Must-read Study

[aunti-terrestrial]

What on Earth are you talking about? Yesterday's model? Do you even read others' posts?

Of course I do. And believing, today, that "owning the streets" really works... that pressing the flesh really works... that remotes work for most advertisers... that doing something for the community means "doing something off the air"... is believing in a model that broke a decade or more ago.

Even Obama knew that he would win with the web, not with the handshakes. McCain believed in "getting out" just like you do and he was reported to have an aid open his emails.

Translation: Please, keep paying the consultant. Get rid of everybody else in the building, but for the love of God, please, keep paying the consultant.

 

[davideduardo]

Translation: Please, keep paying the consultant. Get rid of everybody else in the building, but for the love of God, please, keep paying the consultant.

Consultants have had a hard time in the last two years as stations look for ways to cut back for the sake of survival.

When a company such as Bonneville, perhaps the most community minded and long-term focused major group in the country, announces cuts, you know things are bad in the economy.

Many stations have also cut promotion, research, new equipment, etc. All hurt the operation, but the alternative is not being able to survive. B of A announced the potential closing of 10% of its branches... this is not just a radio issue.

Consultants can't do much if there is no research, no staff to implement changes, no promotional budget to deal with imaging issues...

 

[SirRoxalot]

So Rox, we're going to get rid of all the branding and sales liners and let you talk. What are you going to say? Maybe what you did last weekend? The weather? The crop report?

That's so stupid, and downright insulting, as to not even rate a serious response. NOBODY advocated "getting rid of all the branding and sales liners". Unfortunately, what too many stations present now is nothing but branding. Surely, there's some middle ground, some content of interest to THE LISTENERS that's worth presenting.

Happy talk by a DJ on a music station does NOT constitute relating to his audience. It's personal self-expression and self-indulgence.

If you talk about yourself, instead of talking about things that relate to the listener, you're correct. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE STUDY. Did you bother to READ it? Or is it just that you - as usual - didn't COMPREHEND it?

 

[gr8oldies]

Maybe I don't want some guy on the radio to "relate" to me. Just play another song. Rox, you're a one note samba when you insist that all would b well with radio if they hired hundreds of DJs and had them all "relating", whatever your definition is.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Maybe I don't want some guy on the radio to "relate" to me.

There is an old, old bit of political humor that goes back to the era of Eisenhower. We had a rather bloated Department of Agriculture. Much akin to the stimulus package of today, in trying to rescue agriculture from what the depression had done, the whip-saw effect of meeting the challenge of WW-II and then trying to figure out a soft crash landing for the problem of way too many farmers for the need, Farm subsidies were bigger political news then than today.

The story is told of the USDA employee coming back from lunch and finding the person at the next desk crying uncontrollably. Friend, what's the problem? "My farmer died."

Maybe the radio business if it tried to recapture the past that so many long for would find that every listener would have his own personal announcer/dj/personality. Then we could all have a personalized dj to relate to us... whether we wanted one or not. And it would be your patriotic duty to respond to the attention from your own designated air personality.

 

[TheBigA]

THAT'S THE POINT OF THE STUDY. Did you bother to READ it? Or is it just that you - as usual - didn't COMPREHEND it?

I'm responding to you. That's what I quoted in my post. Did you bother reading what I was responding to?

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

What on Earth are you talking about? Yesterday's model? Do you even read others' posts?

Of course I do. And believing, today, that "owning the streets" really works... that pressing the flesh really works... that remotes work for most advertisers... that doing something for the community means "doing something off the air"... is believing in a model that broke a decade or more ago.

Even Obama knew that he would win with the web, not with the handshakes. McCain believed in "getting out" just like you do and he was reported to have an aid open his emails.

I just find if cute, in an "awwwwwwwwwwwwwww" kinda way, that you think that, of the 1,027 emails, 566 Myspace bulletins, and 302 Facebook posts I got from the Obama campaign (40% of which I passed along, and perhaps, 70% of which dealt with promoting Obama's upcoming appearances) you seem to think that "The Obama Team" consisted of Barak Obama, sitting on his keyboard every night, hand-crafting those posts and hitting "send" all by his little ol' lonesome. It must be really confusing for you, I know.

 

[davideduardo]

I just find if cute, in an "awwwwwwwwwwwwwww" kinda way, that you think that, of the 1,027 emails, 566 Myspace bulletins, and 302 Facebook posts I got from the Obama campaign (40% of which I passed along, and perhaps, 70% of which dealt with promoting Obama's upcoming appearances) you seem to think that "The Obama Team" consisted of Barak Obama, sitting on his keyboard every night, hand-crafting those posts and hitting "send" all by his little ol' lonesome. It must be really confusing for you, I know.

Obama realized that today personal one on one contact was not necessary. So he focused much of his campaign on reaching people with his message, not with his presence.

McCain still believes/believed that getting out "live" in front of people would make a difference.

McCain should take a lesson from radio. Do a remote today with a jock on a well rated station, and count the turnout. Do the same remote with the same person with free hot dogs and sodas and baloons for the kiddies, and the attendance quadruples.

People don't go out to see jocks. People have about 100 things to do that take priority. But you can reach them in the midst of the things they want to do simply by messaging or Tweeting!

Again, the old model does not work... or, if you want to be picky, you could say that the old model has to be wrapped in new things to work.

 

[12 In a Row]

Agree, so much yearning to capture the past.
Ah, back in the day we were force fed our favorite songs.
Now anyone can be their own personal program director.

I was thinking, those in the horse and buggy business must have been some pissed at Henry Ford.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Obama realized that today personal one on one contact was not necessary. So he focused much of his campaign on reaching people with his message, not with his presence.

McCain still believes/believed that getting out "live" in front of people would make a difference.

McCain should take a lesson from radio. Do a remote today with a jock on a well rated station, and count the turnout. Do the same remote with the same person with free hot dogs and sodas and baloons for the kiddies, and the attendance quadruples.

I think you have described what happened pretty well. I would offer this "wrinkle" to your logic. The audience receptive to the message of Obama is a group that is reasonably comfortable with "new media" concepts.

The audience most receptive to the McCain message includes a lot of people who are not comfortable with the new media methods, a lot of people who still want to "press the flesh" and see the merchandise in person.

I don't think the people who operate and program radio stations can assume that all potential listeners have been carved from the same kind of wood.

 

[John FL]

For me, the study was an interesting read. Given the wide range of replies, it’s pretty clear not everyone agrees with how radio generally operates today. Thankfully, there are those who offer different viewpoints. After all, no one can really say that those in whom we trust to make the right decisions are really making them.

As we look at today’s economy, I’m sure there were dissenters who didn’t like how the government was spending money or making laws that eased credit decisions so that those who couldn’t afford a home got one anyway. When big money was being made in all kinds of business across the spectrum, few asked how this was happening. All of us want our 401Ks to grow and CEOs want to be the biggest and best. That’s reality but with big rewards there is usually a lot of risk and look at where we are now.

And so, we turn to radio. Noticeably so over the past 5 years, talent payroll has been slashed based on research, statistics and “listener preferences.” My argument has always been that even a reasonable person should conclude that statistics and public opinion can be manipulated and certainly a human must interpret the data. I believe the decreasing role of talent has all been by design and this wouldn’t be the first time business decides to do what it wants to look good for Wall Street at the expense of its customers and sponsors.

I’m not expecting radio to be as it was even 10 years ago as tastes do indeed change. I am a firm believer in capitalism and the private sector and I understand radio operates to make a profit. Where I have the biggest frustration is that I believe the current “model” as David so often sites as gospel increases future risk just as the actions of many CEOs across the country who didn’t balance profit goals with enough sound logic.

We often are told listeners don’t want to hear a lot of DJ patter and stepping on the song intros or song fades. Perhaps fair enough but listeners still want information when something is happening that will have an effect on them such as a weather event, major traffic tie-up or even the sudden demise of a major pop star. Few want to bother to provide a mechanism to report timely information when automation or voice tracking is the programming. My friends, to me – this is risky for radio’s future because it significantly reduces listener impression.

The responses in this string turned to the last presidential election and I agree about how embracing new technology can and does have profound effects. I see so many exciting things for radio and really the future is already here. Technology and radio seem to be a marriage made in heaven. I can listen to my favorite stations from virtually anywhere and on a ton of venues. With all the choices available, listeners have to feel they are getting something worth listening to.

We have lots of stations following the model of automation, voice tracking, no special programming, no local flavor, no community involvement but just play the same over-researched songs over and over to get a piece of something in 25-54 in a billing-friendly format even if there are several in the market doing the same thing. Good show for the listeners but in the wonderful business model of today, it’s not really about them. Perhaps in the same way I attempt to make the connection to the risks others have incurred for the sake of looking really good for Wall Street. I submit to you that many in radio are doing the same thing. There is more than one road to success and the easier road is being taken. I believe it is a mistake and one day I look to be proven right all along.

Even today, research shows that in virtually every market over 90% of consumers 12+ listen to the radio. Radio is a hard habit to break. Time spent listening is down and that should't be a surprise. I don't accept the large listening percentage as a validation that people like what they are hearing. The listening audience has been played like a fiddle but I don't believe the current model is a validation. Remember a little thing called FM. In the early 70s, the AM Top 40 stations were very dominant. By the end of the decade, many faded into oblivion.

For those of you who broad brush many of us for living in the past, you couldn’t be more wrong. Many of us are very excited about the future and I believe radio will have a role in it. Getting out into the community, especially in support of local charitable events, may not be effective for the bean counters or a part of today’s model, but it’s the right thing to do. The right thing to do seems to be an old-fashioned concept but in the end, I believe it should be a part of a business strategy. Profit is important but it cannot be the only goal.

As a society we have been failed by many in whom we entrusted. Not everyone in radio follows the same script because they understand radio is really about the listener. It’s a communication medium and it should offer format choices based on the community served. This is how commercial radio will differentiate itself from everything else in a future we are already seeing today. Those who don’t accept the current way of doing things but rather chart their own course based on the local market are on the right track IMHO.

I grow tired of this never ending discussion where if we disagree with the current thinking, we are labeled dinosaurs. No matter the business, diversity of opinions and recommendations is healthy and it should be encouraged – not silenced. I hear a lot of good radio especially in big markets. They don’t seem to have an issue sponsoring community events or concerts. One major station I listen to almost all the time from NYC is offering a listener appreciation picnic for its’ audience at the end of this month. It may be corny or not effective to many of you, but it brings a smile to my face seeing this kind of radio still exists and it is being met with success.

Despite all the negative feedback I have gotten over the years for supposedly not understanding this or that, I am feeling very good about a lot of things. Radio is full of surprises. We’ll just have to continue to stay tuned.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Maybe I don't want some guy on the radio to "relate" to me. Just play another song. Rox, you're a one note samba when you insist that all would b well with radio if they hired hundreds of DJs and had them all "relating", whatever your definition is.

And you're a one-tune tango that somebody else's iPod, syndication and VT are what listeners want. Obviously, that ain't workin' out so well. So, I advocate that we return to relatable, locally-targeted radio. Crazy, huh?

Kudos to JohnJax for a well thought out, pertinent, and timely post.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm slightly entertained by the fact that in 8 pages of comments, no one has mentioned that this study was done by a consultant who came up with the Movin' format. When it was launched several years ago, it was attacked by a lot of radio people as being another example of short-term thinking. In LA, the format took a station that got about a 2 share when it was country down to a 1.4 as Movin'. Their attempt at relatable jock patter was to hire Rick Dees. Nice idea, but bad execution. How much relatable DJ patter did we hear during the rest of the day? Can't say...because they all sounded the same. The whole thing was such a success that the station's owner ultimately gave up on the frrequency. This is the guy who is criticizing what he hears on the radio.

Let's not make more out of this study than what it is. It's a sales pitch for what may be the next cookie cutter format from Alan Burns. He'll call it "You." The DJs come on and ask "How are you?" "What are you feeling?" "We're here for YOU." In fact, that'll be the format positioner. The stations will change their call letters to WYOU and WYOO. They'll play lots of songs about sharing and feelings. In fact they'll launch the new format with Morris Albert's huge hit, "Feelings." In keeping with Alan's views, they won't talk about celebrities. They'll talk about the music. Tell some stories about the songs. Because he thinks people listen to music radio to hear stories about songs. I'm obviously kidding here about this new format idea. But maybe I'm not.

This study is not about hiring more DJs and letting them say what they want. It doesn't say that anywhere, and it isn't in Alan's MO to hire lots of local talent. The main thrust is to stop talking about the station. I think that will happen as the PPM expands to more markets. No need to talk as much about the station when the measuring is done by PPM. That is really what this study is about. Preparing for life in the PPM world.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

*Sigh* I also got 734 missives from the Republican party during the election. The biggest difference is that exactly 4 of them dealt with any sort of plan for the country, and 730 of them were ill-informed talk points or attacks on other candidates. Perhaps if McCain had done more to provide content, his emails and social networking would have had a greater impact.

The bottom line is, NOBODY lines up to get their photo taken with the radio consultant. Nobody cares what you look like, nobody hopes to talk to you at station events, most people wouldn't care if the radio consultant dropped dead of a heart attack sitting right there with his gut hanging over the sides of his computer chair. To sit there and decree that people don't want to meet their jocks because you've undercut your stations' clients by giving them lousy "appearances" doesn't make it real. It just means you've got some new brand of snake-oil you're selling your stations, because you've done it so wrong in the past that you've failed to generate interest. Gee, if all you're doing is sending out a van full of teenagers with some paper fans, no wonder you're not seeing any excitement with your stations' live appearances. That's not what the clients paid for, but that's the best they're going to get from your business model. No wonder they feel cheated.

 

[davideduardo]

The bottom line is, NOBODY lines up to get their photo taken with the radio consultant. Nobody cares what you look like, nobody hopes to talk to you at station events, most people wouldn't care if the radio consultant dropped dead of a heart attack sitting right there with his gut hanging over the sides of his computer chair.

Why do you keep brining up consultants?

In this depression, very few consultants are doing well, just like their colleagues who work for radio stations or radio groups.

To sit there and decree that people don't want to meet their jocks because you've undercut your stations' clients by giving them lousy "appearances" doesn't make it real. It just means you've got some new brand of snake-oil you're selling your stations, because you've done it so wrong in the past that you've failed to generate interest.

Today, the position of a jock in the consumer's mind is a lot different than when there were only a few viable stations in any market, all AM, and two to three TV stations, no cable channels, no....

Very few sane people want to go see a jock. But have a station mascot and take pictures of the kids and print them out on the spot, or do face painting or have a barbecue, and, dependent on the station itself and its promotion, lots of people may show up.

Gee, if all you're doing is sending out a van full of teenagers with some paper fans, no wonder you're not seeing any excitement with your stations' live appearances.

Actually, we know how to get hundreds if not thousand or tens of thousands to an event. But it's not generally based on coming to see a jock.

That's not what the clients paid for, but that's the best they're going to get from your business model. No wonder they feel cheated.

Actually, they are quite happy and there is an event waiting list....

But that fact proves that the model has changed, because we do fun events, not DJ appearances and remotes.

 

[davideduardo]

And so, we turn to radio. Noticeably so over the past 5 years, talent payroll has been slashed based on research, statistics and “listener preferences.”

There are many different listener groups and many different formats. There are formats where personality is desirable all the time (I work much of my time with one we invented, which is live personality 24/7) and others that require the absence of personality.

Most of us, using simple common sense, can tell the difference in the personality level needed. But the recession has caused cuts that go way beyond what is right into the realm of what is destructive. But, then again, I was at Best Buy yesterday to get a DVD player of a specific brand and model. There were no boxes to pick up on the shelves, and it took me a half hour to find someone who could find one... not enough staff, bad service, no knowledge of even the store layout. It's the recession.

We have lots of stations following the model of automation, voice tracking, no special programming, no local flavor, no community involvement but just play the same over-researched songs over and over to get a piece of something in 25-54 in a billing-friendly format even if there are several in the market doing the same thing.

Whew! That sentence packs a bunch of punches.

First, research is talking to the listener. You can't over-talk to your listeners. You can not listen to them and play what they don't like, to your extreme peril. Of course, as you stated, someone with a degree of understanding has to interpret the listner views, as listeners can not tell you what you should do, just what they like and dislike, now.

Automation and voice tracking are 45 years old. Some formats thrive on it, others do not. It's always been that way.

And did you know special programming was pretty much invented to cover with prerecorded programs the shifts that were hard to fill? How do you think AT40 got started? PDs wanted something good sounging on weekends where bad jocks were all they could otherwise get.

I grow tired of this never ending discussion where if we disagree with the current thinking, we are labeled dinosaurs. No matter the business, diversity of opinions and recommendations is healthy and it should be encouraged – not silenced. I hear a lot of good radio especially in big markets. They don’t seem to have an issue sponsoring community events or concerts. One major station I listen to almost all the time from NYC is offering a listener appreciation picnic for its’ audience at the end of this month. It may be corny or not effective to many of you, but it brings a smile to my face seeing this kind of radio still exists and it is being met with success.

Yet often you will find another station in the same cluster doing the "we don't have those silly jocks" kind of format... they do the right thing for each segment... or as much of the right thing as they can in this economy.

 

[John FL]

First, research is talking to the listener. You can't over-talk to your listeners. You can not listen to them and play what they don't like, to your extreme peril. Of course, as you stated, someone with a degree of understanding has to interpret the listner views, as listeners can not tell you what you should do, just what they like and dislike, now.

Automation and voice tracking are 45 years old. Some formats thrive on it, others do not. It's always been that way.

And did you know special programming was pretty much invented to cover with prerecorded programs the shifts that were hard to fill? How do you think AT40 got started? PDs wanted something good sounging on weekends where bad jocks were all they could otherwise get.

Perhaps I need to clarify. As far as research, it's the nature of how questions are asked that can often determine outcomes. From my experiences in both an acedemic level and the kind of work I did early in my career, I can say with certainty that responses can come with prejudice. In other words, people will tell you what you want to hear. If it's current music preferences, I'd look more at their behavior, in other words what they buy rather than what they say. Without beating a horse, if someone is asked if they prefer to hear more music or more DJ patter, we know the answer.

David, I appreciate your response but be assured I'm not wet behind the ears when it comes to radio. Of course I understand today's tastes demand no one over-talk to listeners in a music format and I don't believe I even implied that. My comments referred to missed opportunity when a listener really needs information and few provide it.

The economy in which you speak as justification for a lot more automation and voice tracking doesn't answer the question as to why this became an almost overnight method of doing business 5-6 years ago. The economy was buzzing along at the time, was it not?. Yes, true and I agree,automation has been around in some fashion for a long time but not to the extent it is today. It was a calculated move testing the waters. People tuned in regardless so it became the standard way of doing business for many but it has long-term risks as mentioned earlier.

Look, it's clear to me that automation/voice tracking should be a part of a plan to reduce expenses especially in some dayparts such as overnights and perhaps a shift or two on weekends. Every business in order to survive will embrace technology that cuts costs. But perhaps a differerence of opinion, I believe it has gone too far making radio a shell of what it once was and making it less relevant for a listener especially when they need information the most.

The special programming I was referring to was not the syndicated weekend variety covering odd shifts. Many just play the same songs over and over without any tweaking of the playlist. In adult formats that cover decades of music as an example, offering listeners themed weekends or "Hall of Fame" type features WCBS-FM regularly provides an incentive to tune in and/or to be surprised with a song they haven't heard in a while. This is all part of the wow factor that is missing in a lot of radio. No David, no one is expecting a station to play music no one wants to hear.

In a nutshell, I was responding more to the posts and not really the consultant. Some are good at what they do, some are not. But most are just getting ready for their next gig. IMHO, too much "science" has been injected into radio. Sure I believe in format and having some control to avoid chaos but I also believe in trusting and teamwork. Radio is at it's best when it is responsive to the audience and creates a bond. I believe in empowering talent to excercise good judgement to talk over a song if necessary to report something that impacts the audience. When appropriate, the talent should have the freedom to substitute a song in response to a very unique request. If there is abuse, the PD will need to address it and lead by example.

But really it all comes down to my strong belief that talent should not be treated as a liability but rather an asset. With creative programming, timely information reporting and community involvement, a station can clearly differentiate themselves from mp3 players, CDs and perhaps even internet radio. But there has to be an incentive to listen longer. Perhaps I speak old-fashioned concepts but there are those who practice what I preach. Just like vintage cars, perhaps there is room for an older "model" in the garage.

 

[TheBigA]

The economy in which you speak as justification for a lot more automation and voice tracking doesn't answer the question as to why this became an almost overnight method of doing business 5-6 years ago.

Forgive me for interrupting, but it wasn't any more an "overnight method" than the decision to replace live studio musicians with recordings more than 60 years ago. In my experience with the rise and development of voicetracking as we know it in 1993, it wasn't the economy per se that was the motivation.Those who designed it and promoted it didn't do so simply to cut salaries. I remember going to a demonstration for Prophet Systems and being pretty amazed at its capabilities. Anyone who has NexGen knows how powerful a system it is, and how it can pretty much run a traditional radio station.

The point is that automation and voicetracking is NOT the enemy, and the economy should not be used as an excuse for using it. Automation is the natural order of the universe. It has been since the first radio automation systems were introduced. When was that, you ask? One might say it happened when Bing Crosby decided he didn't want to do the West Coast feed of his network radio show live, which was 1936. From that day on, listeners on the West Coast heard Bing's show from transcription disc. The age of automation and voicetracking had begun.

I agree with you that talent is an asset. GOOD talent is rare. Extremely rare. I don't believe there is enough truly great talent to fill 12,000 radio stations 24/7. I suggest it's more the fact that talent is so hard to find, and great radio requires so much time, effort, and hard work, that the search for quality is the justification for automation and voicetracking, NOT the economy. Conservation of talent, and at the same time proper exploitation of that talent is the justification. When you come upon a talent who is so unique and so impressive, you don't want to restrict him or hold him back. You want the entire country to hear him. And that great talent should NOT have to sit at the console and run it manually as they did 50 years ago. He should be able to free himself up to work the phones, Twitter, and prep for his next break. And if he does a great show Monday morning, why not repeat that great show on the weekends for folks who missed it or want to hear it again?

So no, it's not simply the economy that makes these technologies so attractive. It's the potential they have for bringing the best talent to the most people, and giving that talent the support it needs to continue to do the best job, and get paid the most money. Those are the reasons I feel talent should embrace new technologies. And from my experience, those who know they are talented, and are prepared for all of the benefits that technologies can bring, are not threatened by automation, and in fact DEMAND NexGen and other systems when they get hired. In fact I believe these technologies empower (to use your word) talent to be able to do more, and move the profession into the new century.

The down side to this is that, as I said, not everyone is equally talented. Some are more talented than others. So why should the audience be forced to endure talent that is not the best at what they do? Why should geography be a limitation for talent and an audience? Why should people in Wichita be denied the best talent if it happens to reside in Omaha? That's all I'm asking. Geography was not a limitation in the 1930s. People in Omaha could hear the best in comedy, drama, and music on the radio thanks to radio networks. It was that experience that made radio so magic for people who could never travel to New York or other cities. Other media serve that function now. Why should radio listeners be denied its historic advantage because some programming may not be live or local? Once again, other media are using automation and syndication to bring the highest quality programming to the most people. I believe that for radio to survive, it needs to do the same thing, and compete on a level playing field with other forms of media, and not be disadvantaged to use certain talent just because they happen to be in the same town. That to me is not quality programming, it's not in the best interests of the audience, and not in the best interest of advertisers.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Let me parallel what Big A pictured. In the next day or two I will write a "bitter sweet" letter to my hometown newspaper. Later this month will be the anniversary of the date we threw the switch and began broadcasting in that town. The station is gone now. I've been gone much longer. I thought they might want to run a little feature on the occasion... and take the opportunity to brag that they outlasted the competition.

My jumping-off entry-point to broadcasting came while I was in college. Young men determined to be ministers of the Christian gospel thickly populated our campus. One of them had just sold his funeral home to study for a second career and brought with him a two-case Magnecorder and an RCA 44B Ribbon Mic. I took on the volunteer task of being the recording technician for a weekly program these young men produced. I learned something very quickly. I had this vision of putting the 44B on a desk stand, seating the "preachers" and coaching them to produce something a little bit conversational. Here is what I learned very quickly: DO NOT ask a young evangelical preacher to SIT and talk. HE WILL stand, maybe wander a bit.

O.K.... back to radio. How many "talent" folks need the adrenalin of sitting between two turn-tables or today's replacement devices, doing their show live, listening to themselves in the best set of headphones they can come up with, and romancing the telephone while the music plays, taking phone calls from throbbing masses.... all 10 or 12 of them. ;D Working in an old fashioned radio station was something of a "spiritual experience".

Sit these people down who think they are talent at a rather un-adorned desk (no music producing devices) facing a RCA 44B or today's suitable replacement, and ask them to simply romance the solid state recorder that is somewhere nearby... and you have one drab, uninspried, hypoglycemic (no blood sugar!) performer.

I'm not sure it is the listeners who are demanding live and local, turning up their noses at anything that hints that portions may have been pre-recorded. I suspect much of the cater-wahling , moaning and groaning about automation and voice tracking originates with people who see themselves as talent, but would need the vocal equivalent of Viagra in order to face a microphone they know is only connected to a recorder.

So, if you like my friend of many years ago who walked away from his funeral business to take up a second career, and you only feel today you can deal with a LIVE audience, choose your denomination carefully if you want to be a minister. You will find yourself preaching to a lot of sleeping parishioners if you align with the wrong "brand".

 

[DebBonner]

Fabulous article.

There is so much competition facing radio these days, the one area it should concentrate on is the one area the other can't compete- talking to the audience. I can listen to my iPod all day but it still won't spontaneously talk to me about things I am interested in. This can be about what my favorite 80s hair band is up to 20 years down the road or what is happening in my own backyard that I should know about.

Unfortunately, it is very easy to say you need to be relatable and very hard to actually be relatable. That is one of the strengths of this article, it shows why all of this seems to be falling apart.

Thanks for posting the link!