radio. You want art? Go to a museum.

Just a minute: You were the one who said radio needs to try something new. Or are you going to the museum?

How is possible in an industry filled with imitators working with a business model that's about maximizing quarterly profits instead of sustainable growth, compounded by the anxieties brought on by a deep recession?

Oh well...thus the complexity of this industry, and why so many fail. No one said it was easy.

Can radio only exist as a fast food operation? Would that explain why automated and/or voice-tracked FMs face increasing competition from playlists online or loaded into iPods? When a college student says, "I haven't listened to radio for six years," and then breaks out the iPod or opens his favorite music links online, what can an FM station offer to attract such a listener? Or can it offer anything? And why did that listener abandon radio in the first place. In fact, I hear there might actually be more than one such listener! If radio is supposed to be entertainment, what's the difference between the station playing a playlist and an online platform with the same playlist. It's a fundamental broadcasting question that broadcasters, particularly the self-absorbed ones (both in programming and management) often forget: It's the listener asking him or herself, "Why should I care?" You're telling me today's FM listener cares more about radio than the FM listener of 19__? You can pick your decade. It seems today's radio listeners has as much passion for a radio station as he or she does for a fast food restaurant. But there are many, many four-star restaurants... far more (propotionally) than four-star radio stations. Can changes in the regulatory structure create a more dynamic and competitive industry?

 

[kinetic]

Being nitpicky is fine, but again, you missed the larger point.

I think the larger point is that you are producing opinions on certain conditions within the radio industry based on inaccurate assesments of the way people actually listen to radio.

First, nearly all your points have been about talk formats and shows; talk generally does not even command 10% of local listening, and in many markets quite a bit less. And, unless the talk has been moved or offered on FM, the majority of listeners are over 50.

Second, you assume listeners will tune to what are, in fact, unlistenable signals, if certain "duplicated" shows are not one in any particular market... which is not so. That point seems to be the keystone to your stance that eliminating this so-called duplication would open up stations for something "better" were such stations not to have to bear the burden of carrying Limbaugo or ACC or some other syndicated fare; the fact is that there is no duplication and struggling AMs are not going to invest in unporoven product anyway.

Third, to avoid duplication, which you so despise, how about truncating the previous posts to that which is relevant to your present comment?

Look, I'd no intention of getting into a tit-for-tat on whether an 'i' is dotted or a 't' crossed when examples are given only to advance a larger discussion. Here's the bottom line: There are stations that offer nothing more than duplication. I have heard them --even within the same market. I don't see the point in running them. Advancing technologies may hasten that. I want to know what people think those stations can offer to provide an alternative. I posed the question to you in particular because you're a knowledgable individual, but you seem to care more that the oboe missed a note in the 42nd measure of the second movement rather than discussing the entire symphony. That is, quite simply, unreasonable.

But as you insist: Fine, there's no duplication. To avoid duplication, I won't bother directing any questions your way in the future as your answers (I've noticed this elsewhere) tend to be a tad dismissive and condescending. You're more than welcome to respond with the last word because (as I've noticed this elsewhere) that also seems to be a tendency of yours.

 

[TheBigA]

That's not quite how I define diversity.

So what do you want that doesn't exist?

Competition. It's been reduced to a significant degree by deregulation. Do you believe that competition makes everyone better?

No. Back when a company could only own two radio stations in NYC, you have as many as five stations all playing the exact same songs and doing the exact same thing. They all want a piece of the biggest pie. Do you believe there were once four Beautiful Music stations in NYC? It's true: WRFM, WVNJ, WPAT, and WTFM. Did that make radio better? You tell me. At the same time, a lot of formats and a lot of points of view were ignored. You say you want diversity, then refuse to define it. When I demonstrate there's more format diversity now than before, you change the subject. When I ask what format you want that doesn't exist, you say "competition." The Justice Department is the branch of government charged with defending competition, and they don't agree with you. They approved all the radio station sales, and approved all the deregulation rules that currently exist. When a group of career civil servants with no political agenda says competition exists in radio, I am more likely to believe them than an anonymous poster on a message board.

Can radio only exist as a fast food operation? Would that explain why automated and/or voice-tracked FMs face increasing competition from playlists online or loaded into iPods? When a college student says, "I haven't listened to radio for six years," and then breaks out the iPod or opens his favorite music links online, what can an FM station offer to attract such a listener?

An ipod is a personalized music device. A radio is a mass medium. Not the same device. Some people want personal service. That is not what radio does. Even before deregulation, people chose to listen to music on personalized devices, and tape recorders were already eating away at radio listenership in the late 1980s. They used to tape songs off the radio. Once people were able to steal music for free from the internet and download it to their devices, it took the radio out of the equation. The only advantages radio has is convenience, price, and availability. Otherwise, if you want a certain song at a certain time, radio is not going to work, regardless of regulation, ownership, or budget.

By the way, I will confess that when I was a college student, I didn't listen to a lot of radio either. And it was before dergulation. The reason was the DJs were all much older than me, didn't take a lot of musical risks, and often played songs I didn't like. I also didn't care for all the commercials. A few years after I graduated, that became less of a factor for me, and I listened to radio more. So I'm not concerned when a college kid says he doesn't listen to the radio.

Can changes in the regulatory structure create a more dynamic and competitive industry?

No. The regulatory structure is part of what created the current situation. If it didn't work in 96, in an era of co-operation, what makes you think Congress would do a better job this time? Regulations serve the regulators, not the public. The last 25 years of media regulation is the best proof of that.