• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Must-read Study

"Last time I checked, they owned 347 stations in 68 markets. That leaves 13,503 other stations in hundreds of other markets. Quit. Now. Nothing is better than something you hate. Unless you're completely unqualified to get a job someplace else."

Or unless your spouse is a tenured teacher working towards nice retirement bennies and just shy of them and you on the other hand have been pegged as "too old", "too country", "too rock" to go across town.

But that doesn't matter, you are changing goalposts.

You originally said....

"Air personalities have more control than they understand."

I am saying that is not the case at Cumulus, which is an extreme example. It is not true at a ton of radio stations. You have all sorts of directives from McKvay consulted stations from Daniel, Vallie-Richards and Berkowitz run a tight leash on the Fresh stations, etc.

The freedom often isn't there. You can do a great bit and get chewed out. This does NOT MESH with "Air personalities have more control than they understand."
 
When I was a teenager listening to CKLW, most of the Big 8 jocks were in their 20s. There's an aircheck of Charlie van Dyke when he was 21 (how in the world he had those pipes at 21 I'll never know). I'd listen to WOWO, and great broadcasters that Bob Sievers and jack Underwood were, they always sounded uncomfortable and out of place introing the Rolling Stones. The younger jocks, not so much. Frankly, a 60 year old CHR jock interacting with teens on Myspace: sounds creepy.
 
I've been out of radio for several years now and I can hardly believe that we're even having this discussion. Kudo's to Alan Burns for confirming what I've been hearing as well on music radio.

When I was a jock in Major, Large and Medium markets, not being relatable was NOT an option if you wanted to succeed and/or keep your job. Every single break need not be about the listener but the overwhelming majority needs to be.

This just qualifies the long, slow decline in our beloved industry. Maybe it's not too late to turn it around.
 
radioray said:
And maybe it's time we, I dunno, stopped making one person do 5 jobs?

"Making one person?"  Excuse me, please, but the radio police in my building don't make anyone do 5 jobs.  They agreed, for pay, to do the jobs to the best of their abilities ... and there are others in their place in multi-tasking situations in many positions and clusters today.  Do I agree with the "practice?"  Absolutely not, I think it diminishes the product of not one, but all ... especially if the 5 jobs are "housekeeping" of mandates and dictates from corporate, with playlists, etc. But this didn't just happen yesterday.  Lots of people have "run" AM/FM combos for years ... some well, some not so. But it's not new and it detracts, I admit, from the single, most competitive job at hand.  I play to a person's strengths, not to seeing who can do the most of many things.

They don't call 'em "cookie cutter" formats for nothing. Only the titles and CD covers have changed today. But, some do what they have to do ... and seeing multi-tasking employees / programmers / managers just happens to be one in this day and age.
.
However, I've never accepted a job only to be told, "Oh, you will do this for three, four or five of our stations now that we've hired you or you're outta here."  Somebody agreed to do the job, or stayed around to do the job if others were terminated.   
 
Nice to see the information quantified and qualified. Obviously though, if radio needs a perceptual study to find out that they have a credibility/relatability problem with the audience (especially younger members), that's saying something. And when will radio stop using reality TV and celebrity gossip as a crutch for content? Never, as long as those programming the stations are all former liner readers and young jocks with no other point of reference. Zero entertainment = zero audience involvement.
 
DavidEduardo said:
aunti-terrestrial said:
Really, as hard as you try to spin it, David, there's no excuse for jocks who think they're connecting with their communities by going straight to the job and back home. Excuses don't work.

In today's world, being out on the street at a remote or van hit where there are 40 or 60 people is useless. That whole model of kissing babies does not work any more.

To reach listeners, you communicate with them on and off the air. And the methods are texting and Facebook and Tweets. Your website should have a blog by each jock, if they even have minimal writing skills.

The request line us another fairly useless tool. Most people don't use the phone that way any more.

I'm concerned that the talent get rest, family time and enjoy life a bit. There is a reason jocks in the past had the reputation of being drunks or worse, womanizers, etc., etc. The had no home life, and the station absorbed all their time. That has to change.

If today's economy requires even the PD to be on the air, and shifts are longer, then don't expect people to go out on the street... because it is not that important any more.

There is a lot that can be done via each person's show. Our cluster in LA has 5 Marconi nominations, all based on community service and years of successful operation... and the manager's office has a case full of them from prior years. You can serve with the most powerful thing you have... the signal.


If you think Myspace is reaching people, you need to catch up. Myspace has become almost totally band-oriented, which is fine, but it only works as a companion to Facebook and Twitter, when you want to direct people you actually know to audio or downloads. I distinctly recall you and Fo-fo laughing at the early social-networking adapters, but, as I've been saying all along, if terrestrial radio doesn't evolve to keep up with its listeners in the digital age, it's going to be sitting on the verge of bankruptcy, wondering how to get back a retreating audience, and wondering how in hell to drive people buy a million unused, never-opened HD receivers. Oh, yeah, nevermind.

Nevertheless, as any parent will tell you, there are times when you have to shut off the computer, get off your butt, and go outside. Relying upon social networking sites to give the "appearance" of being local is just as lame and hollow as the voicetracker from another state who doesn't realize he's saying a local street name horribly wrong.

There's a whole world out here, as the listeners well know. It's the world they move in, and it doesn't usually involve spending the day at the car dealership.

As I've stated, a van load of teenagers in station T-shirts, handing out paper fans, is not the way to make local connections with the listeners, nor has it ever been. There's nothing worse than seeing a live jock at a station event who, when not speaking into a mic, is cloistered away in the back office or backstage, hiding (one presumes) from the unwashed masses who at least made the attempt to get up off their sofas and come down to the gig. It's not enough to just show up, and it's not enough to just show up to station events.

I've worked entire, all-day festivals where, aside from stage/broadcast duties, most of the station jocks spent the entire day inside the VIP pavilion, hanging out at tables in circles of co-workers that exactly mimic their station interactions: all the classic rock morning show people over here, all the alternative folks at these tables, the engineers in a circle over there, the PDs at the table with the corporate managers, the sales people all clustered on this side over here. Here's a golden opportunity to get out there among the listeners and give them a face to what you do on the air. Surveying the scene, I could hear the voice of my best PD in my mind, incensed at the laziness. Here was an opportunity to make sure the people at this crowd know about the next six concerts coming up, or talk to them about what they'd like to hear on the special features, or listen to their stories about radio encounters past (which is something listeners like to do). A helpful co-worker told me I should be in the VIP pavilion, "networking." I did a quick couple of circuits of the room, and then grew immensely bored sitting around with the same co-workers I saw every day, watching on widescreen TVs the band which was, after all, actually playing onstage thirty yards away. I spent the rest of the day in the crowd, and still catch up with a lot of the people I met that day, who are still doing interesting things with their lives, art, and music.

On-air? Sure, there's nothing wrong with being alone on-air. In fact, I prefer it, and drawing the shades, as well. But being good on-air is only half of it, anymore. I can't believe the Big A and I agree about anything, but we do. Ask Ryan Freakin' Seacrest if his job stops at the studio door, or if he could stay home and phone it all in on Myspace and Twitter.

Reality TV sucks, but it gave us the notion that, without facetime, you're off the island. The question is not whether or not you agree with that notion, but whether or not your listeners do. Because somebody else is getting that facetime if you pass on your turn.

Those non-comms I mentioned? They're volunteers, every one. They work their real, fulltime jobs and take care of their families, too. And they don't get paid to show up any place at all that they go. Nevertheless, when you act like your show and your station depends upon making local connections, you do what it takes to secure yourself a following. They don't have a sales force whose job it is to "deal with" business owners. They don't have a program director to tell them what music local listeners will like. They have what they can bring to the table, and every one of them realizes that being invisible in the community means they'll be replaced, come fundraising time. Those guys can't phone it in, nor could they do what they do by relying solely upon Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. That incentive is not there with commercial radio, which lends itself to the hubris of which I speak.
 
TheBigA said:
Which is better: Quitting or getting fired? Seems like an easy decision.

Radioray already answer one part of your "question". Here's the answer to the other part:

If you get fired, you get unemployment.

In the current environment, jobs are few and far between. There are some VERY talented people on the street because of corporate edict - not numbers, not revenue, and certainly not because of a lack of skills. Some people choose to hang on, especially when they've built an audience over a long period of time, hoping to outlast the "management team" that put the company in jeopardy in the first place. Remember, it's rarely LOCAL management that created the current situation. It's CORPORATE management that drove this bus off the cliff.

As far as "social networking" sites as a replacement for "hitting the streets" is concerned, "social networking" is preaching to your choir. The people who see your postings are already "friends" - they don't BUILD an audience. Visibility on the street reminds people that you exist, and might even prompt them to sample your product. It's called ADVERTISING. Obviously, it's more effective at venues where there's a greater number of people. Both "social networking" and "hitting the streets" have their place - one doesn't replace the other.
 
SirRoxalot said:
TheBigA said:
Which is better: Quitting or getting fired? Seems like an easy decision.

Radioray already answer one part of your "question". Here's the answer to the other part:

If you get fired, you get unemployment if you're a fulltime employee and not limited to 29.5 hours per week in an at-will state.

FIFY.
 
In many markets, Jack-FM and Bob-FM deliver more personality than the jocked-stations, because most times the Jack and Bob voiceovers are relating to a lifestyle point of view, instead of trying to sell the listener some sales promotion.
 
aunti-terrestrial said:
If you think Myspace is reaching people, you need to catch up. Myspace has become almost totally band-oriented, which is fine, but it only works as a companion to Facebook and Twitter, when you want to direct people you actually know to audio or downloads.

In the post you are replying to, there is no mention of Myspace. However, despite it being closed to development, Myspace Latino is vastly preferred among Hispanics to Facebook, and even more preferred than Tweeter. In fact, among quite a few people, YouTube is considered a social networking site as it allows sharing of family videos and comments.

I distinctly recall you and Fo-fo laughing at the early social-networking adapters, but, as I've been saying all along, if terrestrial radio doesn't evolve to keep up with its listeners in the digital age, it's going to be sitting on the verge of bankruptcy, wondering how to get back a retreating audience, and wondering how in hell to drive people buy a million unused, never-opened HD receivers. Oh, yeah, nevermind.

Social networking is part of a bunch of new media applications that can be integrated with a good station. They are not alternatives to the radio station, as there is no revenue model that yet works, as MySpace proved. In fact, in many cases smart phones are the real target of opportunity for radio, particulary when they become WiMax enabled and when there is a national WiMax network that does not suck big time.

Nevertheless, as any parent will tell you, there are times when you have to shut off the computer, get off your butt, and go outside. Relying upon social networking sites to give the "appearance" of being local is just as lame and hollow as the voicetracker from another state who doesn't realize he's saying a local street name horribly wrong.

The wrong name is a lack of training or guidance; I know people in my area who have lived here 20 years or more who can't pronounce certain names... because they never had to before.

And in situations where hours are longer, pay is less and gas is higher, social networking and other options, like personal blogs, studio webcams, etc., can more than make up for not doing van hits. In most Top 50 markets, maybe even Top 100, you just can't touch enough people in person to make a difference, but you can touch them with electronic communication.

And, let's face it, most people today don't want to meet a DJ. Priorities have change.

As I've stated, a van load of teenagers in station T-shirts, handing out paper fans, is not the way to make local connections with the listeners, nor has it ever been. There's nothing worse than seeing a live jock at a station event who, when not speaking into a mic, is cloistered away in the back office or backstage, hiding (one presumes) from the unwashed masses who at least made the attempt to get up off their sofas and come down to the gig.

Some very good jocks and talents I have worked with are unable to work in public. They communicate beautifully one on one on the radio... they sound like they were talking only to you... but in front of a crowd, they are a disaster. We hire jocks to do the right thing on the air... we can't expect every one of them to be good MCs in front of a crowd.

You want to criticize today's environment, yet you are using yesterday's model.
 
What on Earth are you talking about? Yesterday's model? Do you even read others' posts?
 
Those non-comms I mentioned? They're volunteers, every one. They work their real, fulltime jobs and take care of their families, too. And they don't get paid to show up any place at all that they go. Nevertheless, when you act like your show and your station depends upon making local connections, you do what it takes to secure yourself a following. They don't don't have a sales force whose job it is to "deal with" business owners. They don't have a program director to tell them what music local listeners will like. They have what they can bring to the table, and every one of them realizes that being invisible in the community means they'll be replaced, come fundraising time. Those guys can't phone it in, nor could they do what they do by relying solely upon Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. That incentive is not there with commercial radio, which lends itself to the hubris of which I speak.



Sorry, but you're wrong.  I voice track several non-coms. I get paid for them each. I localize each one each day. I have a sales team of 2 plus a GM at all but 2 where the GM IS the sales staff ... talking to businesses each day. And the "jocks" also "sell" for donations at least 3 days a week at all of the stations I deal with. On commission, in addition to their not-so decent minimum wage salaries.  They don't "like" voicetracking, but they do it because it's their job.  If they don't produce, but contributing to the bottom line, they aren't there, which is just like a commercial radio station. Yes, we "phone it in" ... much easier than driving to a "studio" and pushing buttons ... which hasn't every made a jock more "relatable" to an audience, just because he/she can "push buttons."

Also, we have PDs at our stations in a variety of tight formats because non-com doesn't mean "duh!" radio.  And we serve our local communities by talking with audiences ... and, yes, it's the business people who keep us alive.  It's not NPR fundraisers.  It's business people who "donate" with on-air "spots" that we're very appreciative of getting.

It takes work.  Now, some non-coms are all volunteer, but as you see from above ... your generalization is not correct. It's not "everybody."

If you get fired, you get unemployment.

Only IF you met certain year-to-quarter terms as described by your state EDD and if you were laid off and not terminated for "cause". You only get unemployment based on the number of quarters you have worked in the last year and the "qualifying" number of hours you worked during that period.  If the management doesn't "contest" your "termination by layoff" ... you may get unemployment, depending on your employment record ... consecutively in the last four quarters. In some states, that "qualifying" period is 18 months ... not 12.
 
oaktree said:
Those non-comms I mentioned? They're volunteers, every one. They work their real, fulltime jobs and take care of their families, too. And they don't get paid to show up any place at all that they go. Nevertheless, when you act like your show and your station depends upon making local connections, you do what it takes to secure yourself a following. They don't don't have a sales force whose job it is to "deal with" business owners. They don't have a program director to tell them what music local listeners will like. They have what they can bring to the table, and every one of them realizes that being invisible in the community means they'll be replaced, come fundraising time. Those guys can't phone it in, nor could they do what they do by relying solely upon Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. That incentive is not there with commercial radio, which lends itself to the hubris of which I speak.



Sorry, but you're wrong. I voice track several non-coms. I get paid for them each. I localize each one each day. I have a sales team of 2 plus a GM at all but 2 where the GM IS the sales staff ... talking to businesses each day. And the "jocks" also "sell" for donations at least 3 days a week at all of the stations I deal with. On commission, in addition to their not-so decent minimum wage salaries. They don't "like" voicetracking, but they do it because it's their job. If they don't produce, but contributing to the bottom line, they aren't there, which is just like a commercial radio station. Yes, we "phone it in" ... much easier than driving to a "studio" and pushing buttons ... which hasn't every made a jock more "relatable" to an audience, just because he/she can "push buttons."

Also, we have PDs at our stations in a variety of tight formats because non-com doesn't mean "duh!" radio. And we serve our local communities by talking with audiences ... and, yes, it's the business people who keep us alive. It's not NPR fundraisers. It's business people who "donate" with on-air "spots" that we're very appreciative of getting.

It takes work. Now, some non-coms are all volunteer, but as you see from above ... your generalization is not correct. It's not "everybody."

Oak, that may be so in your case, but again, that's not what I was talking about. Here in Houston, the local non-comms at the station I was referring to are all volunteer. See, that's the thing, I didn't make a generalization. I was speaking of a specific station, and the individuals from that station who make it their business to know what's going on and to establish their presences locally.

Some people come to discuss ideas. Some just come to grandstand. Either way, it's fine by me.
 
aunti-terrestrial said:
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.
 
Not grandstanding ... and I understand your obvious anger. Someone disagrees with you.  That's ok.  Clearer writing next time ... Sorry, meant nothing personal, just how I took what you said.  And I, rightfully, disagree with you.
 
radioray said:
I am saying that is not the case at Cumulus, which is an extreme example. It is not true at a ton of radio stations. You have all sorts of directives from McKvay consulted stations from Daniel, Vallie-Richards and Berkowitz run a tight leash on the Fresh stations, etc.

The freedom often isn't there. You can do a great bit and get chewed out. This does NOT MESH with "Air personalities have more control than they understand."

They do. I'm saying generally, they do. Is it the case at all 14,000 radio stations in the US? Probably not.

Freedom is not the same thing as having control. You want freedom? Buy your own station. No one but the FCC will tell you what to do.

DJs have control. Star (an urban DJ) in NYC used his control to threaten a child on the air. Imus used his control to make racial comment about female basketball players. Lots of DJs have demonstrated they have control. Unfortunately, some have misused that opportunity.

But once again, how does your "freedom" or your "control" help you relate to the audience? That's what this study is about. If you just want freedom or control for personal expression, you're doing exactly what Burns says is wrong about radio. Because personal self-expression isn't much different than station self-promotion...neither involves the listener.
 
TheBigA said:
radioray said:
I am saying that is not the case at Cumulus, which is an extreme example. It is not true at a ton of radio stations. You have all sorts of directives from McKvay consulted stations from Daniel, Vallie-Richards and Berkowitz run a tight leash on the Fresh stations, etc.

The freedom often isn't there. You can do a great bit and get chewed out. This does NOT MESH with "Air personalities have more control than they understand."

They do. I'm saying generally, they do. Is it the case at all 14,000 radio stations in the US? Probably not.

You're so out of touch with what's happening in the trenches that it's laughable. Especially when you talk about any shift outside of the morning show. Even Seacrest - the poster boy for syndicated radio - is being told to "cut back on the talk breaks".

TheBigA said:
DJs have control. Star (an urban DJ) in NYC used his control to threaten a child on the air. Imus used his control to make racial comment about female basketball players. Lots of DJs have demonstrated they have control. Unfortunately, some have misused that opportunity.

Mornings AREN'T THE ONLY SHIFT IN RADIO. To use two guys in morning radio in NYC as examples shows just how out of touch you really are.

Besides, how were they punished for their mis-steps? Imus was paid millions to settle his contract, then was paid millions more by Farid & Co. for mediocre ratings in NY & a handful of other cities.

But once again, how does your "freedom" or your "control" help you relate to the audience? That's what this study is about. If you just want freedom or control for personal expression, you're doing exactly what Burns says is wrong about radio. Because personal self-expression isn't much different than station self-promotion...neither involves the listener.

If you're mandated to NOT talk during most of the breaks, and mandated to read station promos when you do get the "chance to entertain", where's the chance to relate to the audience? Making those five breaks an hour "relatable" - but based on mandated content - certainly doesn't make up for the barrage of station promotion that assaults the listener during the rest of the hour.

You seriously don't get what's going on in the business right now - especially outside the Top 10 markets.
 
SirRoxalot said:
[You're so out of touch with what's happening in the trenches that it's laughable. Especially when you talk about any shift outside of the morning show. Even Seacrest - the poster boy for syndicated radio - is being told to "cut back on the talk breaks".

Seacrest's talk minutes had been creeping upwards. No dout management did the same thing any other PPM subscriber can do, which is to compared the data for days with more talk and days with less, and told Seacrest to keep the talk under control.

In other dayparts on many formats, talk, with or without personality, is undesirable. In still others, it may be daypart dependent. There have been several articles and comments about "personalization" of talk in recent days, but nobody has bothered to look at whether talk, in today's radio, is often unwarranted and sometimes even a big negative.

If you're mandated to NOT talk during most of the breaks, and mandated to read station promos when you do get the "chance to entertain", where's the chance to relate to the audience?

Again, that may not be a need or requiremnt of the format. And, today, it just might not be affordable. When we see even Bonneville announcing potential cuts, we know the advertising economy is bad. And this is not a self-inflicted problem caused by not hiring enough creative jocks. It's things like the loss of nearly all automotive and financial institution advertising, and the general downslide of the economy.

Making those five breaks an hour "relatable" - but based on mandated content - certainly doesn't make up for the barrage of station promotion that assaults the listener during the rest of the hour.

When I see Coke and Bud stop putting labels on their bottles, then I will believe that branding is no longer necessary.

The greatest personality station of all time, KHJ, branded with calls a minimum of between 25 and 30 times an hour. One of radio's alltime greatest brands, KGO, runs about 55 "KGO's" an hour.

You seriously don't get what's going on in the business right now - especially outside the Top 10 markets.

In the smaller markets, there is a greater ability to use syndication to keep the quality of the talent high either via shows like Delilah on AC or voicetracking. There is no reason to have any shift running without the appropriate "hosting" even if the hostin is frequenty updated listener input like the amazingly topical and entertaining jockless Jack in LA.

Speaking of which, not nearly enough credit has been given to Kevin Weatherly of KROQ and KAMP in LA for the KCBS-FM Jack presentation... never-enging, never repeated listener drops that are totally topical and up to the moment and a diverse yet very localized music blend that gets huge ratings.
 
SirRoxalot said:
You're so out of touch with what's happening in the trenches that it's laughable. Especially when you talk about any shift outside of the morning show. Even Seacrest - the poster boy for syndicated radio - is being told to "cut back on the talk breaks".

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

Star, by the way, was afternoon drive. Not morning drive. Obvious you don't listen to Urban formatted radio, which isn't as "formatted" as you describe. There are lots of formats in markets of all sizes where DJs get the opportunity to relate, but fail to do so, either because they have nothing relatable to say, or they're too self-absorbed. That's why I brought up Imus. How was what he said relatable to the audience? It wasn't. He would have done better to shut up and play the music. But unfortunately he hosts a talk show.
 
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?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom