I want to use my 1,000th posting on Radio-Info.com to talk a little bit about some of the folks who criticize the radio industry on boards such as this, and why I think there are a few points of discussion out there that are flawed.
1. Terrestrial radio is irrelevant as a medium. This concept cannot be farther from the truth, in my opinion. More than 300 million people call this nation home. The overwhelming majority of those who have the choice between free radio and another non-visual medium will choose free radio. We in our nearsightedness seem to often forget the reality that most people do not have the money to, or are not interested in, paying for something that can be obtained freely from just about any location. The average home has six radios in it. Granted, that's no guarantee that they're all being used. But keep in mind the limited access of satellite compared to terrestrial, and the fees associated with it. Internet radio is even less mobile. Someday, free Web radio may become a contender to terrestrial, but the infrastructure necessary for that to happen does not exist, and the Web's penetration into lower-middle class America and places below the poverty line is still limited. Thus, free radio remains a very viable media source to this day. Somebody who makes $20,000 a year may not be able to afford satellite radio or a Web music service, but they've still got to eat. How many options exist to get an advertiser's message to that person? Folks, that's America right there.
2. Station Wxxx doesn't break new music fast enough. Mercy, this criticism will probably never fade from these boards. This is partially related to criticism #1. There are some folks who think that because their own tastes in music move faster than that of radio's research, that radio is somehow "behind the times." Some people criticize the research that goes into music radio, saying that it doesn't move station playlists fast enough, but folks, do you actually realize how much research goes into music direction? Research is conducted so much that good stations know the interests and tastes of their listeners beyond music, and right into their daily lives. I can't recall how many times I would go to a conference or read something involving music research that would inevitably bring up the topic of where 30-something women like to shop and what they like to drive. If listeners did not respond to and appreciate the kind of music being played on the Q100s and Star 94s of the world, then the research would not reflect that, and those stations would be hurting. It just puzzles me to see people on here talking about how "(station) should sound more like (other station) in New York or Los Angeles or wherever." Do you really think that free-radio-listening John Doe in Atlanta, Georgia cares, or, heck, even knows, about that other station? And don't you think that somebody would put that on the air, if the research done on John Doe said so?
3. (Corporate radio company of your choice) is just greedy when they fire a great talent like (person). Well, if he or she was so great, then why'd they get cut loose? It is always so easy for us as outsiders to think that we have the answers, that we know better than those who are on the inside of a personnel decision. I'm sorry, folks, but as harsh as the business side of radio can be sometimes, it's just that — a business, like any other. The ownership of a radio station, whether it be mom and pop down the street, or a multi-station behemoth, is working with the goal of making money for its ownership and/or stockholders. We criticize companies when they cut loose someone who's worked there 30 years and was a revered talent, as if it's going to mean real hardship on the person. Folks, that's why even the most uneducated of financial experts tell us to save, save, save our money. That 30-year vet is going to be fine, if he or she was smart with money. As for everybody else, don't look at the corporations as "bad guys". Look at the rest of the employment world. Our country is suffering through a time of immense job loss, yet we always seem to want to blame greedy corporate businesspeople for our personal loss. Think about this: If an executive decided to reduce his or her salary by $100,000 a year as a way to cut back, how many jobs, on average, could that save? Maybe three? And for how long? If our country isn't spending money, cuts will continue, everywhere. It's time to get off the companies, and start looking at our own lives and how we can be all that we can personally be.
Finally, I would like to commend the powers that be at Radio-Info.com for continuing to run a well-designed, growing Web site that truly does a great service to the radio community in America and around the world. Keep up the great work.
1. Terrestrial radio is irrelevant as a medium. This concept cannot be farther from the truth, in my opinion. More than 300 million people call this nation home. The overwhelming majority of those who have the choice between free radio and another non-visual medium will choose free radio. We in our nearsightedness seem to often forget the reality that most people do not have the money to, or are not interested in, paying for something that can be obtained freely from just about any location. The average home has six radios in it. Granted, that's no guarantee that they're all being used. But keep in mind the limited access of satellite compared to terrestrial, and the fees associated with it. Internet radio is even less mobile. Someday, free Web radio may become a contender to terrestrial, but the infrastructure necessary for that to happen does not exist, and the Web's penetration into lower-middle class America and places below the poverty line is still limited. Thus, free radio remains a very viable media source to this day. Somebody who makes $20,000 a year may not be able to afford satellite radio or a Web music service, but they've still got to eat. How many options exist to get an advertiser's message to that person? Folks, that's America right there.
2. Station Wxxx doesn't break new music fast enough. Mercy, this criticism will probably never fade from these boards. This is partially related to criticism #1. There are some folks who think that because their own tastes in music move faster than that of radio's research, that radio is somehow "behind the times." Some people criticize the research that goes into music radio, saying that it doesn't move station playlists fast enough, but folks, do you actually realize how much research goes into music direction? Research is conducted so much that good stations know the interests and tastes of their listeners beyond music, and right into their daily lives. I can't recall how many times I would go to a conference or read something involving music research that would inevitably bring up the topic of where 30-something women like to shop and what they like to drive. If listeners did not respond to and appreciate the kind of music being played on the Q100s and Star 94s of the world, then the research would not reflect that, and those stations would be hurting. It just puzzles me to see people on here talking about how "(station) should sound more like (other station) in New York or Los Angeles or wherever." Do you really think that free-radio-listening John Doe in Atlanta, Georgia cares, or, heck, even knows, about that other station? And don't you think that somebody would put that on the air, if the research done on John Doe said so?
3. (Corporate radio company of your choice) is just greedy when they fire a great talent like (person). Well, if he or she was so great, then why'd they get cut loose? It is always so easy for us as outsiders to think that we have the answers, that we know better than those who are on the inside of a personnel decision. I'm sorry, folks, but as harsh as the business side of radio can be sometimes, it's just that — a business, like any other. The ownership of a radio station, whether it be mom and pop down the street, or a multi-station behemoth, is working with the goal of making money for its ownership and/or stockholders. We criticize companies when they cut loose someone who's worked there 30 years and was a revered talent, as if it's going to mean real hardship on the person. Folks, that's why even the most uneducated of financial experts tell us to save, save, save our money. That 30-year vet is going to be fine, if he or she was smart with money. As for everybody else, don't look at the corporations as "bad guys". Look at the rest of the employment world. Our country is suffering through a time of immense job loss, yet we always seem to want to blame greedy corporate businesspeople for our personal loss. Think about this: If an executive decided to reduce his or her salary by $100,000 a year as a way to cut back, how many jobs, on average, could that save? Maybe three? And for how long? If our country isn't spending money, cuts will continue, everywhere. It's time to get off the companies, and start looking at our own lives and how we can be all that we can personally be.
Finally, I would like to commend the powers that be at Radio-Info.com for continuing to run a well-designed, growing Web site that truly does a great service to the radio community in America and around the world. Keep up the great work.
