More reasons why radio sucks

[lash]

As stupid as it sounds. I use the line from the movie. "Back to the Future" all the time.

This is not difficult. This is not rocket science. Back to the Future for radio should be the slogan.

 

[radiofriend1]

even if radio were totally re-regulated today

u can never EVER go back. to hope or wish for radio the way it was 10 20 30 or 40 yrs ago is impossible and somewhat pathetic

 

[lash]

How is being local, and creative pathetic? What's pathetic is listening to a once great radio station now owned by one of the large companies. What's pathetic is driving from New York to Chicago, and hearing the same thing in every city, and market.

Ya know, everyone keeps saying oldies won't work, country won't work in New York or L.A.

Go look at Philadelphia. A city that boo's Santa Claus at a football game, while boo'ing their own teams, when their winning.

WOGL is a tremendous oldies station. WXTU is a great country station.

Its not about the market, its about the management, and especially the programmers, and on air talent.

It proves again that the formats can work anywhere, if done correctly.

Complaining why radio sucks is pathetic. This is the longest string of posts on this particular format board. That's pathetic.

 

[lash]

"Marty, when the clock tower is struck by lighting on Friday night at precisely 10:04 p.m. that will create the 121 gigawatts of power needed and we'll be able to send you "BACK TO THE FUTURE"

 

[radiofriend1]

KEY CLUE: back 2 the future IS A MOVIE. it is MAKE BELIEVE

sheesh

 

[radiofriend1]

How is being local, and creative pathetic? What's pathetic is listening to a once great radio station now owned by one of the large companies. What's pathetic is driving from New York to Chicago, and hearing the same thing in every city, and market.

Ya know, everyone keeps saying oldies won't work, country won't work in New York or L.A.

Go look at Philadelphia. A city that boo's Santa Claus at a football game, while boo'ing their own teams, when their winning.

WOGL is a tremendous oldies station. WXTU is a great country station.

Its not about the market, its about the management, and especially the programmers, and on air talent.

It proves again that the formats can work anywhere, if done correctly.

Complaining why radio sucks is pathetic. This is the longest string of posts on this particular format board. That's pathetic.

but u are one of those complaining that radio sucks. simple logic would then conclude your postings lean pathetic

 

[lash]

Your right, But I'm not complaining about all radio. Just some of the companies. But I also take it on a market by market basis.

 

[OldiesCat]

oh well that changes everything

 

[CTListener]

Go look at Philadelphia. A city that boo's Santa Claus at a football game, while boo'ing their own teams, when their winning.

WOGL is a tremendous oldies station. WXTU is a great country station.

Its not about the market, its about the management, and especially the programmers, and on air talent.

I thought the music mattered to you. Wasn't this thread more about shallow, repetitive playlists than lack of on-air creativity? WOGL may have plenty of personality, but it cycles through 500 songs, all monster hits, just like its CBS-owned counterpart in Boston, WODS. Scrolling through the log at yes.com, I see all the usual suspects: "Oh, Pretty Woman," "Respect," "Satisfaction." Nothing I'd classify as obscure or "oh wow," unless disco hits like "Boogie Oogie Oogie" and "Turn the Beat Around" qualify as "oh wow."

 

[Anyacat]

You have nothing but contempt for people who like the music

You are taking this to a personal level, while I have been trying to explain to you how the business of radio works

I have a respect for every music taste, whether I personally like the tunes myself.

the word "broad" in broadcasting refers, and always has, to reaching large groups of listeners. Advertisers, who make American radio possible, want to reach large groups of potential customers. And advertisers sepcify which groups of people they want to reach, and which they do not care to reach.

As a person, I respect very specialized taste. As a broadcaster, I know that only formats that reach a large group can survive, and those that do not will change. The kind of format you like, whether it be oldies, obscure cuts, or wide playlists, have been proven not to work either in getting listeners or getting the kind of listener advertisers desire. In other words, they are unviable radio formats no matter how good the music may be to some ears.

, as well as those listeners who are older than age 55.

I'd love it if advertisers would pay attention to 55+. But they don't, and they have very good and strong reasons. Were that to change, it would open up countless new format options and expand the listenership to radio as a whole. Everyone would win.

We understand that. We know that.

No, you don't or you would not be damning radio for not playing long lists, obscure oldies and oldies formats in general.

I wonder why you feel it necessary to spoil all discussions with your mind-numbing and by now familiar response about the genre and your inability to get rich from the format.

I do not make money from formats. I make my income from radio broadcasting. And the station owners, together with programmers, determine what formats and mechanics work to have a successful business. If reality disgusts you, please do not blame the messenger.

Just because you don't remember the music does not mean that it does not hold a memory for someone else or that it is not worth listening to. Probably your idea of music begins and ends with disco.

My idea of music begins with the George Szell and the Cleveland Symphony, Gogi Grant, Perry Como, Little Richard and my collection of Buddy Holly and the Crickets records. It includes Cal Tjader, Dave Brubeck, Thelonious Monk and The Sylkie. And it embarks Lucho Bermúdez, Tito Puente, Enrique Guzmán and Los Panchos. I remember listening to Specs Howard, Bill randall, Pete "Mad Daddy" Myers, and, of course, Alan Freed. I can still sing "On top of a Pizz" as well as Biondi ever did, and door chimes remind me of Dan Ingram and WABC. Scott Shannon was our morning guy in Nashville, and Jan Jeffries was a guy I hired out of Mobile to do AC in Birmingham, playing "The Morning After"

And yeah, I liked Patrick Hernandez and Lipps Inc just as well...

Get the idea?

Sweetie, when you and people like you decide what I will hear, it is personal. So let me be clear: You and people like you, have contempt for anything that does not put a great deal of money in your pockets. Notice, I am not saying you have no right to make money from radio, but when income becomes the primary goal, music or news or public services becomes unimportant (you are already on record as having said that radio news reporting is worthless because news reporting is repetitive). The self-serving mantra of the consolidation proponents is that radio is better now that there is less choice and now that what laughably passes for programming is determined by how much advertising can be billed within an hour. And I repeat, since you persist in missing the point, you have a right to make money in radio, but when making money supersedes programming, something is wrong. AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING TERRESTRIAL RADIO. Do you ever wonder why the radio audience decreased or do you just figure it's one of those things? Would you lose your audience if you gave them, really gave them, what they wanted? If you do not believe radio has a place in the modern world, then why are you in the business? People who enjoy first generation rock are increasingly leaving terrestrial radio because it no longer gives them what they want. Are there enough others to take their place? Are the numbers that show a steady decline in radio listenership somehow wrong? The disco mentality always goes for the pretty shinny objects and the cheap polyester.

 

[davideduardo]

Sweetie, when you and people like you decide what I will hear, it is personal.

But neither I nor the nebulous "people like you" determine what you will hear. People like YOU do. The listeners themselves determine which songs we play on any format... the ones that most people like a lot get palyed more, the ones that are less subject of passion get played a little, and the ones few people like don't get played. It is really simple if you ask the listeners what they want to hear.

So let me be clear: You and people like you, have contempt for anything that does not put a great deal of money in your pockets. Notice, I am not saying you have no right to make money from radio, but when income becomes the primary goal, music or news or public services becomes unimportant (you are already on record as having said that radio news reporting is worthless because news reporting is repetitive).

First, no radio station can exist without profit, and making as much as possible is the goal of businesses. It has been the goal of radio ever since I was in it, and from reading trade magazines form the 40's and 40's and 50's, it seems it was the same back then.

Second, I have not said that news was repeetive. I have said that listeners have told us that they do not want news in all or most dayparts on certain music formats, and that they know where to go for the information they seek on staitons specializing in news when they have a need. In fact, I have done many news and news talk stations, but find the majority of music formats only have information needs in drive times, if that.

The self-serving mantra of the consolidation proponents is that radio is better now that there is less choice and now that what laughably passes for programming is determined by how much advertising can be billed within an hour. And I repeat, since you persist in missing the point, you have a right to make money in radio, but when making money supersedes programming, something is wrong. AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING TERRESTRIAL RADIO.

People are not leaving terrestiral radio. The percentage of 18-54 year old Americans who use radio weekly is less than 2% off since the late 80's in fact. Listening times have declined, depending on demos, but in the core 18-54 they are off by less than 1% a year since satellite, iPods and stuff were introduced. Considering that there are manhy other uses for time besides radio now, this is very encouraging (there are 120 million gaming consoles... probably radio's greatest competitor today!).

In my case, I think the programming is just as good, but different because of the way pople use radio.

Do you ever wonder why the radio audience decreased or do you just figure it's one of those things? Would you lose your audience if you gave them, really gave them, what they wanted? If you do not believe radio has a place in the modern world, then why are you in the business? People who enjoy first generation rock are increasingly leaving terrestrial radio because it no longer gives them what they want. Are there enough others to take their place? Are the numbers that show a steady decline in radio listenership somehow wrong? The disco mentality always goes for the pretty shinny objects and the cheap polyester.

Our stations average the highest TSLs in the market, and we talk with the listeners all the time to give them what they want. You are just wong on loss of usage of radio and the decline in listening times.

 

[radiofriend1]

You have nothing but contempt for people who like the music

You are taking this to a personal level, while I have been trying to explain to you how the business of radio works

I have a respect for every music taste, whether I personally like the tunes myself.

the word "broad" in broadcasting refers, and always has, to reaching large groups of listeners. Advertisers, who make American radio possible, want to reach large groups of potential customers. And advertisers sepcify which groups of people they want to reach, and which they do not care to reach.

As a person, I respect very specialized taste. As a broadcaster, I know that only formats that reach a large group can survive, and those that do not will change. The kind of format you like, whether it be oldies, obscure cuts, or wide playlists, have been proven not to work either in getting listeners or getting the kind of listener advertisers desire. In other words, they are unviable radio formats no matter how good the music may be to some ears.

, as well as those listeners who are older than age 55.

I'd love it if advertisers would pay attention to 55+. But they don't, and they have very good and strong reasons. Were that to change, it would open up countless new format options and expand the listenership to radio as a whole. Everyone would win.

We understand that. We know that.

No, you don't or you would not be damning radio for not playing long lists, obscure oldies and oldies formats in general.

I wonder why you feel it necessary to spoil all discussions with your mind-numbing and by now familiar response about the genre and your inability to get rich from the format.

I do not make money from formats. I make my income from radio broadcasting. And the station owners, together with programmers, determine what formats and mechanics work to have a successful business. If reality disgusts you, please do not blame the messenger.

Just because you don't remember the music does not mean that it does not hold a memory for someone else or that it is not worth listening to. Probably your idea of music begins and ends with disco.

My idea of music begins with the George Szell and the Cleveland Symphony, Gogi Grant, Perry Como, Little Richard and my collection of Buddy Holly and the Crickets records. It includes Cal Tjader, Dave Brubeck, Thelonious Monk and The Sylkie. And it embarks Lucho Bermúdez, Tito Puente, Enrique Guzmán and Los Panchos. I remember listening to Specs Howard, Bill randall, Pete "Mad Daddy" Myers, and, of course, Alan Freed. I can still sing "On top of a Pizz" as well as Biondi ever did, and door chimes remind me of Dan Ingram and WABC. Scott Shannon was our morning guy in Nashville, and Jan Jeffries was a guy I hired out of Mobile to do AC in Birmingham, playing "The Morning After"

And yeah, I liked Patrick Hernandez and Lipps Inc just as well...

Get the idea?

Sweetie, when you and people like you decide what I will hear, it is personal. So let me be clear: You and people like you, have contempt for anything that does not put a great deal of money in your pockets. Notice, I am not saying you have no right to make money from radio, but when income becomes the primary goal, music or news or public services becomes unimportant (you are already on record as having said that radio news reporting is worthless because news reporting is repetitive). The self-serving mantra of the consolidation proponents is that radio is better now that there is less choice and now that what laughably passes for programming is determined by how much advertising can be billed within an hour. And I repeat, since you persist in missing the point, you have a right to make money in radio, but when making money supersedes programming, something is wrong. AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING TERRESTRIAL RADIO. Do you ever wonder why the radio audience decreased or do you just figure it's one of those things? Would you lose your audience if you gave them, really gave them, what they wanted? If you do not believe radio has a place in the modern world, then why are you in the business? People who enjoy first generation rock are increasingly leaving terrestrial radio because it no longer gives them what they want. Are there enough others to take their place? Are the numbers that show a steady decline in radio listenership somehow wrong? The disco mentality always goes for the pretty shinny objects and the cheap polyester.

the gist of your post is outlandish and ridiculous- "people like u have contempt for anything that does not......put money in your pockets".

REALLY? U REALLY TRULY AND SINCERELY think dave lives his life that way?

whoa

 

[Anyacat]

Sweetie, when you and people like you decide what I will hear, it is personal.

But neither I nor the nebulous "people like you" determine what you will hear. People like YOU do. The listeners themselves determine which songs we play on any format... the ones that most people like a lot get palyed more, the ones that are less subject of passion get played a little, and the ones few people like don't get played. It is really simple if you ask the listeners what they want to hear.

So let me be clear: You and people like you, have contempt for anything that does not put a great deal of money in your pockets. Notice, I am not saying you have no right to make money from radio, but when income becomes the primary goal, music or news or public services becomes unimportant (you are already on record as having said that radio news reporting is worthless because news reporting is repetitive).

First, no radio station can exist without profit, and making as much as possible is the goal of businesses. It has been the goal of radio ever since I was in it, and from reading trade magazines form the 40's and 40's and 50's, it seems it was the same back then.

Second, I have not said that news was repeetive. I have said that listeners have told us that they do not want news in all or most dayparts on certain music formats, and that they know where to go for the information they seek on staitons specializing in news when they have a need. In fact, I have done many news and news talk stations, but find the majority of music formats only have information needs in drive times, if that.

The self-serving mantra of the consolidation proponents is that radio is better now that there is less choice and now that what laughably passes for programming is determined by how much advertising can be billed within an hour. And I repeat, since you persist in missing the point, you have a right to make money in radio, but when making money supersedes programming, something is wrong. AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING TERRESTRIAL RADIO.

People are not leaving terrestiral radio. The percentage of 18-54 year old Americans who use radio weekly is less than 2% off since the late 80's in fact. Listening times have declined, depending on demos, but in the core 18-54 they are off by less than 1% a year since satellite, iPods and stuff were introduced. Considering that there are manhy other uses for time besides radio now, this is very encouraging (there are 120 million gaming consoles... probably radio's greatest competitor today!).

In my case, I think the programming is just as good, but different because of the way pople use radio.

Do you ever wonder why the radio audience decreased or do you just figure it's one of those things? Would you lose your audience if you gave them, really gave them, what they wanted? If you do not believe radio has a place in the modern world, then why are you in the business? People who enjoy first generation rock are increasingly leaving terrestrial radio because it no longer gives them what they want. Are there enough others to take their place? Are the numbers that show a steady decline in radio listenership somehow wrong? The disco mentality always goes for the pretty shinny objects and the cheap polyester.

Our stations average the highest TSLs in the market, and we talk with the listeners all the time to give them what they want. You are just wong on loss of usage of radio and the decline in listening times.

No, I am not wrong because I am not making this up. Other people, smarter people than I, have actually printed statistics to show that listenership is down. But, of course, they must be wrong. Everyone must be wrong. In any case, I am over and out. Live long and prosper...

 

[radiofriend1]

overall listenership is down A LITTLE

so is viewership of the major tv networks

and newspaper is waaaay down


keep it in perspective and do your homework. the imminent demise of radio at the hands of satellite is NOT just around the corner

and i'll say what i have said dozens of times-if it sucks that bad PLEASE do us a favor and get out

 

[gr8oldies]

Let's see..David is employed to make radio stations successful. So to please everyone on this board he's supposed to make his stations fail. Get real! I really can't believe how many people on this board are demanding that radio ignore the 99.999999999% of listeners to a given station or format, like the lady who more than likely sings along to Billy Joels' "Longest Time" every day and isn't pining away for the soft A/C station to play an obscure, never heard before Billy Joel album cut. Yes, there are oldies listeners (most of them) who kinda like to hear "I Second that Emotion" or "1,2,3" once or twice a week. But some of you want radio to exclusively cater to oldies geeks and collectors, or fans of obscure music. If that's the case, then fine. Get a second mortgage on your house, buy a stick somewhere and play 10,000 songs. Never mind if folks want to hear "Brown Eyed Girl", you're not going to play it more than once a decade!

Of course when you can't make payroll, don't complain.

 

[DougD]

Let's see..David is employed to make radio stations successful. So to please everyone on this board he's supposed to make his stations fail. Get real! I really can't believe how many people on this board are demanding that radio ignore the 99.999999999% of listeners to a given station or format, like the lady who more than likely sings along to Billy Joels' "Longest Time" every day and isn't pining away for the soft A/C station to play an obscure, never heard before Billy Joel album cut. Yes, there are oldies listeners (most of them) who kinda like to hear "I Second that Emotion" or "1,2,3" once or twice a week. But some of you want radio to exclusively cater to oldies geeks and collectors, or fans of obscure music. If that's the case, then fine. Get a second mortgage on your house, buy a stick somewhere and play 10,000 songs. Never mind if folks want to hear "Brown Eyed Girl", you're not going to play it more than once a decade!

Of course when you can't make payroll, don't complain.

What a pathetic piece of drivel.....

 

[gr8oldies]

The only thing pathetic is your demands that businesses that you don't own lose money to cater to you.

 

[radiofriend1]

sums it up pretty well for all these bob-bitchin-types

 

[vibe]

I looked up the top 75 or so hits of various years from a number of radio stations around the country. Part of the "problem" is that some songs were a lot more popular in one area of the country. It's a given who the audience is but it's equally important where they are from. We have moved a lot over the years and the demographics are dramatically different.
If you took the top 75 songs of a given year on one playlist and used as little as 3 other playlists (from different areas) as a comparison, that 75 would at least double. It's easy to overlook a lot of real good songs and keep on playing those tired old hits.
In theory an oldies on the East Coast of Fla should have a significantly different playlist that it's counterpart on the west coast of Fla. Why? because a high percentage of people who have moved or winter in the east coast of Fla are from NE, NY, NJ etc. The west coast of Fla has mostly the Midwest folk and a lot of Canadians. Same state, cities 150 mi apart, dramatically different demographics and definitly much different musical tastes.

 

[radiofriend1]

your point being????????????????????? what