clouseau said:
You're 22. You were born in 1985. You're young. You're passionate. but if people have their first lasting recollections at age 6, you don't even remember the 80's. You just don't have the frame of reference.
Actually, that's not true. My first lasting memory is from when I was two, believe it or not. I don't put that out there to say that I'm above average, I'm just pointing it out so that you'll know I
do recall at least mid 1988 onward. In addition, even if I didn't recall that time, there are plenty of airchecks floating around out there that I could get a good grasp of that time period from. A frame of reference wouldn't be that hard to build if I didn't have one.
clouseau said:
To say analog AM fidelity doesn't matter is truly a 90's phenomonon. THINK. Why isn't there music on WABC? WLS? CKLW or Keener 13? Surely you don't think PD's (Who actually had a say in programming at the time) changed from Top 40 to talk because they were looking to skew older. It's because people would rather listen to music with FM quality. In virtually every city FM kicked the heritage AM Top 40 off the dial doing the same thing. Most times with less talented people on the air. Pick your city. Philly had WIFI. NY had 99X? Cleveland got G-98. I don't know WHAT killed Detroit. Tower 92? WNIC-FM? The point is, if "AM fidelity" music worked, we'd have it. Heck we DID have it. Not when you remember, but trust me and others. There was some darned decent radio on AM in the day.
I know this, but I'm not talking about fidelity
then, I'm talking about fidelity
now. Talk programming is dominant on the AM band. Music is dominant on FM. No one is clamoring for better sound quality on either band because it's not an issue. Again, no one cares that they can't hear upwards of 15kHz on the FM dial.
Additionally, if you want to stay in the past for comparison, you're forgetting something: the AM rolloff frequencies have changed over the years. For a long time, the standard was 12kHz. Then it was lowered to 10. Then it slowly decreased to 5kHz. Now, with IB(A)C, it's 3. Music was actually quite listenable on the AM band when the rolloff was higher. Take a listen to Canadian AM's, where the CRTC has allowed the rolloff frequencies to remain at 10kHz. Music sounds MUCH better on those stations than it does on our own AM's. Sadly, that's how our AM's USED to sound. Yes, FM provided a leap in sound quality, but to equate the sound of AM radio today with the sound of AM radio when FM came on the scene is either A) ignorant, or B) unfair. You know better than that.
clouseau said:
Actually, I think you'll find that radio is listened to a lot differently when those numbers were so huge. I grew up in Philly. There were 6 or 7 stations that had a respectable audience. 3 or four others that didn't really matter. And that thing called FM that didn't matter. There were 6 channels of TV and one PBS. The UHF's were a dicey proposition if you didn't live in the west part of the metro. There was no cable. There was no internet. There were no video games. Actually from the time I'm describing, there was PONG. When you wanted to do something, you had to go do it. Like go Bowling. Roller Skating. To the movies. To get there you had to go in the car. With a radio. You didn't listen to your IPod. Or yak on the cell phone. THAT'S a lot of how radio's ratings were so big. FAR fewer choices and far fewer distractions.
Yes, but that's exactly where the programming argument comes in. If stations were actually paying attention to their programming, they'd be competing MUCH better with new technologies that have proven themselves to be consumer draws, and even embracing them, not inventing phony problems with their own product and trying to push a new technology that no one wants or cares about onto the public. Radio, for a long time, could have kept a very healthy portion of those lost listeners from slipping away, but they chose to pay more attention to the pennies saved by downsizing than the programming that could have saved them. Meanwhile, those listeners realized radio forgot about them, and they moved on. It's all about the programming. Always has been, always will be.
clouseau said:
IMHO there are vastly different reasons for HD on AM vs HD on FM. If you think AM works for music you're ignoring history. If you think FM is for higher quality, I suspect you're also off the mark. Think Multi-cast.
I never said AM would work for music with IB(A)C. Actually, iBiquity said that. They're completely wrong, but they were the ones who made that claim, not I. And I agree with you that FM HD's only major selling point is the additional sub-channels. But again, this is still a case of the wrong solution to a simple problem. Niche programming can be a wonderful thing, but when potential listeners don't think your primary signal is worth their time, why would they bother giving your sub-channels a chance? This, again, brings it all back to programming. People want well-programmed stations, not the drivel that mostly fills the airwaves now. Yet traditional radio CONTINUES to focus on something that nobody wants: additional poorly-programmed channels that, just like their primary carrier, don't provide them with the programming they want beyond some songs that they wouldn't hear on analog stations. It's not worth the trouble to them. Maybe it would have been if, for all these years, the primary stations had actually put some
effort into their programming, but for reasons that make no sense at all, they refused to do so, and continue to refuse to do so to this day.
clouseau said:
clouseau said:
...What makes you, at your age and with your experience level, believe you are so uniquely qualified to know what is right.
There's a very simple answer for that: I'm a listener. Despite my fourteen years of experience in radio, despite the fact that I'm 22, and despite the fact that I work in the industry, I am a listener, and my views
do reflect those of the average listener.
No, they don't. Now, I'm going to tell you something you don't want to hear and probably won't believe TODAY. If you stay with the business, some day, I believe you will. That is... the average listener doesn't care about radio 1/100th as much as you or I do.
What do you think I've been trying to say all this time?
clouseau said:
The average listener doesn't write about radio in Blogs. Doesn't post on message boards. Doesn't remember what station they like. Doesn't know what station they are listening to right now, and probably gives their diary to their kids to fill out (Along with the $5 bill or whatever it is now). The fact is, we care about radio far more than the listener. We can TRY to listen like a listener, but by the mere act of doing that, we can not be like a typical listener. If you ever have the chance, do a physical diary review. Very Illuminating. You really get perspective on how little you matter. Thinking like a listener will help you in you job, but it's not the same. It's a radio geek thinkinglike a listener. NOT EVEN CLOSE to a typical listener, IMHO.
I already understand what you're saying. But it's not that hard to put aside your radio profession and listen like a typical listener would, and it's not the same as a radio geek thinking like a listener. I'm talking about a radio professional putting everything aside and truly thinking like a listener. All you have to do is not care. You don't care about imaging, music transitions, jocks doing something right or wrong... all you care about is whether you like or dislike a station, and you don't even think about it to make the determination, you just let it come to you subconsciously. That's how the typical listener makes their listening decisions,
if they're listening
at all, and if they are, they're listening passively and don't put any thought into it whatsoever. It's really quite easy to do. I do it all the time.
clouseau said:
So as a PD, you would allow your jocks to basically play requests? Actually, how about all request weekends. Sound like a good idea to you? Maybe just all request all the time? (Yep it's a setup question.)
You're gonna have to try a
lot harder than that!
You're completely missing the point of listening to the listener. I'm not talking about taking requests, though stations SHOULD be taking note of every request that's made, even if it doesn't get played immediately. But that's just a part of the bigger picture. You need to be in tune with your market, and by that I mean know it better than you know your own body. Know what styles they like, what they don't like and what styles teeter in between the two sides... right down to the point where you know exactly which new songs in that teetering category are going to fly and which ones aren't before you even load them into the automation system. You need to know what type of personalities your listeners want on the air (oh yes, they DO want personalities!). You need to know where the line is in humor in your market, so you can make sure you're exactly where you need to be depending on the format. You need to know your town inside and out, upside-down and backwards, and have your finger on the pulse of all things current locally so that you can stay two steps ahead, know what's coming and be ready when it arrives. THAT'S what I mean by "listen to your listeners".
clouseau said:
No, it isn't sad. It isn't sad, because the vast majority of these folks KNOW how to generate the largest audience and get the highest TSL.
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Everyone would be listening to the radio, HD units would be flying off the shelves, and we'd all be one big, happy family of an industry.
clouseau said:
Again, I would remind you of your experience level. The things that tend to annoy us and some of the "vocalists" in the listening audience are the same things that get you better numbers. You PD isn't tightening up that playlist because he's an idiot. He's doing it because the book is here and he knows it's much easier to affect a book by NOT doing something wrong than it is to affect it by doing something right. (Gosh I feel so corporate...)
Actually, a tight playlist is something I've always pushed for. Problem is, most aren't tight enough, even when they're tightened.
clouseau said:
Well my friend, based on that, I will take my leave. If you have all of the answers to all of the questions then I can not be of any benefit to you. Frankly, I doubt I have enough life left to absorb the myriad of knowledge you claim to have amassed about radio in the 14 years since you were 8. I'm also relatively certain I will not have the answers to all of the radio questions in my time left, either.
I wish you well, though.
Clouseau
Read through my closing paragraph in the last post again. I said I
don't have all the answers to all the questions, but when it comes to this topic, I know what I'm talking about. This technology is simply unnecessary.
