New York Post Article

[davideduardo]

Well.....yes and no. Back in the mid 60's there was a DJ on KYA mornings named Buck Herring. Buck came to KYA from KTKT in Tucson. KTKT was a pretty tight Top-40 "Color radio" format where the jocks didn't do a lot of talking (although more than the average today I would guess). Buck's show was largely a stand-up comedy routine punctuated by lots of recorded and live humor among the records. Buck was very quick and you had to pay attention to get all the humor flying past. It was the best one-person morning show I've ever heard on radio and although he didn't play the most music he was very entertaining.

I think BigA's point is equally valid here: if you did not like the music, you would not stick around for the little humor bits between the songs. And KTKT was a station that played the Top 40 hits... mostly the favorite top songs of the moment with a couple of new songs each week.

 

[TheBigA]

It was the best one-person morning show I've ever heard on radio and although he didn't play the most music he was very entertaining.

The one thing I've noticed in studying radio history is that people today use radio differently than they did in the 60s. So while they might have tuned in back then for the humor, today it would hurt him in PPMs. Humor has become more divisive. Today you can alienate a lot of people with humor, just as you can with certain types of music. Back in the 60s, music was an attraction, and a point for consensus. Today, that's a lot harder to achieve. I can play a song or tell a joke and empty a crowded room.

People confuse this change in the way people use radio with a failure on the part of programmers. That's not correct. The audience has changed, and programmers have adapted to the change in the way listeners use radio.

 

[davideduardo]

He definitely got MORE famous but he had a huge following in CA before that - and not only in SoCal. He was on XERB (I think) from Tijuana then but was carried on stations all over CA and was huge on college campuses.

The Wolfman came to XERB in Rosarito in the mid-60's, he arrived from XERF in Villa Acuña, a 250 kw station that covered all the midwest at night. He developed his style for the most part at XERF.

The XERB era ended in 1971 when Mexico prohibited all paid religious shows, ending the bulk of XERB's income stream. The station went all Spanish as XEPRS shortly after.

I don't believe he was syndicated while on XERB, as the highly directional signal shot a pencil-thin beam up over LA, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara and points as far north as Portland and Alaska. It did not need any additional stations in CA to cover nearly the entire state at night back in those days.

It wasn't until the KDAY days, IIRC, that the show became syndicated and was run on other signals.

 

[gr8oldies]

We figured out much Chicagoans resisted Randy Michaels' attempt to remake the stodgy WGN.

Depends. Look at all the changes WOR has made for their morning show. New Yorkers WANT status quo. They hate change. Look at how many people complained about WCBS when it went to Jack. No one succeeds in New York by being a pioneer. What research said that Cumulus should launch a country station in NYC? Look at how it's doing. And they hired some of the biggest names in the format. It didn't matter.

 

[semoochie]

The Wolfman came to XERB in Rosarito in the mid-60's, he arrived from XERF in Villa Acuña, a 250 kw station that covered all the midwest at night. He developed his style for the most part at XERF.

The XERB era ended in 1971 when Mexico prohibited all paid religious shows, ending the bulk of XERB's income stream. The station went all Spanish as XEPRS shortly after.

I don't believe he was syndicated while on XERB, as the highly directional signal shot a pencil-thin beam up over LA, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara and points as far north as Portland and Alaska. It did not need any additional stations in CA to cover nearly the entire state at night back in those days.

It wasn't until the KDAY days, IIRC, that the show became syndicated and was run on other signals.

Not being a dxer yet, I don't remember XERB but I used to listen to XEPRS. It seems like several years before 1090Xpress became Spanish. I remember a jingle that sang, "X-P-R-S Los Angeles".

 

[JeffM]

Humor has become more divisive. Today you can alienate a lot of people with humor, just as you can with certain types of music. Back in the 60s, music was an attraction, and a point for consensus. Today, that's a lot harder to achieve. I can play a song or tell a joke and empty a crowded room.

Well, the nature of humor itself, or what's considered humor, has changed so much over the years. "Edginess" is king; to me there's damn little difference between modern comedy and internet trolling. Compared to "the Morning Zoo Crew with A-hole and D-bag" or all the Howard Sperm wannabees, let's say if Gary Owens were starting out today, his brand of silly-but-smart comedy would be snarked at as "wussy," "gheyyy," or worse.

And of course, when the new kid shows up and you're not "edgy" any more, the hip herd nukes you and goes chasing their next jolt-in-the-arm...)

 

[TheBigA]

And of course, when the new kid shows up and you're not "edgy" any more, the hip herd nukes you and goes chasing their next jolt-in-the-arm...)

Everything is a function of its time. Personality, humor, and music. The boundaries for those things are always being pushed. You can attempt to bring back the past, as Pat Cooper does by bringing back Borscht Belt humor, which is a throwback to vaudeville. But it's not current, and he sounds like an anachronism to those who don't know the context, which is a growing number of people.

What does this mean for radio? It means that what worked 40 years ago probably won't work today, in the context of how people use radio now, in the context of PPM ratings, and in the context of the music people want to hear.

 

[Richard Stefan]

his show was around a so cal midwest car culture and nyc is not really a car culture...


And as famous as The Wolfman was, he wasn't really a hit in NYC......

 

[Richard Stefan]

big a..... What research said that Cumulus should launch a country station in NYC?

wussie country, where are the dance songs guitar solos..kick asss country.....that would have made it in nyc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mghLy91onLs

 

[TheBigA]

big a..... What research said that Cumulus should launch a country station in NYC?

I don't think I ever said that.

 

[Richard Stefan]

I don't think I ever said that.

guess what i meant was who thought a wussie country station would make it in nyc......i didn't.

 

[diymedia]

That is absolute crap. First, it's not a "demand." It doesn't change the payola laws one bit, and radio employees would still be responsible for signing payola statements. The ONLY thing it does is move the identification from on-air to on-line, which is exactly what the FCC has already ordered in terms of political advertising and other listener notification. They would continue to identify all sources of record label money, and in fact, it would be available at all times, and wouldn't actually require LISTENING to the station, which radio watchdogs generally don't do. The view this poster is stating is coming from the Future of Music Coalition, a subsidiary of the RIAA. If the RIAA is concerned about payola, all they have to do is keep their money to themselves. But what FMC wants to do is force radio stations to play unpopular music, to create a revenue stream for artists who normally wouldn't get airplay. Getting the music industry involved in airplay decisions is a bad idea. It's why payola laws were created in the first place.

If it's possible for someone to be more absolute in the crap they dispense online, this missive takes the cake. Instead of conducing sponsorship announcements adjacent to actually playing sponsored content, the industry (excuse me, the "Radio Coalition") is asking to reduce those on-air announcements to one per day (okay, four per day in the first three weeks of airing it), and move everything else online. What the proposal does is actually make disclosure less transparent, and makes it less likely for listeners to know what they're being sold (or that they're being sold at all) when it is actually happening. Other fun facts: the station only has to keep the disclosure information online for as long as it airs the stuff (why archive it, eh?), and of course the actual amount stations are compensated for airing sponsored content need not be disclosed (you know, competition).

It's always a good idea to read source documents instead of riffing off of industry trades. I find it immensely ironic that the industry continues to scream bloody murder at the idea of putting public files online (and still continues to resist it for markets < 50), but hey, when it comes to new avenues to generate revenue, the Internet is Our Best Friend.

This is also the first time I've heard that the Future of Music Coalition being a handmaiden of the RIAA. Do you even know who founded the group and what they actually do, or is this just another knee-jerk Grandpa-style pronouncement of "wisdom" from your cyber-porch?

 

[davideduardo]

It's always a good idea to read source documents instead of riffing off of industry trades. I find it immensely ironic that the industry continues to scream bloody murder at the idea of putting public files online (and still continues to resist it for markets < 50), but hey, when it comes to new avenues to generate revenue, the Internet is Our Best Friend.

The petition seems to be more specific to things like teaser and advocacy ads. In a teaser, the identification of the precise sponsor takes all the curiosity value away from a campaign. In advocacy ads, the sponsorship disclaimer takes valuable message time. If the full identification were to be made online, it would perhaps open up some revenue categories.

The petition is viewable at http://www.fcc.gov/article/da-15-325a2

That petition does not specifically address paid broadcast of songs for record companies. It only requests a change in the Sponsorship Identification rules in music and sports, but specifically not in news and information, programming. It does not seek to make payola legal as a station which sells time for the playing of songs is not committing the crime of payola.

Putting sponsor IDs online is little work. Keeping them there for the duration of the campaign only is reasonable, as spots identified the old way only do so during the length of the broadcast flight.

I don't see the music industry leaping at this... they barely have the money to sustain vastly reduced promotion departments. They are lobbying for payments from radio stations, so giving money to radio would seem to defeat all the arguments for royalty payments.

Public files are tedious and seldom if ever viewed by anyone. There are hundreds or even thousands of pages of material, all of which has to be scanned, and then updated with irrelevant material removed. That's much more tedious than the traditional paper file and requires an additional skillset.

 

[davideduardo]

Do you agree with THIS? This was also in the post you quoted above.

"Radio's latest demand is for the government to essentially permit payola. Radio doesn't want to identify when they're getting paid to promote a particular song or act."

That is absolute crap. First, it's not a "demand." It doesn't change the payola laws one bit, and radio employees would still be responsible for signing payola statements. The ONLY thing it does is move the identification from on-air to on-line, which is exactly what the FCC has already ordered in terms of political advertising and other listener notification. They would continue to identify all sources of record label money, and in fact, it would be available at all times, and wouldn't actually require LISTENING to the station, which radio watchdogs generally don't do. The view this poster is stating is coming from the Future of Music Coalition, a subsidiary of the RIAA. If the RIAA is concerned about payola, all they have to do is keep their money to themselves. But what FMC wants to do is force radio stations to play unpopular music, to create a revenue stream for artists who normally wouldn't get airplay. Getting the music industry involved in airplay decisions is a bad idea. It's why payola laws were created in the first place.

Further, that original post ignores the legal definition of payola which occurs when compensation is received by an employee of the licensee without the knowledge or consent of the licensee or their agent.

What is at issue is the "Sponsor Identification" section of the rules. It is already perfectly legal for a station to receive pay for play, just as it is legal to receive pay for a Geico ad.

At issue is only whether immediate disclosure must be made on the air, or whether this can be done online.

 

[TheBigA]

What the proposal does is actually make disclosure less transparent, and makes it less likely for listeners to know what they're being sold (or that they're being sold at all) when it is actually happening.

Once again, the FCC has already moved other disclosure online. And once its online it's accessible to people at all times of the day, not just fringe time when the paid programming is most likely to air. It's accessible to media watchdogs who might not be in the market. It's accessible to competitors who might want that information for their own purposes. And once again, it's simply A PROPOSAL. If the FCC wants to say no, or say nothing, they can. If you have an opinion, you're welcome to file your comments with the Commission. But to deny the industry the opportunity of even making a proposal because you fear legalizing payola is completely crazy.

And for the FMC, I've debated their representatives many times. I know they basically promote the RIAA agenda on all points, and often take it one step further, especially with regard to OTA radio. If you know of areas where they oppose the RIAA, let me know.

 

[TheBigA]

It does not seek to make payola legal as a station which sells time for the playing of songs is not committing the crime of payola.

The thing about the FMC statement is it says that the proposal would put indie labels at a disadvantage to major labels in this regard. To me, a crime is a crime, regardless of the size of the company that commits it. And today, most of the indie labels have better deals with their artists than the majors, giving them access to more money for breaking the law. The FMC should do a better job policing the music business, and preaching the true evils of labels spending money for airplay, rather than focusing on broadcasters trying to modernize and streamline disclosure procedures.

 

[umfan]

So, the data cost and bandwidth issue was somehow solved last week? It must have been because that's the only thing that can make the prediction of the Post article have even a remote chance of coming to pass.

Even then, it would only be feasible in densely populated metropolitan areas. I get that NYC believes itself to be the center of the universe, but it just isn't so and lots and lots of people live in far less densely populated areas.

A decade from now an AM/FM radio will still be standard equipment. A decade from now, most of the in car devices will likely have an interface to stream......if you have or buy a data subscription.

 

[TGunn]

So, the data cost and bandwidth issue was somehow solved last week? It must have been because that's the only thing that can make the prediction of the Post article have even a remote chance of coming to pass.

Even then, it would only be feasible in densely populated metropolitan areas. I get that NYC believes itself to be the center of the universe, but it just isn't so and lots and lots of people live in far less densely populated areas.

A decade from now an AM/FM radio will still be standard equipment. A decade from now, most of the in car devices will likely have an interface to stream......if you have or buy a data subscription.

A DECADE FROM NOW We won't be driving cars.

 

[TheBigA]

A decade from now an AM/FM radio will still be standard equipment. A decade from now, most of the in car devices will likely have an interface to stream......if you have or buy a data subscription.

And a decade from now, if you want to stream music, you'll also have to buy a music subscription. It might be a portion of the data fee, although I don't know how fair that is.

 

[gr8oldies]

It'll be a long, long time before we give up our cars, pack ourselves like sardines in inner cities and walk everywhere. I read about self-driving cars supposedly being a thing, but it would take decades to replace every vehicle on the road. Of course, that would mean people could watch movies on the road

A DECADE FROM NOW We won't be driving cars.