My Worst Day In Radio

[bturner]

I'm alone at our AM daytime station. A brokered time buyer is on the air. Tropical Depression Allison has just arrived in Houston. It is pouring outside. The EAS keeps going off with weather warnings but offering no real info.

I turn to the noted News Station in the city and it's baseball play-by-play. The National Weather Service is saying there is a Flash Flood Warning with their standard lingo that flooding is already happening. I jump on the Emergency Management website but there's really nothing there.

By the time the day is over, at least 4 hours later, all I know is there is a flash flood warning with no details other than 'travel is discouraged'. I've been listening to my fellow radio broadcasters, the NWS and checking the Emergency Management website. I don't have a clue as I head home. I know some low lying freeway service roads are under water.

I hydroplane home and get there through help of a pickup truck that made it possible to travel in his wake at one deep spot. Seeing water at your passenger window level is scary. Safe and sound at home, I flip on the TV.

All the local TV stations are running non-commercial with tons of info. They're showing footage of a freeway full of stalled out cars as uninformed drivers set off for home at 5pm, streets void of cars as everyone sought higher ground. I see one TV station building surrounded by flood water. 911 is down and scared callers are saying things likje wateer is up to my knees in my house and I can't get 911. The station I'm watching is asking for viewers who can safely help those in need to do so, giving addresses. They're saying emergency response is not possible because of the flooding.

In reality I didn't expect to learn too much from the Emergency Management website but street/freeway closures would have been nice. It would have been good if radio...at least ONE station had ANY info on the air...ball...that brings the count to 1 and 3 is what I got on our 'News Authority'. Sure the National Weather Service issued warnings and I know their job is NOT to be a news station, but if you have information that warrants a flood warning why not note the causes? Would it have been so tough to say police report I-10 impassible?

TV did an excellent job well into the next day. Radio, last on board, for the most part was happy to put the EAS on 'Automatic" for the night and let the voice tracking continue as phone and cell service dropped and some hospitals lost power when their generators flooded.

It was my worst day in radio. The medium I'm passionate about not only failed but did so in Olympic quality manner. And, might I add, I was a part of the failure for lack of info. I bought a TV for the station the next week!

 

[CaptBob92]

Had a similar experience. I had a little FM station in Ohio. Prior to EAS I had rigged a system whereby the local Fire dpt could call in and put themselves on the air in times of emergencys. they also could dial onto the audio of the local cable system which fed the same thing to several towns. The Fire dpt handled all bad weather and similar emergency announcements. I sat down with them and gave them a course in how to get on the air as they could do it faster than calling me who would then call the station and break in when no one was there.

One night the sky became dark and the weather service, which I also had set up to air emergencies directly broke into my station with tornado warnings. I was listening to my tv which was connected to the cable as well as my station.

Suddenly the fire dpt broke into the cable and announced a twister was headed toward town. I flipped on my scanner as I headed for my car to drive to the station. That's when I heard a firemen on the scanner at the fire house ask the fire chief who was in is car following the twister if he should also break into my station and make an emergency announcement. To my horror I heard the chief say and I'll never forget the quote " Naw,,we better not nobody listenes to that station anyhow".

I caught alot of hell from the listeners the next day who chose to believe that I was not on the ball and their fire dpt would never hide such things from their citizens. Bottom line is, I've found that if the Feds don't mandate local emergencies be broadcast on EAS it won't happen. The problem isn't we broadcasters it's local authorities.

Since I moved to Florida I found the same local thinking,, when I ask set up a live center to broadcast hurracane warnings I was told " don't worry about it we'll fax you with anything we want you to know"

 

[johnbasalla]

These are very disheartening stories. The news/talk AM stations that will ultimately proper are the ones that can provide quality service in times of great need. In the ultimate final analysis, there are only two things you can do on radio. You either play music or talk. If stations do both equally poorly against other informational and entertainment options, then what hope is there?

 

[TVradioguru]

There has been numerous discussions on these boards about the role broadcasters play in important news and public alerts. Many here point to the vulnerabilities of EAS, while some point the finger of responsibility to a station who may not have a 24/7 staffed news department as in the old days when stations were required to keep up a certain amount of news. But these aren't the old days.. The last thing local fire and EMS think about doing is calling radio or TV stations to alert the public. EAS has suffered in effectiveness because the municipal organizations in charge don't know how they work and are typically too busy to activate them. In an emergency, especially in smaller markets, many fire and EMS are volunteer and interested solely in responding to the situation, not calling radio or TV stations.

If radio or TV operations have the resources to have trained and staffed people sitting around listening to police and fire scanners, chances are they may already be a news station. That being said, only larger markets have at least one 24/7 news station. 99% of the small and medium market stations would go out of business if they had to staff the station with competent people disseminating and ready to go on the air with emergency information.

Most in the under 30 year old demographic rarely if ever switch their radio to AM, and the number is gettign less weekly. Relying on AM stations to get the word out in an emergency would be a big mistake and waste of resources.

 

[MattParker]

To my horror I heard the chief say and I'll never forget the quote " Naw,,we better not nobody listenes to that station anyhow".

That reflects something I've run into: All the "spokes-people" (in multiple markets) who can't be bothered with radio. The fire chief is not alone. It seems like most of the PR flacks, government bureaucrats, politicians and political operatives think the same thing. This is not a situation where they are trying to cover up something and thwart a crusading radio reporters. This is they've got something they want people to know about. They send out a release. We call to get some sound and they can't be bothered to take or return the call. TV comes along, that's different. After work, I see the guy I never heard from doing hand springs to accommodate a human mic holder. I've done this long enough to remember when these people were hot to talk to us to. But now they seem to think, why bother? Nobody listens.

 

[johnbasalla]

When it's election season, politicians still buy lots of time on all kinds of stations.

Note that in the first post, TV got the story and was on top of it. Radio didn't... hardly at all ... Not good.

Many years ago there was a tornado in the Youngstown Ohio area. I remember hearing their news/talk AM WKBN doing phenomenol work in the tornadoes aftermath. They were taking calls on-air from people, helping them connect with the proper authorities and even with other members of their family. At one point a guy called in and complained about somethings they were doing. The host told him that this was not the time to deal with the issue. After the emergency is done, there will be plenty of time to evaluate how things were handled. To my mind, this was Public Service with a CAPITOL "P".

As for people under 30 and AM radio, I take issue with the total doom-and-gloom scenario. Yes, there are many who never go there, but the idea of virtually all of them not listening, from my observation, it's not true. I know of more then one 20 year old who are regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh. I know of even more that tune into the AM Sports-Talk station on a regular basis.

 

[bturner]

That reminds me of back in the late 1970s when I was working that night at a Top 40, the only English language station in town. Back then the National Weather Service technology must have relied more on weather spotters because their policy was not to talk about severe weather that was coming across from Mexico until it hit the USA. I was under a mile from the Rio Grande and the weather was really bad, so I called the National Weather Service about 60 miles away for an updated radar report instead of waiting for the teletype to print it out. After getting jumped on about phoning their direct number, I asked for a report and was told they were too busy. As a young buck in radio I responded by saying I was putting him on the air and he could tell the scared callers that had been phoning the station that he was too busy or give my listeners a radar update. Got the update and a couple of minutes later a Tornado Warning. That was back in the day of carts, turntables, program and operation logs and when your license was proudly displayed, looking more like a college degree. I really don't fault the NWS guy; he was likely going nuts. Then again we both were and stress levels were high. Back then you felt a responsibility to have the information your listener needed and the attitude was failing is not acceptable.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The problem isn't really market size. The problem is really corporate attitude. The attitude of most corporations is that news is expensive, which VT & syndication are cheap. What's odd, is that corporate payed a premium for many stations during consolidation based on income derived from super-serving local audiences. What was the first thing cut? The Newsman-and-a-half that provided the programming that differentiated local stations from distant "big-city" signals.

Simply put, corporate "downsized" everything. Local programming was cut, local news was cut, and syndicated programming was plugged in. The attitude that "big city programming is better, so the locals will LOVE it" is pervasive. The reality is that most people live in small towns because the LIKE it, and like LOCAL media. They want programming that relates to THEM, not "big city" progamming that doesn't keep them up to date with what directly affects THEIR loves.

There are plenty of small groups doing local radio that works. Local news, local sports, local weather, "hokey" Swap Shop/Tradio show, dollar-a-holler promotions - all the things cost a bit more to create, but bring in far more than they cost in revenue. No, that kind of programming doesn't help you spread the millions you're paying to Rush over more markets, but it does serve the LOCAL audience - where most of the ad dollars come from.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem isn't really market size. The problem is really corporate attitude. The attitude of most corporations is that news is expensive, which VT & syndication are cheap.

I love sweeping generalizations and radio myths. This post was filled with them.

Amazingly, the only stations that offer 24/7 local news to their audiences happen to be owned by big corporations like CBS, Bonneville, Cox, and even Clear Channel. You won't find small local broadcasters attempting this format, even in big cities, because it's they can't afford it and lack the resources to carry it out. They're mainly the ones carrying the satellite syndication.

My sweeping generalization is this: It takes money to do quality local programming. Since the advertising crash of 2006, most stations have seen ad revenues drop. Those revenues didn't drop because of programming or downsizing, but because of an economy that is now threatening the jobs of police, school teachers, and health care staff. Not to mention all of their pension plans. Something seems wrong when people think local DJs are more important than police. To blame "corporate" for the world economy is misplaced to say the least. Most of these companies are working hard to retain as much local flavor as they can. But the fact is that the audience isn't clammoring for it the way they once did, and we live in a world where the agenda is set by national cable channels and the internet. Not where the local DJ spent his holiday break. And by the way, that was the topic this week on many of the stations in my area where live & local DJs still exist.

 

[bturner]

The world has changed greatly for radio in the past 30 years. When I got into radio in 1978, cable TV was the local metro TV channels. Satellite delivered radio was a couple of years away. Every station had a real human around. You also couldn't own more than 7 AMs and 7 FMs and not more than one of each in a market and there was a minimum separation between markets that applied.

By about 1985 cable TV was big and selling advertising was a big deal for them, pulling ad dollars from elsewhere. More radio stations were now on the air, carving another slice out of the advertising pie. Lots of the small town stations figured they could eliminate the headaches and most costs by going satellite. This was the Mom and Pop station became Pop on the air in the morning, then selling all day while Mom tended the office, handled the program logs and helped write and produce the commercials. Revenue usually took a tumble at these stations but in reality the owners could now make more money than their next door neighbor's kid who works flipping burgers at McDonalds and the freeway exit outside of town.

This lack of radio forward motion continued as everyone looked for ways to cut expenses as the pressure of competition from more stations and cable TV, and other advertising mediums became more and more effective in obtaining advertising dollars.

We know the situation today. It is true, it is exclusively the big corporate stations that offer the most live and local radio in most places. They are the only ones who can afford to. It's how they save money. Put all your stations under one roof, man your news/talk 24/7 and have them watch your other 5 or 6 stations in the cluster and make them provide the newscasts on all the other stations in the cluster. On your other 5 or 6 stations, you have your morning show (or syndicated version from another station you own) then voice track all the other dayparts. So now you have a news/talk that's manned 24/7 pulling babysitting duty over the 5 or 6 other stations.

I was told years ago the DJ would be gone in several years. For the most part, that has happened. How many former jocks cannot find a place in radio today? I think that figure would be staggering. Entry level radio (the small markets) no longer offer this option to learn the business. The next generation of radio people never developed.

I realize radio must always evolve, so it will be interesting to see where the industry going in coming years. It might be as radical as the move from Radio Dramas to Top 40 Hits, Boss Jocks and 20/20 News.

 

[johnbasalla]

I asked this question a couple of years ago. Let's see what kind of answers we get in early 2011...

Less stations, better business?

 

[TheBigA]

What happened to Starbucks when they over-expanded?

Many of the heritage radio owners realized that the over-licensing of the spectrum was going to hurt radio's profitability. That's part of why companies like NBC sold all their radio stations in 1988.

 

[MattParker]

What happened to Starbucks when they over-expanded?

Many of the heritage radio owners realized that the over-licensing of the spectrum was going to hurt radio's profitability. That's part of why companies like NBC sold all their radio stations in 1988.

No, GE Chairman Neutron Jack Welch sold NBC radio after acquiring RCA. He sold off almost all of RCA except NBC television because of NBC radio's weak position in the market. And that was the fault of bad management, not over licensing. Over-licensing caused interference and a bunch of new stations that never had a chance to be profitable.

 

[TheBigA]

No, GE Chairman Neutron Jack Welch sold NBC radio after acquiring RCA. He sold off almost all of RCA except NBC television because of NBC radio's weak position in the market. And that was the fault of bad management, not over licensing. Over-licensing caused interference and a bunch of new stations that never had a chance to be profitable.

I should have added that lots of other similar companies began to sell their stations around the same time.

 

[SirRoxalot]

In that case, then the companies that pursued consolidation by paying premium prices for hundreds and hundreds of stations must have been misguided, huh?

 

[TheBigA]

No...they paid market prices at the time. But the companies that were selling were getting out at what they perceived to be the top of the market. And there was active competition for prime radio properties at the time, which drove up the prices.

For comparison, lots of people are still buying shares of Apple computer, even though it seems pretty expensive at over $330 a share. Those people are driving the price even higher. Are those people misguided?

 

[bturner]

Yes, they paid 'market price at the time' but that market price went from 6-8x cash flow to 12 to maybe 20x cash flow almost overnight in 1996. The rapid increase makes me think the market price was way out of line. We quickly saw stop sets rise from 4 or 5 units two or three times an hour to up to 28 minutes an hour of commercial time in an effort to make this work. I know one station dropped to one stop set an hour with 15 minutes of wall to wall commercials with a ticking clock every couple of commercials saying another 45 minutes of continuous hits begins in X minutes on..." Then again this station sold for 124 million after selling 2 years prior for about 60 million. Before the big sale, they ran 2 four unit breaks at :20 and :50.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, they paid 'market price at the time' but that market price went from 6-8x cash flow to 12 to maybe 20x cash flow almost overnight in 1996. The rapid increase makes me think the market price was way out of line. We quickly saw stop sets rise from 4 or 5 units two or three times an hour to up to 28 minutes an hour of commercial time in an effort to make this work.

That's an exaggeration, no? I don't know anyone who had 28 minutes of commercials. The highest I saw was 20. That was not in music either.

Sure, 12 times cash flow seems high. But have you ever priced the franchise fees for fast food restaurants? The phrase I remember at the time was "They're not adding any more spectrum. You're buying beachfront property." That was how radio licenses were being viewed.

I'm always entertained by people who view the 96 Act as some big corporate conspiracy. Then in the next breath they say those companies overpaid for their stations. If there had really been a conspiracy, those stations would have been a better bargain. No?

 

[bturner]

Talking commercials reminds me of a Saturday morning I was working at a small market FM in the early 1980s. They were charging about $2 a spot which was really cheap but stations over in Mexico was getting about 25 cents, so our commercial load on weekdays from 6a to 7p and most of Saturday was about 6 spots per song played with each break on average being a couple of 60s and about 4 30s. We'd squeeze in about 8 songs an hour. By about 10pm it might be 1 unit an hour, if any. There were fewer units on Mondays and Tuesdays and only a handful of Sundays.

This particular Saturday was a hotly contested mulri-candidate local city election. By the time I got out of the news blocks at 8am, to my horror, my 8am hour was on 2 legal size pages, typed single spaced. When my first song ended I was still pulling carts for the commercials for the hour and I had two stacks so tall I was scared to add another as I had also inserted a note amid the carts for those that played more than once an hour. I ran my typical 3 spots, read a PSA, do a time check or temp or a quick forecast and 3 more spots. By then I realized I had no room for music. I had 48 minutes of commercials and 5 minutes of news at :55. So, diligently, I would run 3 spots, ID with time, 3 more, read a PSA, 3 more spots, give the temperature & ID, 3 more spots and a 12 hour forecast, then repeat. At :53.5 I ran out of commercials and played a 1:34 song by Todd Rundgren to backtime into TSN News at :55 (Texas State Network). The remainder of the morning I never played more than 4 songs an hour and those I manually faded a little early. By the time the shift ended at noon I was a mental vegetable and had never been so happy to see my replacement who later told me that the American Top 40 Countdown that started at 1pm, then a 3 hour show, ran until a bit past 7pm.

The General Manager was furious when he called me. I asked what to do about it and he said he didn't know because we would need all the salespeople to call their clients to try to reschedule commercials and that would take all day. Nobody had bothered to check commercial inventory and our traffic manager never thought of asking about removing commercials or telling somebody. She just did her job.

We still ran about 48 to 50 units an hour mid-week through 1pm Saturday after that but we never reached more than that again.

I should point out stations along the border, where this station was, played an enormous amount of commercials an hour. Most stations ran 4 to as much as a dozen between every song except for one struggling FM that only had about 20 units an hour (they only charged $5 for 100 spots then...that was 100 Pesos a spot back when the dollar could fetch 2,000 Pesos.)

 

[bturner]

I guarantee 28 minutes an hour and would stake my life on it. In fact the country competitor rants on their competitor's commercal load hourly. Now it's around 12 to 14.