My Take On What's Wrong With Radio

[davideduardo]

If you guys don't think revenue is down (I'll accept the Hispanic exception) then you must be buried so deeply in it you can't afford to believe anything else. I hope that's not the case, if it is please get your contingencies operational so you might escape bruised but not bloodied.

Revenue is not down... see this from a report issued last week..

Study: Record Growth Ahead For Hispanic Media

MONTEREY, CA -- February 6, 2008: A new study from SNL Kagan, "Economics of Hispanic TV & Radio in the U.S.," predicts that Hispanic radio's revenue growth will considerably outpace the industry in 2008, rising by 6 percent, to $1.21 billion, compared to expected growth of 2 percent-3 percent for radio overall. Over the next four years, SNL Kagan expects Hispanic radio-station revenues to grow at about 4.9 percent annually.

2% to 3% growth is what may be called slow growth, but it is not no-growth. And it is definitely not down.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

In the fastest growing sector in radio, I see lots of creativity in all dayparts.

Which isssss What??? Since we can't read your mind... Please give a few examples

Hispanic, forecast for 6% growth this year.

And what creative things is "Hispanic" radio doing that everyone else is not? (I'm not trying to be a weisenheimer here )

BTW does not that 6% growth match (at least) the growth of the "Hispanic" population in the U.S.?

 

[davideduardo]

And what creative things is "Hispanic" radio doing that everyone else is not? (I'm not trying to be a weisenheimer here )

Lots more personality in all dayparts, for one, even times like evening and overnight.

BTW does not that 6% growth match (at least) the growth of the "Hispanic" population in the U.S.?

Not really, The largest Hispanic markets are growing a couple of percent a year (it is tough to grow 6% in LA when there are already 4.4 million Hispanics.) and the 15 to 20 largest Hispanic metros are where nearly all the revenue is. LA 2006 4.40 million, 2007 4.46 million. That is just a tad over one percent.

 

[Stewy]

If you factor in a real rate of inflation, expected to be 3.1%, and have revenue growth of 2-3%....let's see 3.1% minus 3% means negative growth of .1%, in real dollar terms. Take the top twenty five markets out totally and the negative growth could be even larger.

Had to modify post because of just released figures from CC.......CC 4th qtr '08 down 3% compared to 4th qtr '07...........CC pacing for 1st qtr down 4% compared to '07 1st qtr.

You'd better spend less time in the board room and more on the streets which is where I'm going, have a good evening.

 

[davideduardo]

Had to modify post because of just released figures from CC.......CC 4th qtr '08 down 3% compared to 4th qtr '07...........CC pacing for 1st qtr down 4% compared to '07 1st qtr.

.

Yes, and that was after selling off about 400 stations. In other words, there was growth.

 

[Stewy]

Denial, denial, denial of denial. Justify, justify, justification of justification.

Goodness David, a "Wow" or "Gee", or "That caught me off guard", or something would be different from you. It's really OK to admit a mistake or miscalculation, it actually shows a good level of maturity.

I suppose that you'll show where those 400 stations were making big money, not losing money. So when I cut fall and split my head open, I"ll not worry because instead of bleeding to death I'll be making a big profit.

 

[davideduardo]

Denial, denial, denial of denial. Justify, justify, justification of justification.

Goodness David, a "Wow" or "Gee", or "That caught me off guard", or something would be different from you. It's really OK to admit a mistake or miscalculation, it actually shows a good level of maturity.

I suppose that you'll show where those 400 stations were making big money, not losing money. So when I cut fall and split my head open, I"ll not worry because instead of bleeding to death I'll be making a big profit.

Just look at the sales figures for the sold stations; most of the stations sold were profitable, but the margins obviously were not as good as is typical of smaller markets. It is pretty easy to find the approximate revenues of the disposed-of stations.

If revenue was down, don't you think that it might be because the several hundred sold stations were no longer contributing to the gross revenue figures?

Same sort of thing happened in '05 when the year began with CBS trading on its own without the Viacom divisions; revenues declined because a large part of the revenue base was gone.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Goodness David, a "Wow" or "Gee", or "That caught me off guard", or something would be different from you.

LOL those words will never leave his lips ... or keyboard

Its OK David, every message board in the World needs its resident geek (haha and I mean that in the best way!)
We all have to admit we look forward to Sr Gleason's responses because he always delivers!!

Happy Valentine's Day!! ;D

 

[calguy]

I I still think that radio is a viable, magical medium. Right now it suffers from the negative publicity that I feel was started by the satellite companies when they were starting their ventures. They wanted to make terrestrial radio sound bad to get subscribers and it seems to have worked. Not so much to get subscribers, but to make everyone think that it's a lot worse than it really is.

Brilliant observation, suitable for framing.

I'm sorry; I've been away from the boards for a day or so as my job has taken up a great amount of my energy.

To expand on this one thought, I really think that radio shot itself in the foot by helping XM & Sirius and actually running spots for Satellite radio. That's revenue that I think that radio could've done without. You would never run a spot for your competition, so why do it for XM & Sirius?
Years ago, when programmers still has “some” control, radio stations were very careful about the spots they ran. If you had a soft station you would never run spots that would scream. Agencies actually would produce country spots for country stations, rock spots for rock stations etc. Not only do I hear spots that are so contrary to a station’s format now days, but the content can be quite questionable as well. I know of one program director who tried to have commercials changed only to be told by the head of the company no less that the spots would be run and if he didn't like it, he could find another job elsewhere. This same PD was totally against running spots for satellite radio and was over ruled there as well. That's not to say that every company felt this way. I recall hearing about a few that refused to air satellite spots.

My point is that radio didn't mind sleeping with the enemy as long as they were paying. The other problem is that while XM & Sirius were companies that were unified in their assault on terrestrial radio, the terrestrial companies are so many and so fragmented that they couldn't put a stop to these campaigns.
It's like have an army where there was no central command and each commander did his own thing. Bottom line, terrestrial radio wanted the money and ran the spots that helped to erode the listenership of their own stations.

 

[CHRles]

Radio runs ads for television (including MTV when it showed videos), high speed internet, ipods, and clubs. Aren't they all competitors of radio too?

 

[Slurpee]

What's wrong with radio??

(1) Owners spend little if anything marketing their product!

(2) Consultants over research and anal-ize the 100 safest songs and tell the DJ's shut up so we can compete with I-Pods. (If people wanted to just hear music, they'd listen to their I-Pod because it's playing what THEY want to hear in the first place.)

(3) When revenue falls, the answer is get rid of people.

I've said it before and will say it again: If you want people to listen to your product, you have to a) tell them it's there, b) entertain them and that means more than the 100 safest songs c) invest in your product.

Can you imagine a car company telling people that they're only going to get 3 of the 4 doors on their car to save money? Can you imagine an airline telling half the people they'll have to stand for the fight to save money? Buying a gallon of milk that's missing 20%, but still called a gallon?

Think... When radio was great there were personalities that people actually went out of their way to listen to. Why? Because you knew you would be entertained. You knew you might hear a song from a local band or the "b" side of a hit that also sounded cool. Why do many talk stations do so well? Because they are entertaining wether you agree with the host or not.

Radio as we know it will be dead within 10 years it it doesn't pull it's head out of it's collective a$$. Listeners aren't stupid, they just want to be entertained. Entertainment is not the same ole crap day in and day out either. Everyone wants to think outside the box, the answer for radio is to get back inside the box with what has proven itself over and over and over again to work. GET BACK TO THE BASICS!!!! Or, learn a new skill.

Revenue invested in product = Listeners
Listeners = Revenue
Revenue = Happy owners and shareholders

 

[calguy]

Radio runs ads for television (including MTV when it showed videos), high speed internet, ipods, and clubs. Aren't they all competitors of radio too?

Yes, but I don't recall those adds painting local radio negatively and that the only answer was to tune out of your local stations for satellite radio. High speed internet spots bashed dial-up.
Cable TV and over the air TV are competitors of radio, but cable TV spots generally put down free TV. I don't recall Ipod spots putting radio down either.

 

[RicoGregg]

Some interesting comments about Clear Channel from the Daily News' Richard Waggoner. Jump down to the headline "More is Less."

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_8261489?IADID=search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com

 

[davideduardo]

I've said it before and will say it again: If you want people to listen to your product, you have to a) tell them it's there, b) entertain them and that means more than the 100 safest songs c) invest in your product.

The most successful radio music format ever was Top 40. It was, surprisingly, based on 40 songs played over and over.

 

[Beachdog]

I've said it before and will say it again: If you want people to listen to your product, you have to a) tell them it's there, b) entertain them and that means more than the 100 safest songs c) invest in your product.

The most successful radio music format ever was Top 40. It was, surprisingly, based on 40 songs played over and over.

Think of it... and those 40 songs were all new songs. It would never work today. :-\

 

[davideduardo]

[Think of it... and those 40 songs were all new songs. It would never work today. :-\

No, they were the equivalent of a CHR of today's currents, recurrents and new song categoires. The only difference is that CHR today tends to add a few old school songs, so the list tends to be around 100 to 120 songs and not 40.

 

[briancraig]

Back in the 60s and early 70s, KHJ played 30 currents and about 3 to 6 Boss Hitbounds plus a huge variety of oldies.

But to me the big difference that made radio so much better back then is that KHJ's currents were the best from all genres. You could hear it all from hard rock (Cream, Doors) to soul (Otis Redding, Temptations) to country (Johnny Cash, Glen Campbell) to MOR (Frank Sinatra, Andy Williams to even easy listening instrumentals (Francis Lai, Paul Mauriat).

Today's CHR is strictly geared to females of a certain age and is not the same format is top 40 from 30 and 40 years ago.

 

[LKellerIII]

"The most successful radio music format ever was Top 40. It was, surprisingly, based on 40 songs played over and over."

As briancraig pointed out, it was not just 30 or 40 songs over-and-over. In the late 60s, early 70s, during drive times (peak listening), there would be 3 current hits or recurrents, followed by a "Golden" (Oldie), and there was a large list of hits from the previous decade (or so) for the jocks to choose from. That meant that 25 percent of what you would hear in any hour was outside the short playlist.

Outside of drive times (mid days and late nights), KHJ and KRLA would alternate 1 hit from the current playlist with 1 golden, so really - there was a lot of variety throughout the day. But of course, with a top current hit format, there was a lot of repetition. It was the nature of the format. Many of us had a favorite station, but the fact is - hearing those hits you DIDN'T like over and over did get very tedious. Fortunately, LA usually had 3 or 4 Top 40 stations at any one time to choose from - at various times in the 60s, there was KHJ, KRLA, KFWB, KBLA, KDAY, KROQ, KEZY...not to mention KGFJ and XERB if you liked soul music. Most of us hit those pre-set buttons constantly and changed stations every few minutes. Once the FM rock stations appeared, there were even more stations to choose from.

 

[calguy]

I think that the closest thing to Top 40 that we have today is Mainstream AC. It plays currents, re-currents and oldies just like the Top 40 stations of yesteryear.

 

[Slurpee]

I realize that "back in the day" stations played 30 or 40 songs, but they also had PERSONALITIES in between those songs and you never knew what surprise may happen next. As I said, today we have the same stale 200 consultant approved songs, with the consultant approved liners and ZERO personality.