Now What?

[TheBigA]

WAMU, for example, has a local announcer do local news and weather cut-ins during the breaks 24/7. The ones that underperform, like ETV Radio, simply fill the broadcast day with NPR network fare.

Are you sure? I think WAMU only does the cut-ins during drive time.

But if you really break down the minutes, most of the time is the national shows. The equivalent is having music shows piped in from another market with local news breaks.

 

[ejohn374]

This is the best discussion I've seen on here since I can't remember when! Lots of comments from folks who don't post often this is great. More often than not there are way too many personal attacks on these boards that drive people away. This is good ole radio folks talking about the industry we love.

We've mentioned NPR stations like WAMU, NPR clearly does better in the Northeast and in markets like San Fran and Seattle however, hats off to ETV Radio the local programming they do is well done.

Ok, if markets are removing local talent then what reason is there to listen to local radio? It's not the music. There are too many ways to receive commercial free music. It's not local news, TV and the web handle that. (Besides there is nobody at the radio station to read the news!) It's not the weather there are a million aps for weather. Traffic reports? Maybe. But that is one expensive operation for a twice a day event.

 

[TheBigA]

Ok, if markets are removing local talent then what reason is there to listen to local radio? It's not the music.

For a lot of people, that's the reason. OTA radio is cheap and easy to receive. The music is scientifically chosen to be the best of the best. You can argue all day about bigger playlists and fringe genres. The majority of people in this country have beer taste. Just go to any bar and listen to the jukebox or the cover band. They play the same small list of songs over and over to a packed house. That's radio.

But another big part of radio is news, talk, and sports. And it doesn't have to be local. Rush Limbaugh has had a 30 year career, and most of it was syndicated. Same thing with ESPN Radio. Now there are going to be two more sports networks. Lots of sports talk. And then there are all the religious and ethnic formats. You'd be surprised how many people love contemporary Christian music, especially in the red states like South Carolina. Plus formats for Hispanics and other non-English people. That's really where radio is going.

 

[carolinaradio]

There is always talk about younger people not listening to radio (which, as BigA said, isn't necessarily true) - but I'm noticing that actually fewer "Baby Boomers" than young people are listening to the radio. So many of them that I know are listening to SiriusXM or MP3's except for talk or NPR. Heck, more than half of the people I know with SiriusXM are in their 50s or older.

iHeartRadio is pretty popular with younger people. I was looking at my Facebook friends who "like" the page and was surprised at how many of them are in their teens or early 20's. I prefer listening to a traditional radio more, but unless I'm in the car or have my portable radio handy, I find myself listening to my local stations more and more on my iPhone via iHeart. Perhaps that's the "Gen Y" in me . There are still plenty of younger listeners who are perfectly happy with radio the way it is now and listen/participate with the station via social media (as an example). It's just another option for them to listen to music on. They don't know radio being any different. They don't know the glory days of "Hot Hits" CHR in the 1980s. That's what I notice is missed on these boards over and over - no, radio is not what it used to be, but is there any proof that it has run listeners off? Outside of radio geeks such as us, I wonder if the average listener cares or notices that the DJ they're listening to and enjoying being entertained by might be hundreds of miles away? I doubt it. I've mentioned this to people before and they were shocked. I actually think listeners would rather hear a polished, voicetracked DJ that does a good job instead of bad local talent.

I don't see radio going away. I see it continuing to evolve away from what radio enthusiasts such as us think of it as. The audience is still there and taking advantage of it. Personally, as a fan of....let's say, Alternative, I find radio as my best option, whether it's local or on TuneIn or iHeart. I don't want to bother making my own playlist, or having weird, unfamiliar songs on Pandora, or paying for super-targeted satellite stations. The FM station here suits me just fine. Same for CHR. Same for Hot AC. The evolution of vehicle Wi-Fi will be interesting to watch, but I think it will be a long time before that is a serious threat to FM radio.

I'm on the outside, too. I have some immediate family that worked part time/fill-in in this market back in the 80s that helped fuel my interest in radio, but that's all of the connection I have to the inside. I like being on the outside looking in. Zero bitterness or reason for it here.

 

[TheBigA]

There is always talk about younger people not listening to radio (which, as BigA said, isn't necessarily true) - but I'm noticing that actually fewer "Baby Boomers" than young people are listening to the radio. So many of them that I know are listening to SiriusXM or MP3's except for talk or NPR. Heck, more than half of the people I know with SiriusXM are in their 50s or older.

I agree with that. Those are the people with expendable income, who can afford another monthly bill, and have specific musical interests that aren't available on commercial radio because advertisers aren't interested in the demo. They're also people who dislike commercials, because they don't buy based on advertising (which is why advertisers don't target them anymore.) So the whole process is no longer aimed at people of their age. Plus, there comes a time in a person's life when listening to music stops. I've noticed it in my parents. They just stopped listening to music, and either chose talk or nothing. It has nothing to do with what's on the radio, because they have those options, but they choose not to listen to music. Boomers also tend to be the ones who are using technology to get what they want. It's not restricted to Gen X or Y. And with all of that, OTA radio listening remains flat, with occasional increases depending on format. No huge exodus of people fleeing radio, and no lack of younger listeners.

 

[awp69]

iHeartRadio is pretty popular with younger people. I was looking at my Facebook friends who "like" the page and was surprised at how many of them are in their teens or early 20's. I prefer listening to a traditional radio more, but unless I'm in the car or have my portable radio handy, I find myself listening to my local stations more and more on my iPhone via iHeart. Perhaps that's the "Gen Y" in me . There are still plenty of younger listeners who are perfectly happy with radio the way it is now and listen/participate with the station via social media (as an example). It's just another option for them to listen to music on. They don't know radio being any different. They don't know the glory days of "Hot Hits" CHR in the 1980s. That's what I notice is missed on these boards over and over - no, radio is not what it used to be, but is there any proof that it has run listeners off? Outside of radio geeks such as us, I wonder if the average listener cares or notices that the DJ they're listening to and enjoying being entertained by might be hundreds of miles away? I doubt it. I've mentioned this to people before and they were shocked. I actually think listeners would rather hear a polished, voicetracked DJ that does a good job instead of bad local talent.

I guess this kind of plays into my thinking and maybe I wasn't being clear before. I think local radio as we know it is what is really under threat. I too don't think radio will cease to exist. But, I too listen via iHeart, and I think the move will continue in that direction as well as the fact that, as you pointed out, the vast majority of people don't really notice the difference between local air talent and those that are hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I think if anything, it's pretty likely that radio companies will consolidate more and aside from maybe a shell staff, there may be 10 hubs instead of 50 local stations running the show for various markets. And the ability of listeners to find stations they like better outside of their market via apps like iHeart may expedite this.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess this kind of plays into my thinking and maybe I wasn't being clear before. I think local radio as we know it is what is really under threat.

By the same token, only 10% of all radio stations are owned by the big radio companies, and for the most part, they seem most concentrated in large markets and large states. That excludes Clear Channel and Cumulus, who own stations in South Carolina. But that leaves 90% of US radio stations that are owned by smaller companies, individuals, colleges, churches, and state governments. What those smaller entities do is dependent more on the local market and local politics. So it's possible that some local radio will continue, but not at the most powerful stations. You'll have to seek out the local radio, from smaller facilities or non-commercial stations.

 

[Gatekeeper007]

Which is one of the reasons WLRE is here local broadcasting. I think that has a lot to do with the FCC trying to let LPFM get going so that the LPFM's can serve each of their local markets. The only problem with LPFM is not being able to do commericals which makes it a good choice for Religious Organizations to have but makes it much harder if not impossible at times for any other types of organizations or individuals to own an LPFM station, and do local and or live programming since the cost factors to do so often out ways the income coming into the station so in a lot of cases no live no local because there's simply not enough money to do it. I do believe that the FCC intended for LPFM to serve that purpose as a future means of encouraging more live and local broadcasting among other things but didn't realize that by keeping them non commerical that it would cut out about 70% of their ability to do anything except play music due to cost factors.

 

[unitron]

There is always talk about younger people not listening to radio (which, as BigA said, isn't necessarily true) - but I'm noticing that actually fewer "Baby Boomers" than young people are listening to the radio. So many of them that I know are listening to SiriusXM or MP3's except for talk or NPR. Heck, more than half of the people I know with SiriusXM are in their 50s or older.

I agree with that. Those are the people with expendable income, who can afford another monthly bill, and have specific musical interests that aren't available on commercial radio because advertisers aren't interested in the demo. They're also people who dislike commercials, because they don't buy based on advertising (which is why advertisers don't target them anymore.) So the whole process is no longer aimed at people of their age. Plus, there comes a time in a person's life when listening to music stops. I've noticed it in my parents. They just stopped listening to music, and either chose talk or nothing. It has nothing to do with what's on the radio, because they have those options, but they choose not to listen to music. Boomers also tend to be the ones who are using technology to get what they want. It's not restricted to Gen X or Y. And with all of that, OTA radio listening remains flat, with occasional increases depending on format. No huge exodus of people fleeing radio, and no lack of younger listeners.

What kind of music did your parents listen to when they did listen to music? Do you mean they listen to either talk radio or no radio at all?

 

[TheBigA]

What kind of music did your parents listen to when they did listen to music? Do you mean they listen to either talk radio or no radio at all?

They used to listen to everything from pop to showtunes to classical. Now it's just talk or nothing.

 

[GordonSims]

Ok, if markets are removing local talent then what reason is there to listen to local radio? It's not the music.

For a lot of people, that's the reason. OTA radio is cheap and easy to receive.

But another big part of radio is news, talk, and sports. And it doesn't have to be local.

I agree with the appeal of news, talk, and sports. Its an extension of what the listener watches on television.
But honestly, if all a listener can afford is an OTA radio - they are not the customer that adverstisiers are looking for and therefore, not who radio will try to appeal to.

 

[Gatekeeper007]

Talking about XM radio or any other similar type and listeners over 50 years old. I run into people every week who went to mediums like XM simply because they couldn't hear the music they wanted to hear. You can tell me radio is not in the music business and true radio does have other formats other than music but go back and check the roots of what started radio and in most cases it will involve music in one sort or another. Weather it is student with a band who became a DJ, in the early a pirate radio station playing a music format you can't get anywhere else and that person getting a license and moving into the radio business( trust me I have met a bunch of long time radio people that started that way, more than you would ever think). One thing was in common in most cases and that was giving and playing music to people that they wanted to hear. Yes the ways of getting the music you want to hear are expanding into the future but radio is still the common ground that music run with. True some people/groups have bypassed radio and done well but the mark of wheather you have made it or not in the music business is still are you on the radio or are you not. Radio is still that common ground.