"Naysayers" Propose Workable Solution to AM IBOC Debacle

[TheBigA]

As I think Dave sees it, it's up to broadcasters to create that demand by firing up the public's passion for radio while embracing any future innovations so that the industry itself will have a future.

I think that's as big a cop out as me saying it's up to the electronics industry to create products I will want to buy, regardless of the content. I bought a Sony Walkman not because of the content, but because of the product. I haven't been equally inspired by products in a very long time. Then again, I have 20 radios already in my house. It would take something really special to get me to buy one.

For the most part, the public's passion is gimmick and gadget driven. Most of the best gadgets being built don't have radios in them. That's not the radio industry's fault. Quite often, the decision is made by an agenda of the manufacturer, as is the case with Apple.

 

[TheBigA]

Following your logic why doesn't the CEA promote the inclusion of radio into TV's and CD players?

Sure, great idea. I own a Sony CD/FM combo. Don't know if they're still made. Radio/TV combos were big in the 60s, when Magnavox made consoles. Today, you get cable radio on TV or DirecTV, so that bypasses broadcast radio.

Anything the industry can do to make a cool looking radio would be appreciated.

the only common denominator between an iPod and a radio is that they both play music,

Not exactly. My radio talks and gives information. My iPod doesn't. The thing they have in common is they're portable devices that people listen to. It's not the content, it's the function that makes them similar.

Consolidation was almost the ruination of radio and is falling apart right now, that was and is still the main problem with radio. The letters about homogenized content were right on which also was caused by consolidation.

There was homogenized content back when companies could only own 5-5-5. This view that consolidation ruined radio is a myth. Consultants had begun creating formats and taking creativity out of protgramming in the 80s. The first to get the homogenized treatment was Top 40 radio. Then rock. Then AC. It all happened 15 years before consolidation.

If you want further proof, take a look at the non-consolidated stations (there are 8000 of them) that also do homogenized programming, often using safe lists provided by a handful of outside consultants.

 

[Carmine5]

As I think Dave sees it, it's up to broadcasters to create that demand by firing up the public's passion for radio while embracing any future innovations so that the industry itself will have a future.

I think that's as big a cop out as me saying it's up to the electronics industry to create products I will want to buy, regardless of the content. I bought a Sony Walkman not because of the content, but because of the product.

And, of course, you took your shiny new Walkman home, put it on the shelf and just stared at it. Or did you use it to play "content"--cassette tapes and your favorite radio stations?

You may be different, but most people know that an audio device, no matter how ingenious it might be, is virtually useless without content--something to hear.

And if that content becomes less compelling, less interesting than it once was, a much written about complaint of corporate radio, then people will become less interested in purchasing a new device, like a radio, to hear it on--a fact the CEA discovered.

"There it is in a nutshell. A simple story for simple people." --Peter Warne, "It Happened One Night."

C5

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Yes... The public is rejecting the crappy content not the devices themselves. HD doesn't correct the crappy content, it just increases the number of crappy channels. The bean counters still don't get that talent and talented programmers are what makes ratings and money. Unfortunatly it will take the industry loosing it's shirt and being sold off to local and regional intrests before anything will improve.

 

[TheBigA]

And if that content becomes less compelling, less interesting than it once was, a much written about complaint of corporate radio, then people will become less interested in purchasing a new device, like a radio, to hear it on--a fact the CEA discovered.

Even today, 12 years after consolidation, only about one fifth of all radio stations are owned by one of the Top 10 radio groups. That means about 2500 stations. You are basing your opinions on the minority of options, not the full spectrum of choices.

Compelling and interesting content is very subjective, and far more subjective in the current marketplace. There are a lot of people who find the stupidest thing compelling. I would never visit a karaoke bar. Some people are very entertained by that. My point is that radio has to exist in a world where people have bad taste, little education, and lots of opinions. That's just the world we live in. Satellite radio has spent billions trying to create the most compelling product they could imagine, and it only got 16 million, a virtual drop in the bucket. Internet radio is basically a programmable jukebox, and it's got three times as many listeners as satellite. So much for compelling content driving device sales.

 

[Chuck]

Compelling and interesting content is very subjective, and far more subjective in the current marketplace. There are a lot of people who find the stupidest thing compelling. I would never visit a karaoke bar. Some people are very entertained by that. My point is that radio has to exist in a world where people have bad taste, little education, and lots of opinions. That's just the world we live in.

Unfortunately programming tends to sink to the lowest level it can get by with and still make a profit. Call it "dumbing down" if you like. If the standard is low for the biggest 2500 stations, there is very little incentive for remaining smaller stations to raise the bar. Why should they?

Perhaps the banality of most radio programming stems from a far bigger problem of poor educational standards. People with low expectations are seldom disappointed by mediocrity. No technical innovation is going to fix that.

 

[Carmine5]

And if that content becomes less compelling, less interesting than it once was, a much written about complaint of corporate radio, then people will become less interested in purchasing a new device, like a radio, to hear it on--a fact the CEA discovered.

Even today, 12 years after consolidation, only about one fifth of all radio stations are owned by one of the Top 10 radio groups. That means about 2500 stations. You are basing your opinions on the minority of options, not the full spectrum of choices.

Compelling and interesting content is very subjective, and far more subjective in the current marketplace. There are a lot of people who find the stupidest thing compelling. I would never visit a karaoke bar. Some people are very entertained by that. My point is that radio has to exist in a world where people have bad taste, little education, and lots of opinions. That's just the world we live in. Satellite radio has spent billions trying to create the most compelling product they could imagine, and it only got 16 million, a virtual drop in the bucket. Internet radio is basically a programmable jukebox, and it's got three times as many listeners as satellite. So much for compelling content driving device sales.

Corporate radio owns the most stations in the largest markets. For example, in market #1, New York City, over 75% of radio stations are owned by the biggest radio companies. Same holds true for market #2, Los Angeles. Corporate radio's influence is far more pervasive than you dishonestly state.

What makes internet radio compelling is: 1) showcasing new or little heard artists 2) eclectic formats and genres 3) easy and free accessibility 4) personalization. The first two features are things corporate radio is deathly afraid of and why they program safe formats with safe playlists. But more and more listeners are getting tired of what's "safe" and are turning terrestrial radio off and tuning into other forms of radio.

If internet radio's only advantage is that it's just a "jukebox" than people might actually be interested in HD Radio's side channels, which are also just jukeboxes.

"My point is that radio has to exist in a world where people have bad taste, little education, and lots of opinions. "

Your scorn of humanity is very telling. I suggest you get help.

C5

 

[Savage]

Yes, "bad taste, little education, and lots of opinions." Not to mention being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, showing a lamentable lack of class, not being candid and being highly dismissive of those with whom you disagree.

Kind of like some posters on certain message boards.

 

[pocket-radio]

I bought a Sony Walkman not because of the content, but because of the product. I haven't been equally inspired by products in a very long time.

A Walkman was the coolest gadget for it’s time. A portable Am Fm stereo radio
with cassette player. Are you kidding me? And you can walk with your entertainment center right in the palm of your hands. Cassettes were great too because you could choose to play your own content in "stereo" when you wanted too. Sound familiar?

 

[pocket-radio]

[/quote]
My radio talks and gives information. My iPod doesn't. The thing they have in common is they're portable devices that people listen to. It's not the content, it's the function that makes them similar.
[quote

Fm radio has become a wireless jukebox. It makes a living playing music. Yes you’ll find weather and a morning zoo, but it’s real claim to fame is music..

Your walkman was cool. But Internet and the MP3 has really changed how people listen to music and receive their content. For the first time ever in history, people have total control over when they listen to music or a podcast and what they listen too. 5,000 mp3’s in the palm of your hands sure gives you the ability to choose content all day long. Didn’t have that not even close when you bought your walkman radio.

[/quote]

There was homogenized content back when companies could only own 5-5-5. This view that consolidation ruined radio is a myth. Consultants had begun creating formats and taking creativity out of protgramming in the 80s. The first to get the homogenized treatment was Top 40 radio. Then rock. Then AC. It all happened 15 years before consolidation.
[/quote]

Radio has never been this bad. Today every station has the same sound. It all sounds the same. Homogenized formats might have started 15 years ago because of consultants.
And it’s true they took the same formula from market to market. but consolidation ruined radio and made it 100,000,000 times worse.

 

[pocket-radio]

To date radio revenues have declined for 15 straight months in a row. Experts are predicting this downward trend won’t turn around until 2009 or 2010. With broadcasters struggling to stay afloat, don’t expect an increase of HD startups.

Listeners who are expecting to hear hundreds of new HD radio stations will be disappointed. And again the user experience for HD radio/content thus far is a crapshoot and a crappy experience.

 

[TheBigA]

Today every station has the same sound. It all sounds the same.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

 

[pocket-radio]

It’s painfully obvious candor is not one of your strengths. And you argue for the sake of arguing. I feel pity for anyone who has to associate with you.
Being a --- BigA--- is no way to go through life.

That or you really believe you own hype and lies.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

I agree the industry was going downhill long before consolidation. In fact it was going down hill before even the 80s. The reason why FM took off is because of the ultra-controlled researched playlists and attitudes of programmers on the AM side of the industry. FM gave some light of hope for something worthwile and different. Even that light of hope, through it's successes became such a huge profit center that it became it's own worst enemy by being sold at obsurd prices over and over again. Each time the properties were sold the price went up and the employee count went down down down. Now we're here in 2008 with corporate run radio that has cut itself so far down to the bone there is no muscle left. There's no blood left in the turnip. Someone is going have to pay for the sins of the previous sales of the properties. Now that the stock market realizes what a joke the prices of stations are the "correction" is on. Instead of just accepting that making less for a while is necessary the big guys keep cutting. They never seem to cut their own take though. All they are doing by cutting more is excelerating the drop in worth and profits in reality.

 

[KB1OKL]

To date radio revenues have declined for 15 straight months in a row. Experts are predicting this downward trend won’t turn around until 2009 or 2010. With broadcasters struggling to stay afloat, don’t expect an increase of HD startups.

Listeners who are expecting to hear hundreds of new HD radio stations will be disappointed. And again the user experience for HD radio/content thus far is a crapshoot and a crappy experience.

I don't think the word crap can be used too many times in association with HD.

 

[TheBigA]

It’s painfully obvious candor is not one of your strengths. And you argue for the sake of arguing.

I'm not arguing. I'm making a statement. When you say "Every station has the same sound. It all sounds the same," you're just plain wrong.

If you wish to argue with that, be my guest. But then you'd be arguing for the sake of arguing, and we can't have that, can we?

 

[TheBigA]

I agree the industry was going downhill long before consolidation.

You're right. The point though is that consolidated radio only accounts for 25% of all radio stations. That means the majority of radio is NOT consolidated, and is not owned by the major radio corporations. And when you study their programming practices, they're not much different from what the majors are doing. When the industry puts out numbers about drops in revenues, they're not talking about just the consolidated companies. They're talking about the industry as as whole, which includes the 75% of non-corporate stations.

You also have to put declining revenues and stock price into the overall media picture, and recognize that ALL ad-based or subscription-based media is suffering from the same problem. That includes satellite radio, cable TV, internet radio, public radio, and newspapers. If you're in the content business, you're probably in trouble. For a variety of reasons. So to simply focus on one area, like AM/FM, or HD, ignores that there is no content-based business that is doing well right now.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Let's put it this way though. Radio is really doing nothing to improve the worth of it's content over other entertainment industries. Basically radio has become less of a value to advertisers so it's going to get less of the money available. No results for advertisers means when times get tough the ads are pulled and the money is saved. I really disagree that most radio is not corporate. Most of it is. Until you get off into the small market radio (which by the way IS doing just fine for the most part) it's all corporate of some sort. Chain radio ran by remote by clueless people... Now that's the real problem.

 

[TheBigA]

Let's put it this way though. Radio is really doing nothing to improve the worth of it's content over other entertainment industries.

It depends what kind of radio you're talking about. If you're talking about music radio, you're right. There is no way radio can ever replace personal music services. Radio will never be able to offer the choices satellite, the internet, or an iPod can supply. So why bother? They simply take a few services that reach the broadest number of people, and that's it.

When it comes to talk, there is a lot of variety and differentiation. Some local, some national. During the Olympics, a lot of radio stations have provided coverage of the major events, which has been great.

In a world where content is omnipresent and cheap, there really is very little value in content. If you can hear any song you want for free at any time, or see any video you want for free, or see any TV show, what's the value in original content on the radio?

I believe we're in the final days of music on the radio. Ratings for music stations have been dropping in most formats. Radio companies are repositioning themselves for the next phase of operation, which will be very different from what we've had for the past 50-60 years.

I really disagree that most radio is not corporate. Most of it is. Until you get off into the small market radio (which by the way IS doing just fine for the most part) it's all corporate of some sort.

Then you haven't really investigated radio ownership in major markets. In every city, you'll find independent stations. Your screen-name says you're from OK City, and KKNG is owned by a small company. Lots of cities have stations like that. Dallas, Washington DC, Chicago, etc.

Beyond that, you have non-commercial public radio. It's not owned by large companies. It's supposed to be local. But those stations are less local than the commercial stations. As many as 20% of the radio stations in a market are local public stations. Thousands of options, mostly in big cities. Just look beyond the tip of the iceberg.

Chain radio ran by remote by clueless people... Now that's the real problem.

One thing I've learned is the world is filled with clueless people. There's nothing you can do about that. The boss is always an idiot. It's been that way since the start of time.

 

[pocket-radio]

Corporate radio owns the - largest shares of ears- and controls much of the market. The independents are out there for sure -but on a much smaller scale.