News/talk stations that have no websites

[dustintv]

I always find it a little perturbing when a news/talk station lacks a website. This isn't limited to small market stations either. WLBR in Lebanon PA and WAIM in Anderson SC are part of fairly medium-sized markets yet both stations lack a website. Quite disappointing given that's 2009.

 

[Steven21]

I always find it a little perturbing when a news/talk station lacks a website. This isn't limited to small market stations either. WLBR in Lebanon PA and WAIM in Anderson SC are part of fairly medium-sized markets yet both stations lack a website. Quite disappointing given that's 2009.

To be honest, as a listener, I find the forced tie-ins of websites to be rather annoying. I'm LISTENING to the radio. I DO NOT turn on the radio to be directed to a place where I can get mostly non-audio info. Most people know they can find a multitude of news stuff online---most know that once you're in front of the PC, a radio station site is a drop in the bucket for news coverage. The website IS NOT why I listen, so STOP putting so much emphasis on it! Or should radio stations just fold up and instead concentrate on web content? Are the signals just maintained now to promote the website?

 

[smedge2006]

Most people know they can find a multitude of news stuff online---most know that once you're in front of the PC, a radio station site is a drop in the bucket for news coverage.

This is a good point. The radio companies see the radio model as finished, so they're trying to drive people to the web, but they've fired most of the people who could have put content on those websites.

 

[TheBigA]

To be honest, as a listener, I find the forced tie-ins of websites to be rather annoying. I'm LISTENING to the radio. I DO NOT turn on the radio to be directed to a place where I can get mostly non-audio info.

That's not the point. For a news/talk station, you can only put a portion of the information you gather on the air. The news stories are usually short, and lack the detail you can give in text. You can also provide more audio and links to your sources. You can become hyper-local, providing more localized reporting than you can on the air. For talk shows, you can be more interactive with your listeners. A typical talk show takes maybe 20 callers. But on the web, you can get hundreds of comments, and you might see a comment that's more interesting than one of the callers you have on hold. So it makes for a better show.

Media now is not a one-or-the-other thing. It's about being everywhere. On the air, on the web, and on the phone. Be where your audience is, give them choices they can't get on the radio, with more depth, available at their schedule. There is no down side. If you don't want to use it, don't. But it's a great resource.

The radio companies see the radio model as finished, so they're trying to drive people to the web, but they've fired most of the people who could have put content on those websites.

Depends on the stations, but that’s usually not true. The show producers and reporters who cover the stories upload the content. It’s not that hard, and can be done by anyone. You don’t actually need a web staff. Blogging programs make uploading content to the web as easy as cut, paste, and load. The big point from the ownership point of view is it’s another place to put advertising. A station is leaving money on the table when they don’t have a web site. And they’re missing out on free publicity for what they do.

 

[Steven21]

That's not the point. For a news/talk station, you can only put a portion of the information you gather on the air. The news stories are usually short, and lack the detail you can give in text. You can also provide more audio and links to your sources. You can become hyper-local, providing more localized reporting than you can on the air. For talk shows, you can be more interactive with your listeners. A typical talk show takes maybe 20 callers. But on the web, you can get hundreds of comments, and you might see a comment that's more interesting than one of the callers you have on hold. So it makes for a better show.

Media now is not a one-or-the-other thing. It's about being everywhere. On the air, on the web, and on the phone. Be where your audience is, give them choices they can't get on the radio, with more depth, available at their schedule. There is no down side. If you don't want to use it, don't. But it's a great resource.

It IS the point. You're addressing what could or should be; I'm addressing what IS the case in most situations. MOST stations go through the motions of having a token website and constantly plug it like websites are going out of style. There are VERY few radio station websites that are worth the trouble of accessing.

By the way, are radio budgets going to now explode for the sake of financing all this newfound in-depth reporting that you say should be on their websites? Last time I checked, most radio newsrooms are a shadow of what they once were and DO NOT cover nearly as much as the town paper. I personally find newspaper websites unbeatable at newscoverage depth. If I want more on a story, I rarely go to a radio station website. I LISTEN to the radio, I do not look to them for more than that---and neither do MOST people.

So why doesn't radio refocus on their PRIMARY ASSET: the RADIO STATION. They're so busy now talking up websites and facebook and HD channels, yet they cut staff every time you turn around. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[TheBigA]

It IS the point. You're addressing what could or should be; I'm addressing what IS the case in most situations. MOST stations go through the motions of having a token website and constantly plug it like websites are going out of style. There are VERY few radio station websites that are worth the trouble of accessing.

And as I said, that is a huge mistake. They're missing a great opportunity to reach their listeners beyond the air signal. It’s a great source of new revenue. It’s a great way to serve the public. I see no downside.

So why doesn't radio refocus on their PRIMARY ASSET: the RADIO STATION. They're so busy now talking up websites and facebook and HD channels, yet they cut staff every time you turn around. It just doesn't make sense.

There’s an inherent contradiction in what you’re saying. Either they’re just going through the motions on the website, or they’re redirecting resources there. It can’t be both.

Look at what you’re doing right now. You’re on the computer. Radio stations aren’t just transmitters and towers. They create content. That content translates to other devices, like computers and phones. People use those other devices more than radios, and it’s not because of the content. No amount of redirecting money and resources to the main signal will get you or anyone else to throw away their computers or cell phones. So it’s up to radio to go where the audiences are. If radio is in the content business, it makes sense to make that content available in as many places as possible. If you’re proud of what you do, you want everyone to hear it. Radio stations need to become part of their listeners lives, and that requires going beyond the air signal.

 

[Steven21]

It IS the point. You're addressing what could or should be; I'm addressing what IS the case in most situations. MOST stations go through the motions of having a token website and constantly plug it like websites are going out of style. There are VERY few radio station websites that are worth the trouble of accessing.

And as I said, that is a huge mistake. They're missing a great opportunity to reach their listeners beyond the air signal. It’s a great source of new revenue. It’s a great way to serve the public. I see no downside.

So why doesn't radio refocus on their PRIMARY ASSET: the RADIO STATION. They're so busy now talking up websites and facebook and HD channels, yet they cut staff every time you turn around. It just doesn't make sense.

There’s an inherent contradiction in what you’re saying. Either they’re just going through the motions on the website, or they’re redirecting resources there. It can’t be both.

When I say "going through the motions" I obviously mean they are plugging and plugging and plugging their websites, yet most radio station sites I have seen are nothing to e-mail home about. I cannot remember the last time a station site had content that kept me there longer than 20 seconds. Many stations sites ARE token sites so they can say they're in the game. If I want NEWS, I'm going to one of the many places where you typically find in-depth reporting---and it's rarely ever a radio station website.

You mentioned that radio stations are in the "content" business: So why gut the content generating departments and then try to push a website that has sparse content? Most stations are NOT dedicated to providing much content ON THE AIR anymore, so what hope is there that they'll find the infrastructure to put it on the web?

Going-through-the-motions.

 

[TheBigA]

You mentioned that radio stations are in the "content" business: So why gut the content generating departments and then try to push a website that has sparse content? Most stations are NOT dedicated to providing much content ON THE AIR anymore, so what hope is there that they'll find the infrastructure to put it on the web?

This is a problem everywhere, especially newspapers. Ad revenue is down, so they have to cut. But as I said, just narrowing their focus on the air signal isn’t going to replace the lost advertising revenue. I think they’d love to provide lots of content on the air, but the revenue for that is drying up. So they need to retool their operations towards outlets that will give them the money it takes to generate original content. It takes more than the air signal to generate that kind of money.

We’re in a transition period. Lots of radio stations don’t know how to do anything but radio. They’re learning about the web and other things, but it’s going to take time. In the meantime, the public is already made its mind up, and there’s nothing that will get them to throw away their computers and cell phones. So you either adapt to the new reality, or you die. There’s no holding on to the status quo.

 

[Steven21]

Lots of radio stations don’t know how to do anything but radio.

Imagine that.

Next you're going to tell me that TV stations don't know how to do anything but TV.

Crazy.

 

[TheBigA]

Next you're going to tell me that TV stations don't know how to do anything but TV.

Actually, surprisingly TV stations have adapted to new media better than radio.

However, in Washington DC, a radio station website is the #1 source for local news and information. Go to www.wtop.com. That site is beating the sites from the local TV stations. And the radio station also is #1 in town, beating all the music stations.

You should also look at web sites for public, non-commercial radio stations, and how they've intregrated what they do on the air with what's available 24/7 online.

 

[smedge2006]

WTOP also happens to be owned by Bonneville, which took a far different course over the past dozen or so years from that of most radio companies. It's hurting from the economy too, but is not so strapped that it doesn't have resources to put into developing its news presence on the web. Bonneville was among the first to move a spoken word format to FM. Its development of Federal News Radio is something that's almost unimaginable coming from any other commercial broadcaster.