New Audacy CHR lineups

[wastedtalent23]

The New Audacy CHR Lineups - RadioInsight

WKSE Buffalo Mornings: Janet & Nick Afternoons: Greg Cypin WKXJ Chattanooga Mornings: Bert Show Middays: Devon Afternoons: Sean Stewart B96 Chicago 6-10: Gabe & Nina 10-3: Kenzie K 3-8: Julia B93.7 Greenville 6-10: Hawk & Tom 10-3: Supa Dave 3-7: Shorty 7-12: Miranda 98.5 KLUC Las Vegas 5-10...

radioinsight.com

This is really sad to see. Why not just have Julia on middays and Bru on afternoons on all 16 stations nationwide? And while you're at it, just fire all of the local PDs and just have one corporate PD/dictator. Then eliminate promotions completely, since there's nobody to do remotes or run a local contest. In fact, why even have Julia and Bru? Just make all of the CHRs jukeboxes like all of the other formats?

If you can't afford to put any money or effort into what is coming out of the speakers, then sell some or all of the stations to somebody who can do radio the way it was intended.

If the other companies follow this by doing something similar we may be getting very close to all syndication, satellite and voicetracking. Say it ain't so. (please...)

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

And while you're at it, just fire all of the local PDs and just have one corporate PD/dictator. Then eliminate promotions completely, since there's nobody to do remotes or run a local contest. In fact, why even have Julia and Bru? Just make all of the CHRs jukeboxes like all of the other formats?

Patience, Grasshopper. It will come in time.

If they're anything like iHeart was (and David Field has expressed admiration for how that company operates), there will be annual layoffs or "reduction in force" that will be spun as something along the lines of "we're reorganizing our operations in order to offer our listeners a higher level of quality content, while exploring new synergies and maximizing the strength of our great brands!"

No doubt, some people still on the inside will insist that they're just doing what's right for the company, that "radio is changing," and the people who lost their gigs should have seen it coming and/or it's their fault for not wearing enough hats.

As the industry shrinks towards obsolescence, the next generation of potential listeners moves to streaming services (hint: they already have), and the revenues keep shrinking, the "reductions in force" will begin to accelerate like a satellite in a decaying orbit, and all the while they won't even realize that they're not saving radio. They're killing it.

 

[TheBigA]

As the industry shrinks towards obsolescence, the next generation of potential listeners moves to streaming services (hint: they already have), and the revenues keep shrinking, the "reductions in force" will begin to accelerate like a satellite in a decaying orbit, and all the while they won't even realize that they're not saving radio. They're killing it.

The audience starting using streaming when radio stations had full local staffs. So full local staffs were not the attraction they once were. Just as there was once great programming on AM until the audience shifted to FM. Now all that's left is talk radio.

What's your solution? Sell to someone else? Like who? Amazon? Apple? Google? They own the streaming companies that are drawing people away from radio. ABC, CBS, and NBC sold their radio stations long ago. A lot of people still listen, but they don't care about local DJs. So this makes sense. If hiring more staff would cause people to stop streaming, they would hire more staff. But it's not gonna happen.

Who is killing radio? Look around. The people who say "I don't listen." Who is saving radio? The religious broadcasters whose supporters spend millions of their own money to keep those stations on the air. If fans of rock music did the same thing, you'd have lots of rock radio stations with local talent. But that's not going to happen. Fans of rock music or any other music expect someone else to pay. That's the wrong approach. People pay for streaming, but they won't pay for FM. That tells you who is killing radio.

 

[TheBigA]

If you can't afford to put any money or effort into what is coming out of the speakers, then sell some or all of the stations to somebody who can do radio the way it was intended.

Funny you should say that. A few years ago, people said the same thing to Cumulus. When they emerged from bankruptcy two years ago, they sold off a bunch of their biggest stations in places like NYC, DC, Atlanta, and LA. Who bought them? EMF and they turned the stations into contemporary Christian stations, paid for by listeners. So there you go. Christians are willing to pay their own personal money to get what they want on FM. Would you be willing to do the same?

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

The audience starting using streaming when radio stations had full local staffs.

When was that? The company formerly known as Clear Channel began consolidating decades ago, laying off local staff in favor of voice tracking and centralized programming decisions. Streaming services (like Pandora) came along later. The cart was not always in front of the horse.

If hiring more staff would cause people to stop streaming, they would hire more staff. But it's not gonna happen.

It's not about hiring greater numbers of people. It's about hiring people who can create better content. Or it would have been, if radio's response to streaming would have been something other than "consolidate even more."

Who is killing radio? Look around. The people who say "I don't listen."

Why don't they listen? Why would they rather pay a monthly fee to Spotify rather than tune into a service that's free? You're blaming the consumer for the failure of a product, rather than accepting that the companies who made the product dropped the ball. There was something in the Audacy press release about serving "the next generation of listeners." For radio, there isn't one. The next generation doesn't see the appeal of radio at all. It offers them nothing that they need...even for free.

What's your solution?

For me personally, it was to get out of radio and into an industry that's looking towards the future rather than trying to cling to the past. For the radio business? The barn door is already closed, man. They had a business that offered free music and free content, but failed because they couldn't figure out a way to compete with businesses that asked consumers to pay for music and content. That's not the consumers' fault.

 

[TheBigA]

When was that?

Radio listenership has been going down since the late 80s. That's why some of the heritage companies like NBC and GE got out of the radio business. But you mention Clear Channel, and they only owned 8% of the radio stations in the US, so the rest of them were fully staffed. Streaming started 20 years ago. No DJs. Streaming killed the record retail business. No buys music any more. You don't think that had an effect on radio?

All of the Entercom stations were fully staffed until the pandemic. Maybe you heard about how the pandemic hurt advertising? That's where we are now.

It's about hiring people who can create better content. Or it would have been, if radio's response to streaming would have been something other than "consolidate even more."

Every day I see people retiring from radio who are in their 60s. They were the same people who were creating the content 40 years ago when radio was all there was. Those are the people who the streamers wanted to avoid. How do you fix that? The people are streaming because they want what THEY want, not what someone else "creates." They want to make their own playlists. That's what radio is competing with.

Why would they rather pay a monthly fee to Spotify rather than tune into a service that's free? You're blaming the consumer for the failure of a product, rather than accepting that the companies who made the product dropped the ball.

No, the consumer has changed. Thirty years ago, the consumer had no choice. Now they have a choice and they don't care about local DJs. It doesn't matter that the local talent has been there for 40 years or hired last week. The consumer doesn't want to have their music interrupted.

For me personally, it was to get out of radio and into an industry that's looking towards the future

The radio industry is doing the same thing you are, and you're blaming them for doing what you did. Nice.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

The radio industry is doing the same thing you are, and you're blaming them for doing what you did. Nice.

The radio industry is getting out of the radio business entirely and doing something not at all related to playing music and creating content? That's news to me!

The consumer doesn't want to have their music interrupted.

Correction: The consumer doesn't want to have their music interrupted by something that doesn't interest them. And I disagree with your assertion that 30 years ago the consumer had no choice. They absolutely did have a choice. It was a choice between 2 or 3 stations that played the type of music they liked, and what would sway them one way or another is whether or not they liked the content that "interrupted" the music. Sometimes people would listen to a station that maybe didn't even play the type of music they liked, but had compelling content. They'd listen to the "Beaver and Popcorn Show" in the morning on the rock station, and go back to the AC station when they got to work.

The people are streaming because they want what THEY want, not what someone else "creates." They want to make their own playlists. That's what radio is competing with.

And what is radio doing to compete with that? A voice tracked jock doing a "tease-payoff" saying "in 5 minutes, we'll tell you what (fill in the blank celebrity) said that's got people so riled up, and don't forget to text to win in our national contest (message and data rates may apply)!"

That's what counts for content. Of course the listeners don't care about that. Doesn't matter if it's local or national. It sucks. How do you fix that?


Again, this is all academic. The horse has left the barn. Radio had an opportunity to compete, but instead they abdicated to the streaming services and it's all downhill from here.

 

[TheBigA]

I disagree with your assertion that 30 years ago the consumer had no choice. They absolutely did have a choice. It was a choice between 2 or 3 stations that played the type of music they liked, and what would sway them one way or another is whether or not they liked the content that "interrupted" the music.

The decline in radio listenership began when people had the opportunity to make personal cassettes in the 80s. They didn't have to listen to radio at all. Cars had cassette decks and people listened to their own personal playlists, not what radio played. This was at a time when almost all radio stations had live & local talent. Why did people make that choice? It wasn't because of voice tracking, it wasn't because of inexperienced talent, and it wasn't because radio companies were chasing them away.

Again, this is all academic. The horse has left the barn. Radio had an opportunity to compete, but instead they abdicated to the streaming services and it's all downhill from here.

You're making a generalization about 16,000 radio stations, commercial and non-commercial, in over a dozen formats, based on what one company is doing with 16 CHR radio stations.

 

[b-turner]

Hmmm. People are listening to internet offerings instead of over the air radio. Is it the compelling local talent that drives them to online listening?

Live and local is the only way to go. Certainly that is why the likes of Howard Stern and Delilah are so unpopular.

I find it amazing that someone outside the industry now knows the industry better than those of us earning our pay in radio now.

The truth is radio is on the business to make money. Whatever it takes to make money is what you do. That's not cutting back but investing in what will build your success. Once upon a time it was the air talent. I suspect jockless online stations helped further the trend of less talk is better.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

You're making a generalization about 16,000 radio stations, commercial and non-commercial, in over a dozen formats, based on what one company is doing with 16 CHR radio stations.

Oh, that's right. There were no other companies over the last 2 decades that were consolidating, voice tracking, and firing local staff en masse. Nope. Audacy is just one company, and it's not industry-wide for years.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I find it amazing that someone outside the industry now knows the industry better than those of us earning our pay in radio now.

You will find yourself "outside the industry" eventually. It's not a question of if, but when.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh, that's right. There were no other companies over the last 2 decades that were consolidating, voice tracking, and firing local staff en masse. Nope. Audacy is just one company, and it's not industry-wide for years.

The four biggest radio companies own less than 10% of all radio stations in this country.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The product was never free. The audience is the product. And eventually they had options to not be the product.

it’s easy to be critical when it is not your money and job on the line.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh, that's right. There were no other companies over the last 2 decades that were consolidating, voice tracking, and firing local staff en masse. Nope. Audacy is just one company, and it's not industry-wide for years.

A huge percentage of those inside-the-business changes have to do with technology.

In the late 40's, WOR in New York City was written up in an article that showed their 40 studio and transmitter engineers. Today, they can run the whole station with one or two. Better equipment and changes in labor union contracts changed all that.

In the history of FM, broadcast automation got a boost when the FCC required less than full simulcasting. Technology came through and stations could do 100% separate programming with no additional staff.

In the 60's, a larger station needed people for traffic, billing and sales paperwork. When systems like Columbine came on the scene in the earlier 70's using minicomputers, suddenly one person could do all the back office work, even at a larger station.

As tech advanced, it was easy to do a personality show with voice tracking. In the late 70's, I had the #1 and #2 station in a top 20 market totally voice tracked with just mornings live.

The biggest reduction in staff came as a result of Docket 80-90, about 31 years ago; the FCC dropped in or allowed moves and upgrades of thousands of FMs. Little markets that could sustain one or two stations suddenly had four or five, so staff was cut, satellite networks were signed up and everything was automated. Every company in every market had to adapt. There was no increase in radio revenue, but lots more stations.

So your generalization is not founded on facts.

 

[b-turner]

I've been doing radio 44 years and I'm not stopping. I am making good money doing it now and will continue to do so. Obviously Deus Ex Machiato is showing his ignorance of the business.

​

 

[TexasTom]

The four biggest radio companies own less than 10% of all radio stations in this country.

That's the sort of statistic that only tells part of the story -- because that 10% includes most of the best signals in the bigger markets. For example, here in Dallas-Fort Worth, there are 18 non-rimshot commercial FM stations in the market, and 13 of those 18 are owned by Audacy, Cumulus, and iHeartMedia. The other five are owned by smaller national companies (Univision, Urban One, Salem) or locally owned (Service, City of Dallas). The rimshot FMs and the AMs have more diverse ownership, along with a limited ability to serve the entire market. So if you just look at the number of stations owned by smaller or local companies, you're not really seeing an accurate accounting of the relative market power of the companies.

I think that Dallas-Fort Worth is fairly typical for large/medium markets in this respect.

 

[davideduardo]

You will find yourself "outside the industry" eventually. It's not a question of if, but when.

If you define the industry as "users of AM and FM transmitters" that may be so. But if you consider broadcasting to include the distribution of content on any platform available, then the change is in technology, not in the industry.

 

[TheBigA]

That's the sort of statistic that only tells part of the story -- because that 10% includes most of the best signals in the bigger markets.

If you look at the ratings in Dallas, iHeart has four stations among the Top 10, Audacy has 2 and Cumulus has 2.

Are people listening because of the signal or the station talent?

The mid-day DJ at the #1 station is based in NY. Do you think the listeners care?

 

[TexasTom]

If you look at the ratings in Dallas, iHeart has four stations among the Top 10, Audacy has 2 and Cumulus has 2.

Are people listening because of the signal or the station talent?

The mid-day DJ at the #1 station is based in NY. Do you think the listeners care?

It's likely a combination of the signal and the programming. Move the format and programming of KLUV (currently the #1 station in the market) from 98.7 to 99.1, and how much of the audience do you think would follow? (For those who don't know the market, 98.7 is their actual frequency and has full market coverage, whereas 99.1 KFZO is a rimshot that is currently in 32nd place and has poor coverage of the eastern and southern parts of the market.)

 

[TheBigA]

It's likely a combination of the signal and the programming.

Neither of those is live & local talent. All of these stations have a combination of local talent, syndication, and VT. And they get great ratings. Why should they hire more local staff? How does more local staff equate to more listeners and more money?