Let's Play Programmer

[TVradioguru]

Do I agree with you? No, I don't think I do Sam I am...

Oh, and don't concern yourself about ruffling my feathers. It takes far more than someone who knows nothing about running a radio station to ruffle them.

Geez, I feel like I'm trying to communicate with an autistic Teletubby here...

Your assumption that Premier would be willing to move Coast to Coast from KVI to 1520 in Snohomish County is baseless. Just because you don't care for KVI, and consider it a "bottom feeder", would not be a compelling enough reason to lower the total audience for the show in the Seattle Tacoma DMA.

See now you agree with me don't you? I think you should.

 

[kyliebastel]

"Guru" - your apology is accepted. I don't take any radio business advice from someone who thinks there's a sales appeal to broadcasting into nursing homes, as an AM oldies station (?!) would limit itself, terribly seriously so no worries.

Your assumption that Premier would be willing to move Coast to Coast from KVI to 1520 in Snohomish County is baseless.  Just because you don't care for KVI, and consider it a "bottom feeder", would not be a compelling enough reason to lower the total audience for the show in the Seattle Tacoma DMA.

I've already addressed and concisely dismissed this rather shallow "argument" with my facts about commercial inventory increases that would mitigate audience decreases - among very many other things - all of which which you merrily skipped over because you don't have a frame-of-reference with which to address them. I appreciate that you are able to vomit up a textbook you may have once read but that's really vapid and inconsiderate of the emergent realities and horizon possibilities that creative management could implement to take away C2C. Strategic decision-making is creative decision-making, not chapter 5 in a vo-tech radio textbook. Your regurgitation is appreciated, but copying and pasting textbooks isn't terribly interesting for discussion purposes. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Your inability to address any of the issues I raised and, instead, resort to an insult-filled tantrum seems to brand you as a pleasant but disposable nostalgic who will be swept away with the rest of radio and over-the-air television in 10-15 years when those mediums are officially shuttered. Textbook thinking, like you use, is not very career-enhancing, if this is your career. When the final axe drops, robots like yourself may not be embraced by emergent platforms because robots are difficult to reprogram. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Anyway, like I said, apology accepted. I'm sorry a potentially stimulating, "what-if", "wouldn't it be interesting if ..." discussion had to be prematurely ended by someone who chose to prance in and use this board as his personal bidet but c'est la vie. This is rather a metaphor for the death of radio we're now witnessing, actually, so was an interesting exercise.

No hard feelings, old timer.

 

[Andrew Skotdal]

The posts have all been very interesting, but I'd like to inject one thought. Blaming consolidation simplistically for the state of radio today is a little like blaming a headache for your feelings of illness when in reality the headache is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. The fabulous, talent-driven radio that people lovingly refer to is in some ways nostalgically amplified with the passage of time to the extent that research has shown that perhaps as many as half of those stations were losing money. In general, I'll suggest that radio's heyday was the 60's and 70's. If you look at the dynamics of radio then vs. radio now, you'll recognize that the FCC had not, yet, completely flooded the AM/FM spectrum (there were substantially fewer radio stations then than now - perhaps 1/5 the number of stations), FM had not, yet, fully taken off, cable TV had not, yet, fully taken off, the Internet did not exist, satellite radio did not exist, PDA's with streaming ability and iPods did not exist, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, large, local, sole-proprietorship businesses with healthy advertising budgets used to exist that purchased local advertising. Arbitron and advertising agencies also played their part when stations increasingly had to focus their programming to sub-sets of the population (women 35-54, men 18-35, etc.), which in-turn drove operators to move their transmitters to the primary metropolitan city. The factors that made it possible for a radio station to have a 10 or 20 share then do not exist today.

If you open your wallet and you have a Costco, Sam's Club or similar discount box-store card, YOU are as much a part of the shift in the radio landscape as any of the other competitive factors that have driven consolidation. Radio had about a 30 year period where stations were deep(er) with talent. Prior to the 50's (even in the 50's), if you look at station submissions, radio was based on syndicated programming much as it is today. The Mutual/Don Lee network, NBC blue and red networks, and a raft of charlatan doctors along with religious programs filled the airwaves, and radio stations were only on the air part of the time - sometimes only three hours per day. Stations also shared time with other radio stations on the same frequency. A lot of the local programming was comprised of inviting someone from down the street to come in and play the piano or sing - and it's not like the talent was THAT good.

Like a lot of people, I bemoan the circumstances that cause local operators to rely on network programming. (not saying this is the only issue, but...) A 25 year-old agency buyer placing advertising dollars from New York based on ratings doesn't care whether a radio station is local or not. They only care about the rating number that satisfies their ad purchase and provides justification to their client for their decision-making and where the revenue comes from plays a significant part in the way radio is produced.

Radio is not dead, nor will it die. It will change.

 

[Grindlfan]

It is now absolutely clear that the reason radio continues to suck is due to the fact that rude, egotistical, arrogant #@% holes are programming the stations. If I had to work with people like some of you (and you know who you are) where I work, I would slit my wrists. This site is becoming nothing but a venue for chest pounding and personal attacks. Yes, I know this e-mail could be considered the same but if you consider my words a personal attack I think that says more about you than me. It is sickening how some of you behave.

 

[radioprofessor]

Not sure what is causing the anger on this thread. This is merely a discussion on how to program an AM radio station that is new to a market.

There is no question that radio was built on syndicated national shows that got attention. Television changed that and forced radio to become music centric and local. That became radio's advantage in the late sixites, seventies, eighties and nineties. Even in this period of radio syndicated programs like Wolfman Jack or Casey Casem's weekend programs continued with great success.

The future of radio will be a meld of the two schools of thought. The big groups will have owned syndicated programming. Clear Channel AM stations or ABC sports stations are good examples of this. One local show with all syndicated programming the rest of the day. The group reduces costs and has better talent. Hard to find a local conservative talk show host with more name recognition, talent and ratings than Rush, as an example. Ryan Seacrest is the same thing on the FM band. Like him, or dislike him, he has high recognition and scores well with 25-44 women. He is a natural to syndicate. There will be more.

In perfect world each station will have one, well paid, talented show to allow for local branding. The remainder will be syndicated. This will be the model for the major groups. Smaller groups will use localism to attack the syndication and will also find success. Rush, Sean Hannity and talk radio revived the AM band. FM will see a similar resurgence as syndicated talent make a name for themselves. Delilah and Ryan Seacrest are probably two of the best examples in terms of ratings and recognition in my humble view. Like it or not, it saves money and actually makes stations better in many ways. Radio is in the process of reinventing itself by looking back into the golden age for answers.

 

[kyliebastel]

I agree with 85% of this, disagreeing with the 15% that says radio has a future.

Too many emergent, non-communications technologies have been back-burnered or killed because the radiowaves are being used for radio. It's been a necessary shame but the necessity is vanishing. When the audience drops low enough, the platform alternatives become great enough and the need for other uses becomes pressing enough, the federal government will "call in" the airwaves. To the lamentable and total ignorance of ownership, the first voices in this resource scramble are already being heard in the halls of power. Radio has as much of a future as newspapers, which is none.

Anyone who works in radio or local TV right now who won't have hit retirement age by 2020 immediately needs to start learning a craft or trade unless they want to be homeless or working at McDonald's a decade from now.

 

[kyliebastel]

There's no anger in this thread, there was a "moment", though, when one poorly socialized poster saw a post he disagreed with and, instead of saying, "I'm not sure that would work, what is your rationale/reasoning for believing that?" or "I disagree for reasons X, Y and Z - how would you address ABC?" decided, instead, to immediately start flinging his own feces around.

 

[Uncle Fester]

"Too many emergent, non-communications technologies have been back-burnered or killed because the radiowaves are being used for radio."

Kylie--that's interesting. Would you name 2 or 3 please.

"To the lamentable and total ignorance of ownership, the first voices in this resource scramble are already being heard in the halls of power." Really? So am I correct in saying that you walk in those same halls of power? You've heard some of these conversations?

I'm not suggesting that this isn't really happening. It's quite an assertion though.

"Radio has as much of a future as newspapers, which is none." I can't say that I disagree completely with you there, unfortunately, since I work in broadcasting. Still, I'm in New York, and there are at least 4 newspapers available every day in Manhattan. Somehow I don't see all of them disappearing. 2 million people per day commute in to Manhattan, and a lot of them like to read papers on the way in to work. Like newspapers, I see the importance of radio (as we know it) continuing to diminish, but I don't think it's likely to disappear completely.

 

[kyliebastel]

1 - There are an almost infinite (exaggeration for emphasis) number of late-stage developments in wireless energy transmission all of which would cause insurmountable disruption in over-the-air radio and television signals. As I previously mentioned, the Japan Space Agency - JAXA - expects to have a solar collector array in orbit within five years. Depending on how the current US administration goes with its "focus" on renewable energy sources and big-ticket spending, the US may soon follow suit with increased vigor and advanced time lines. Even though array-to-ground transmission is through tight microwave, the technology to control out-of-band emissions that would quash AM/FM bands is further away than the technology to transmit wireless power. Up until now progress in cultivating this necessary resource has been hampered by the impact it would have on broadcast radio. The newly invigorated movement in many nations to fully deploy SPS systems indicates no one really gives a rats ass about saving radio anymore, all things considered.

Sadly, you're talking about two different things - energy and entertainment - that are ignorant of each other right now. Doubly sadly, very few people have taken the time to look 5, 10 years down the road when these two separate things will get a rude introduction to the other. A nostalgic old media platform with a dying-off audience VS. a civilization-saving energy resource during an extended period of world energy crisis/scarcity - who wins?

It's too late for the atrophied muscles of the feeble broadcast radio lobby to be flexed in any meaningful way. If they wanted to save themselves, five years ago was the time to do it. Too late now.

2 - it's not as simple as that

3 - Obviously NY papers will be the last to go, just after LA, Philly, etc. In the City, I'd expect the free dailies like AM New York and Metro will probably outlive the Times, the Daily News, etc., but not by much. Papers in major cities will continue to hobble along until true, citywide wifi finally overcomes all of the many monetary and technical hurdles that makes implementation in 2008-09 stupid but implementation in 2012 a bright idea. Fast forward with 4 added years of increased smartphone ubiquity and a 2010-debuting, truly revolutionary personal communications platform and the one plus newsprint has - portability - will be void.

 

[Bongwater]

All I know is what I see:

Radio is no longer a mainstream medium for most young people these days and they have perfectly good reasons why they don't listen to the radio. But I do think it will be a hard medium to kill, like vinyl LPs. As more younger people find other resources online and on their iPhones and Blackberries, radio's relevance will disappear or erode significantly more. I know very few people under the age of 25 who listen to radio regularly now. Until radio begins to compete with compelling content both on the radio and online, the only people listening to the radio in 20 years will be in their 70s and 80s (why even those 60 year old whippersnappers are internet junkies these days.)

One of the better ideas is to put more synergy into radio/web offerings. KEXP http://www.kexp.org and the Triple J network http://www.triplej.net.au (the national youth radio network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australia's answer to NPR) are light years ahead of ANY commercial broadcaster in America with this. They offer a great deal of cyber and radio interactivity, including several free MP3 downloads from up and coming new Australian bands each week (or in the case of KEXP, live, in-studio recordings.) Triple J also has a music magazine (a concept pioneered by our own KYYX in '83 with it's Wave magazine: http://home.myuw.net/deblet/kyyx/wave.shtml ) with non web interviews and articles. What makes Triple J so unique is it's more than a radio station/network, but more of a 360 degree experience.

What makes the KEXP/Triple J models work is that although they're non commercial, they have secured vast and rabidly loyal listenerships by offering independent artists and local acts (under Creative Commons) a leg up. The jocks know their music and you rarely hear the same song twice in a 24 hour period (probably from the sheer volume of new music that comes in.) Might be a headache for some who only want instant, guaranteed hits for kids on a sugar diet of Fall Out Boy, T.I. and Katy Perry, but for free-range young people (including myself at 40) who love to explore exciting new music (as well as rediscovering lost oldies), it's a watershed.

Yes, Triple J, (as the whole ABC of Australia) is totally funded by the government and that's a GREAT idea. It's nice to have a government and country that supports it's youth this way. Well, actually the US government is supporting youth radio. But not here. Over there - in the Middle East with Radio Sawa and well, .......you figure THIS out:

http://www.voanews.com/english/entertainment/musicmix.cfm

Have a listen for a few hours. Compared to Triple J, it's embarrassing.......

KEXP on the other hand has funding mostly from listeners and a few non-profit grants. Their entire budget in one year is less than what a typical commercial station makes in a month. They exist on volunteers and a few paid staff members, but not much else. They make the most of ALL of their resources nevertheless.

I see a day when commercial radio and their online content COULD become similarly merged. Where a station's website can serve as a place where you can not only check up on the latest Top 10, you can download them free from there as well. Plus lots of exclusive material, videos, games, message boards, listener blogs and other content. Or a news/talker can present government PDFs of current legislation or other "smoking gun" papers (sure would help public discourse), Sports stations can offer more videos, fantasy football, etc. Older listeners can enjoy a vast library of thousands of oldies on-demand on station websites, the popularity of songs can be measured and reflected in airplay. Seasoned jocks can present this music with a panache no liner filled computer or kid fresh out of broadcasting school could muster and with an accuracy of what the public wants to hear that can't be measured by any consultant. And these will be locally run stations, not fed down through a parent corporation umbilical cord. Localization is more crucial online than you might think.

There are radio stations that have implemented a few things here and there on their websites, but certainly not enough to make the vast majority of them any mass success dually. Digital copyrights in this country need to be radically reformed to reflect the age we live in. That's the only major stumbling block and one that needs to be addressed for commercial radio's survival in the modern world.

It's also possible to be as traditional as possible and stick to top-down edicts, but that's getting old. There's a lot of potential here for everybody from recording artists to stations as well as (most especailly) listeners. A lot more than anybody has probably given serious thought of. KEXP and Triple J have laid out some pretty interesting framework. We can take it to a new level. It's up to everybody if we can make this all work.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Kylie--

You're a very good writer but your arguments don't hold up well with me. Let me explain why.

"2 - it's not as simple as that" What is complex about it? Either you heard these comments personally, or you can simply state your source.

"1 - There are an almost infinite (exaggeration for emphasis) number of late-stage developments in wireless energy transmission all of which would cause insurmountable disruption in over-the-air radio and television signals."

Unless you really want to, I'm not going to go in to how impractical this is from an engineering (not to mention public safety) standpoint. (Notice I didn't say 'impossible'.)

You're aware, of course, that the amount of energy from the Sun that strikes the earth every year is 3 orders of magnitude greater than the amount the entire population of the earth uses for everything, correct? So, from an economic standpoint: why would we spend money (which of course is even harder to come by now than it was) on capturing solar radiation in space, and transmitting it down to Earth, when we've barely begun to collect here on the surface? And that's not to mention energy that can be recovered from wind and tidal action.

Also, from a political standpoint, this sort of endeavor is so big that it would obviously be a nationalized source of power. I don't believe that is going to go over well here in the U.S. anyway.

My point is that I don't believe the reason you gave for broadcast going away in the time frame you mentioned is a good one.

"3 - Obviously NY papers will be the last to go, just after LA, Philly, etc. In the City, I'd expect the free dailies like AM New York and Metro will probably outlive the Times, the Daily News, etc., but not by much." Good research there. You forgot the dailies from the 'burbs, though, like the Jersey Journal (to name one of many).

"Papers in major cities will continue to hobble along until true, citywide wifi finally overcomes all of the many monetary and technical hurdles that makes implementation in 2008-09 stupid but implementation in 2012 a bright idea. Fast forward with 4 added years of increased smartphone ubiquity and a 2010-debuting, truly revolutionary personal communications platform and the one plus newsprint has - portability - will be void." Maybe. I'm a bit of a skeptic there. There will be plenty of places (at least in NYC) where there will be no wifi for a long, long time. Let me give you an example: inside the entire subway system underground. Lots of people spend lots of time down there. Cellphones have been in common use now for 25 years, yet you cannot make a cellphone call in the subway. Don't expect wifi to appear any more quickly. People will continue to read papers down there. The other aspect of this technology, as good as it can be, is that not everyone is going to make use of it. Many people will not want to spend money on an electronic means of getting the 'newspaper' when they can continue to get a paper copy of it for free. And another thing you need to think about: as you get older, it gets harder and harder to read small print and to squint at a smartphone.

Again, I expect to see to continued lessening of the importance of radio and newspapers, and television, and magazines, and books--but they're not going away completely. I think broadcast radio will be around a lot longer than the 10 years you've given it.

 

[kyliebastel]

UncleFester - this sounds like we're having a conversation typewriter salesmen were having in 1987. You're convinced you'll be selling typewriter ribbon in 2002 so I won't spend too much time trying to talk you out of it, but, to satisfy you:

2 - yes

1 - I really have absolutely no problem in considering an engineering argument, so please feel free, but just understand, I'm not trying to argue the pros or cons of anything, I'm simply stating facts - take them or leave them, I don't care. I'm not the person to whom you need to be addressing any concerns you have.

(BTW - [1] When it comes to solar harvesting, this is not a "build up to ..." thing we're talking about. Solar harvesting on the ground is stupidly inefficient both in terms of land use and ray conversion; this is enabling generation bounce. [2] In terms of politics, you're talking about something that's no different from the RTO system run by the FERC right now. If this is an issue it was apparently overcome in the late 1980s ...)

3 - I didn't forget anything. Like you, I also split my time between the city and the coast. I was trying to use one or two real-world examples to illustrate a point, not catalog an exhaustive list for an encyclopedia entry.

You continue to talk about technology as though it were a static element - that the functions and platforms available now will be the functions and platforms available next year or two years hence. One year ago no one had ever heard of digital projectors embedded in cell phones. We've since learned we're 6 months out from digital projectors being as ubiquitous to cell phones as cameras are now. (This is an example to illustrate a point, it's not addressing any specific item you're discussing, nor is it intended to form part of an encyclopedia entry --- since some people seem to be keeping track.)

10-15 years until mandatory shutdown is announced ... start learning a skilled trade - please

 

[dunno]

Thanks K for the heads up!!

I almost have the Jack in The Box menu down pat!! I hope I can use my own mic.

 

[kyliebastel]

LOL

 

[Uncle Fester]

I really have absolutely no problem in considering an engineering argument, so please feel free, but just understand, I'm not trying to argue the pros or cons of anything, I'm simply stating facts - take them or leave them, I don't care. I'm not the person to whom you need to be addressing any concerns you have.


I'm not interested in addressing any concerns with you or anyone else, except this: like so many people on this board, you make assertions, and claim that they are facts, without making any references to just what it is that makes them true. Just saying 'it's a fact' doesn't make it so.

Back it up, or admit that it's strictly an opinion.

 

[kyliebastel]

Uncle - I don't really care if you believe me or not - not my prob. Like so many things posted anonymously on the internet by so many people, I'm unwilling to compromise that anonymity for the sake of "winning" a message board thread 3 people are reading. That said, I haven't said anything that a sufficiently motivated person couldn't research themselves in a few hours online. If you're interested in that, you can, if you're not, you won't. No big deal to me one way or the other.

Like I said, I'm not here to propagate a policy position or push an opinion anymore than I would be if I said the sky is blue or dirt is brown. It sounds like you choose not to believe me. No biggie!

 

[TVradioguru]

The posts have all been very interesting, but I'd like to inject one thought. Blaming consolidation simplistically for the state of radio today is a little like blaming a headache for your feelings of illness when in reality the headache is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. The fabulous, talent-driven radio that people lovingly refer to is in some ways nostalgically amplified with the passage of time to the extent that research has shown that perhaps as many as half of those stations were losing money. In general, I'll suggest that radio's heyday was the 60's and 70's. If you look at the dynamics of radio then vs. radio now, you'll recognize that the FCC had not, yet, completely flooded the AM/FM spectrum (there were substantially fewer radio stations then than now - perhaps 1/5 the number of stations), FM had not, yet, fully taken off, cable TV had not, yet, fully taken off, the Internet did not exist, satellite radio did not exist, PDA's with streaming ability and iPods did not exist, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, large, local, sole-proprietorship businesses with healthy advertising budgets used to exist that purchased local advertising. Arbitron and advertising agencies also played their part when stations increasingly had to focus their programming to sub-sets of the population (women 35-54, men 18-35, etc.), which in-turn drove operators to move their transmitters to the primary metropolitan city. The factors that made it possible for a radio station to have a 10 or 20 share then do not exist today.

If you open your wallet and you have a Costco, Sam's Club or similar discount box-store card, YOU are as much a part of the shift in the radio landscape as any of the other competitive factors that have driven consolidation. Radio had about a 30 year period where stations were deep(er) with talent. Prior to the 50's (even in the 50's), if you look at station submissions, radio was based on syndicated programming much as it is today. The Mutual/Don Lee network, NBC blue and red networks, and a raft of charlatan doctors along with religious programs filled the airwaves, and radio stations were only on the air part of the time - sometimes only three hours per day. Stations also shared time with other radio stations on the same frequency. A lot of the local programming was comprised of inviting someone from down the street to come in and play the piano or sing - and it's not like the talent was THAT good.

Like a lot of people, I bemoan the circumstances that cause local operators to rely on network programming. (not saying this is the only issue, but...) A 25 year-old agency buyer placing advertising dollars from New York based on ratings doesn't care whether a radio station is local or not. They only care about the rating number that satisfies their ad purchase and provides justification to their client for their decision-making and where the revenue comes from plays a significant part in the way radio is produced.

Radio is not dead, nor will it die. It will change.

I completely agree with your opinions, especially your last statement Mr. Skotdal.

What radio evolves into remains to be heard, but count on radio being there when listeners need it the most.

That being said, what many people who haven't studied the history of radio don't understand, is over the past 80 years broadcasting has evolved from an inventors hobby licensed by the US Navy, to a promotional/advertising tool for big corporations products or services, who completely controlled the programming and made no apologies in doing so. In fact, the first 25 radio stations licensed by the newly formed FCC in 1921 were owned by Westinghouse Corporation. When the next batch of 600 new stations were licensed in 1922, many of them were also owned by large corporations like Westinghouse, General Electric, and Crosley Radio Corp. Other than religious stations, non-profit public or educational stations didn't join the airwaves until the 1960s.

Just as it is with fans of any professional sports team and as witnessed on this discussion board, there are those listeners and viewers who are quite passionate about "their" radio station format past or present, or for that matter certain personalities on TV. The fact remains however, that if one really drills down to the origins of broadcasting, it is and always will be at its core, a business.

 

[Mack Daddy]

"Guru" - your apology is accepted. I don't take any radio business advice from someone who thinks there's a sales appeal to broadcasting into nursing homes, as an AM oldies station (?!) would limit itself, terribly seriously so no worries.

Your assumption that Premier would be willing to move Coast to Coast from KVI to 1520 in Snohomish County is baseless. Just because you don't care for KVI, and consider it a "bottom feeder", would not be a compelling enough reason to lower the total audience for the show in the Seattle Tacoma DMA.

I've already addressed and concisely dismissed this rather shallow "argument" with my facts about commercial inventory increases that would mitigate audience decreases - among very many other things - all of which which you merrily skipped over because you don't have a frame-of-reference with which to address them. I appreciate that you are able to vomit up a textbook you may have once read but that's really vapid and inconsiderate of the emergent realities and horizon possibilities that creative management could implement to take away C2C. Strategic decision-making is creative decision-making, not chapter 5 in a vo-tech radio textbook. Your regurgitation is appreciated, but copying and pasting textbooks isn't terribly interesting for discussion purposes. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Your inability to address any of the issues I raised and, instead, resort to an insult-filled tantrum seems to brand you as a pleasant but disposable nostalgic who will be swept away with the rest of radio and over-the-air television in 10-15 years when those mediums are officially shuttered. Textbook thinking, like you use, is not very career-enhancing, if this is your career. When the final axe drops, robots like yourself may not be embraced by emergent platforms because robots are difficult to reprogram. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Anyway, like I said, apology accepted. I'm sorry a potentially stimulating, "what-if", "wouldn't it be interesting if ..." discussion had to be prematurely ended by someone who chose to prance in and use this board as his personal bidet but c'est la vie. This is rather a metaphor for the death of radio we're now witnessing, actually, so was an interesting exercise.

No hard feelings, old timer.

Thats the problem with the radio programmer types. They think they know everything, but they really are ignorant to what hard-core, devoted radio listeners want to hear. Maybe when the corporations go belly-up some of the stations will be taken over by people who actually care about music, or care about compelling intelligent talk formats which are hard to find unless you happen to be lucky enough to live within about a 50 mile radius of an Air America/NovaM/Jones station.

 

[AQH]

Thats the problem with the radio programmer types. They think they know everything, but they really are ignorant to what hard-core, devoted radio listeners want to hear. Maybe when the corporations go belly-up some of the stations will be taken over by people who actually care about music, or care about compelling intelligent talk formats which are hard to find unless you happen to be lucky enough to live within about a 50 mile radius of an Air America/NovaM/Jones station.

That's YOUR opinion about what radio should be. We live in a world where the majority of radio listeners don't see it the way you do. People don't care about talking up the intro right up to the post time anymore. In fact, some people find it annoying, similar to how you find my posts pointing out the harsh realities of radio to be annoying.

If people "cared about the music" as much as you allude to, then why doesn't a station like KEXP show up in the ratings? Don't you think one of the evil corporate stations would copy its format if what KEXP offered was accepted on a broader scale? Believe me, if what a station like KEXP that "cares about the music" could be mass apeal and make money, someone in Seattle would do it in a heartbeat.

That's why KEXP cannot survive on Seattle alone, and they tap into a worldwide revenue stream via the internet. And all they have to do is plug their audio into the internet. Smart by them to appeal for dollars worldwide, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the 13th largest radio market shares the same belief you do.

 

[Mack Daddy]

Thats the problem with the radio programmer types. They think they know everything, but they really are ignorant to what hard-core, devoted radio listeners want to hear. Maybe when the corporations go belly-up some of the stations will be taken over by people who actually care about music, or care about compelling intelligent talk formats which are hard to find unless you happen to be lucky enough to live within about a 50 mile radius of an Air America/NovaM/Jones station.

That's YOUR opinion about what radio should be. We live in a world where the majority of radio listeners don't see it the way you do. People don't care about talking up the intro right up to the post time anymore. In fact, some people find it annoying, similar to how you find my posts pointing out the harsh realities of radio to be annoying.

If people "cared about the music" as much as you allude to, then why doesn't a station like KEXP show up in the ratings? Don't you think one of the evil corporate stations would copy its format if what KEXP offered was accepted on a broader scale? Believe me, if what a station like KEXP that "cares about the music" could be mass apeal and make money, someone in Seattle would do it in a heartbeat.

That's why KEXP cannot survive on Seattle alone, and they tap into a worldwide revenue stream via the internet. And all they have to do is plug their audio into the internet. Smart by them to appeal for dollars worldwide, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the 13th largest radio market shares the same belief you do.

Huh! Just because you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that the 13th largest market disagrees! I would submit to you that I could program a station to higher ratings than you could!