Opinions - True Health for Radio

[TheBigA]

Was that wrong? Formats--and the interests of the listeners to those formats--do come into play, don't they?

Interesting post, and it typifies why music is becoming very difficult to program. What Jax was talking about was taking risks with music, and MJ falls into that category. To some, MJ is a molestor, to others he's a tragic hero. As a radio station, you don't want to offend or piss people off. So what do you do? It's the Dixie Chick syndrome. You play their music and the righties blow up your transmitter. You don't, and people scream about free speech. Sure, John Lennon had to deal with this when he said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, but it was rare. Now, I could clear out a room by playing one song. That's not good when you're job as a radio station is to bring people into the tent. THAT, more than anything, is why music stations end up sounding so bland.

 

[gr8oldies]

Rox, you obviously never read about radio's "30 Under 30" that Tom Taylor wrote about. At least one is an owner and none is on a message board crying about how the big bad boss man won't let them say and play what they want on the radio. You talk about radio being responsive to listeners, yet you insist that radio needs to give listeners DJs they don't want at times of day that they don't want them. Yes I know you say that if the jocks were just allowed to say different things listeners would want DJ talk between songs but I see little to no evidence.

 

[adma]

Was that wrong? Formats--and the interests of the listeners to those formats--do come into play, don't they?

Interesting post, and it typifies why music is becoming very difficult to program. What Jax was talking about was taking risks with music, and MJ falls into that category. To some, MJ is a molestor, to others he's a tragic hero. As a radio station, you don't want to offend or piss people off. So what do you do? It's the Dixie Chick syndrome. You play their music and the righties blow up your transmitter. You don't, and people scream about free speech. Sure, John Lennon had to deal with this when he said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, but it was rare. Now, I could clear out a room by playing one song. That's not good when you're job as a radio station is to bring people into the tent. THAT, more than anything, is why music stations end up sounding so bland.

But what about when the only people left that you're bringing into the tent are the rednecks and reactive cretins?

The thing about John Lennon and the Beatles is...they overcame. But if you had to recreate that scenario within a commercial-radio cultural environment more like today, then the Beatles would have been dropped from the airwaves altogether after Lennon's comment, and Sgt Pepper and all that it begat would've been strictly the preserve of holier-than-thou Starbucks-frequenting Stuff White People Like types, and the music-radio mainstream would have been defined by those who took "Okie From Muskogee" at face value...

 

[gr8oldies]

Would have been interesting had what we have now been around then. The "ten million strong denouncing John Lennon" Facebook page? I can see it now.

 

[John FL]

You guys have brought up an aspect of decision making as it applies to picking music that I have to admit I never considered. There are some good points being raised that have me really thinking.

Indulge me in the fantasy world in which I sometimes live. For some time I have been on a crusade to bring a CBS FM-like station to the market in which I live. There the MJ hits would play from the time of the Jackson 5 through the 80s when Michael really just dominated the music scene. I believed it made sense to offer music virtually no one in the market was offering.

I live in a very conservative area. For a number of years our market had an 80’s oriented station that played a narrow spectrum of mainly alternative/new wave tunes and Mr. Jackson or for that matter anything disco/dance oriented like Donna Summer, KC, Earth, Wind & Fire etc. etc., never played. I always thought, how can you call yourself an 80’s station if you don’t play what was representative of a lot of the music that what was an integral part of the decade?

Today, we have a classic hits station that is once again narrow in music interpretation as they are really classic rock light. While I always thought this narrow approach to selecting music was one of the major problems of the media and those who make these decisions, you all just have me thinking.

Where we agree is what one person likes, another may hate. Perhaps the one size that fits all with safe, boring tunes may diminish phone calls into the GM’s office complaining about this or that, but what does it really do for the health of radio? I don’t believe pretending an artist or a style of music didn’t exist is not the way to go. Again, I believe in moderation and so the decisions that go into what music plays and what does not to me is all about sound the station tries to achieve. So in my world, a Michael Jackson would be featured but perhaps not to the extent of power-playing. That’s compromise and part of the decision process where you can endeavor to be different to position yourself accordingly in the market.

Maybe too is that I have to think about where I lived. Throughout the 80’s I lived in South Florida. Overall, it’s more liberal-oriented than where I live today and there was an extensive and open gay community. The music reflected that diversity. At the time I never used some kind of litmus test on artists. I either liked the music or did not. If you consider how many openly gay artists were popular in the 80’s, where do you draw the line if you make decisions? Gees, I can remember hearing a lot of Erasure where I lived. Ever see the lead singer, Andy Bell perform? Check out YouTube. He was notorious for being very suggestive and practically naked on stage but that’s what made him who he was. I added a couple of Erasure tunes to my “playlist” I wanted to have in my market. I wonder too if Andy’s reputation would be enough to put him in the black hole too? It can get silly after awhile how we are going as a society.

I am beginning to understand what many of you have been saying for a long time and why a lot of music radio is so terminal. So much of radio is a numbers game anyway. If a listener doesn’t like an MJ or an Andy Bell, there’s a lot of ho-hum for them to enjoy. That's at least my thiniking but playing it too safe all the time - I don't know - it doesn't sound like a winning long term strategy to me.

 

[gr8oldies]

Again, listeners want what they want at the moment they want it. The best you can do is find a consensus that your target audience likes or will tolerate. There's a station on another button playing a better song, or I have a CD I can plug in. Playing a huge largely unfamiliar playlist, or songs the majority doesn't like makes people leave (despite people on this board who will insist padding the playlist with less popular songs is the road to success...except it never works). In most formats, sadly once you get deeper than 500 or so songs, it's tough to get consensus and especially now, there are way too many choices when a bad song comes on. My "oh wow" is 10000 people's "what the hell is that"?

 

[Gatekeeper007]

You have to have a standard or a starting place on anything, without it you have no basis to judge anything else. Radio is your standard for music, internet, ipod, music downloads, ect... are all different forms of music entertainment but without radio they have no common ground and that is a fact. If you had a world with no radio then one person might think that Rapper A or country music singer X is the greatest thing since the wheel but the rest of the world has never heard of him or her so who cares. The standard that makes this different still today is simple, did you hear them on the radio?, have they made it yet?, anybody can say they are something and in a few cases that might be true but most of the time if your not on the radio when your not anybody at least not yet. Most of the general public will agree with that so radio is still the standard by which everything is set.

 

[adma]

Except, what kind of "standard" or "general public" are we talking about? One thing we have to keep in mind these days is that, compared to 20 plus years ago, the concept of "radio" is much more commonly associated with "talk" than "music". And not just talk: conservative talk. In most cases, far more conservative than the actual demographic profile of the marketplace it broadcasts within.

So it's not merely the general public; it's the available general public--and a sort of "availability" that arguably counter-generates an "unavailability". And by adding the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk to the musical-playlist issues, you might as well say that radio's boxed itself into a demographic corner...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So it's not merely the general public; it's the available general public--and a sort of "availability" that arguably counter-generates an "unavailability". And by adding the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk to the musical-playlist issues, you might as well say that radio's boxed itself into a demographic corner...

You have isolated and latched onto a concept that seems to be overlooked in much of the discussion about radio.

Available General Public.

Radio has focused on "the low hanging fruit" principle. (If you haven't spent time being part of the farm, low hanging fruit my not be as expressive to you! Farmers regularly plow under part of their crop because it is not worth the effort to harvest the hard-to-get fruit or grain. The economics work because The Farmer has exclusive rights to ALL the fruit from his field.)

If ALL radio stations focus on the same Low Hanging Fruit..... the crop gets thin for each station. No one station has exclusive rights to the crop. It is a shared crop. So while we plow under some of the fruit and grain (potential listeners who NEVER turn on the radio, or those who listen very little) now we have more players than ever grabbing their share of the low hanging fruit: In addition to what is probably an over-population of radio stations, we have the steaming, the Podcasting, the satellite radio making each slice of the pie thinner and thinner.

And what we are seeing is that the economics formula shoves us into the failure zone when the pie-pieces get too thin.

Our audience study system (ratings) focuses only on the low hanging fruit. (Actual listeners) What research do we have that tells us which segment of the non-listeners and the seldom listeners could be profitably harvested?

 

[davideduardo]

So it's not merely the general public; it's the available general public--and a sort of "availability" that arguably counter-generates an "unavailability". And by adding the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk to the musical-playlist issues, you might as well say that radio's boxed itself into a demographic corner...

You have isolated and latched onto a concept that seems to be overlooked in much of the discussion about radio.

Available General Public.

Radio has focused on "the low hanging fruit" principle. (If you haven't spent time being part of the farm, low hanging fruit my not be as expressive to you! Farmers regularly plow under part of their crop because it is not worth the effort to harvest the hard-to-get fruit or grain. The economics work because The Farmer has exclusive rights to ALL the fruit from his field.)

If ALL radio stations focus on the same Low Hanging Fruit..... the crop gets thin for each station. No one station has exclusive rights to the crop. It is a shared crop. So while we plow under some of the fruit and grain (potential listeners who NEVER turn on the radio, or those who listen very little) now we have more players than ever grabbing their share of the low hanging fruit: In addition to what is probably an over-population of radio stations, we have the steaming, the Podcasting, the satellite radio making each slice of the pie thinner and thinner.

And what we are seeing is that the economics formula shoves us into the failure zone when the pie-pieces get too thin.

Our audience study system (ratings) focuses only on the low hanging fruit. (Actual listeners) What research do we have that tells us which segment of the non-listeners and the seldom listeners could be profitably harvested?

Both your comment and that of adma should be preserved and periodically reposted. The orchard analogy is most fitting, too.

Just as major radio advertisers don't go after 55+ because it's not economical and productive, radio stations can't fill every niche opportunity because they can't monetize them or the task is to expensive.

 

[TheBigA]

Our audience study system (ratings) focuses only on the low hanging fruit. (Actual listeners) What research do we have that tells us which segment of the non-listeners and the seldom listeners could be profitably harvested?

All of what you say, coupled with the threat of an additional royalty for music, is why so many radio stations are seriously considering getting out of music radio, and why we're seeing a trend of radio stations in a variety of markets switching to news, talk, or sports. Even non-commercial radio, once the home for minority formats like bluegrass, opera, and world music, are switching to news and talk.

 

[amfmxm]

Two thoughts on the general drift of this conversation...

There seems to be an assumption, contrary to all research on the subject, that the radio audience is much smaller than it once was. I'll point to Nielsen's media usage study from Fall '09 (just a couple months ago) showing daily usage at 78 percent and the Arbitron/RADAR 2009 estimate of 92 percent for weekly usage. Radio continues to be absolutely huge. Now, has TSL diminished? And correspondingly, AQH ratings? Yeah... so the task (much as it has been for the past 50 years-or-so) for programmers is to stretch out listening. But the audience is there. Every day. I understand that recognizing this fact would mean nullifying the key arguments for many in this thread. But, hey--as they say--we're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

And, secondly, there is an obvious assumption that the radio business is in the financial shitter. I'm sorry, guys, but I just cannot agree with you on this one. Yes, the Wall Street financing mechanisms have put publicly-held stations in very difficult mortgage positions... which, of course, also relate to their having paid inflated prices for stations/clusters/companies--but that's just general stupidity (as Ron White says, "you can't cure stupid"). And, yes, radio's advertising revenues are down--tied, as they've always been, to retail revenue and ultimately to the general economy. But that's not a "radio" problem. It's a "national" problem--"international," really. All industries, everywhere, have the same problem.

On the street, radio continues to work. Same as it always has.

 

[amfmxm]

Oh, one more thing. Radio ad revenues are on their way back up. Not just us--read the trades, it's happening everywhere.

I'll generally agree that there is a wide divergence of opinion on how radio stations/clusters/companies should be operated. But, again, that sort of conversation has been going on since around 1920.

But as far as the "true health of radio" goes--look, my radio paychecks aren't bouncing, nor are those of my employees. Are yours?

And for those of you now on the outside looking in... I'm sorry, but you've probably got to look to yourselves. And if you want to be back on the inside, figure it out. Change. Adapt. And find your opening.

 

[One Who Knows]

Oh, one more thing. Radio ad revenues are on their way back up. Not just us--read the trades, it's happening everywhere.

I'll generally agree that there is a wide divergence of opinion on how radio stations/clusters/companies should be operated. But, again, that sort of conversation has been going on since around 1920.

But as far as the "true health of radio" goes--look, my radio paychecks aren't bouncing, nor are those of my employees. Are yours?

And for those of you now on the outside looking in... I'm sorry, but you've probably got to look to yourselves. And if you want to be back on the inside, figure it out. Change. Adapt. And find your opening.

Very well said. Being able to adapt is the one trait more radio people have to learn. Also, possessing multiple skills. Today, it's no longer possible to just be a "DJ". You need to have the skills to be a "newsperson" or "programmer" or "webmaster" or even, "salesperson".

Want proof? Look at what's going on in network TV today. ABC wants to fire, er...replace 25% of their news staff.
TV's about to go through what we went through about 10-15 years ago. The networks have decided they can't afford to have people on their staffs who look pretty on camera, but can't write a news story. So, the next crop of "network journalists" will be people who can write, shoot, edit video, then walk around in front of the camera and report...(and yes, I'll bet they'll work for the salaries of about 1.25 people, which is what happened at least in some areas of radio under consolidation.)

Many will probably gripe, whine and grumble on boards like this for years after this happens. But, that's their choice. The ones who adapt...in TV and radio...are the ones who will survive.

 

[gr8oldies]

amfm, I admit sometimes even I get caught up in the "radio is doomed" mindset when I should know better. This board is populated by a lot of "I will not listen, even for a five minute drive to the store to anything I did not personally download and program into my iPod, and neither do any of my friends" folks..makes you wonder why they don't go to "iPod-info.com". I'm not quite ready to believe that the time will come when a high school will not even be able to agree on music for the prom because everyone only listen to hyper-niched formats, ranging from Christian Death Metal to Gay Hip Hop. One would think there will be formats that only five people worldwide will listen to. It's true a lot of people like their personalized musical experience, but maybe not all the time. The trouble with trying to find formats for the people I just mentioned is their tastes are so personalized that, even if radio tries to plug 10,000 songs into their playlist covering every possible sub-niche, who is going to sit through 9,999 songs to get to the one they like?

No one knows what the future is, or what to do to get and keep an audience in the future. I still see sold out concerts that are publicized by radio; and I'm sure our A/C station's Listener Appreciation Lunch will be well attended like it is every year. If "no one" is listening, how could that be happening?

 

[adma]

So it's not merely the general public; it's the available general public--and a sort of "availability" that arguably counter-generates an "unavailability". And by adding the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk to the musical-playlist issues, you might as well say that radio's boxed itself into a demographic corner...

You have isolated and latched onto a concept that seems to be overlooked in much of the discussion about radio.

Available General Public.

Exactly. And Jerry Del Colliano is especially fond of referring to "available listenership"--albeit, given the tone of his spiel, as a thinly veiled euphemism for "whomever's left".

By contrast, the problem I find with a lot of industry apologists is their tendency to refer generically to "people"; perhaps because it makes their audience target appear more universal than it is.

Radio has focused on "the low hanging fruit" principle.

And when it comes to low hanging fruit...you have to remember: trees grow over time. Which means that the quotient of low-hangers relative to the overall yield gets smaller (and maybe "dumber", in the "easy pickings" sense) with each passing year.

Our audience study system (ratings) focuses only on the low hanging fruit. (Actual listeners)

Well, not just actual listeners; actual survey participants--which may, indeed, underline the "low hanging fruit" theory...

 

[Gatekeeper007]

You can talk about listener size in each market till your blue in the face but if you turned off every radio station and said ok we are going to due something better then you would quickly find out that all your other forms of music delivery would fall apart with in a short period of time. Some would say internet could take it's place but guess what it can't at least not yet, it doesn't cover every area or place that it needs to cover. Satellite radio can probly come closest but still it would have a hard time trying to fill the void left behind. As for ipods, downloads, ect... they are not in a position to take the place of radio and if they had to it wouldn't take but just a shot while before people wouldn't be sure what they wanted to download or who to listen to or what songs were current or in style. People would get tired of just downloads and CD's and having to try and keep up with whats current and download them or burn them in order to have them to listen to when now in most of cases they can turn on the radio and hear whats current, whats new, along with whats going on in their area, weather, traffic, local events, and your favorate music, this only comes from one combined place radio.

 

[adma]

As for ipods, downloads, ect... they are not in a position to take the place of radio and if they had to it wouldn't take but just a shot while before people wouldn't be sure what they wanted to download or who to listen to or what songs were current or in style. People would get tired of just downloads and CD's and having to try and keep up with whats current and download them or burn them in order to have them to listen to when now in most of cases they can turn on the radio and hear whats current, whats new, along with whats going on in their area, weather, traffic, local events, and your favorate music, this only comes from one combined place radio.

But maybe...what you're describing is a habit and cultural ritual that's itself by and large out of style--people just don't set their clocks to what's supposedly current/new/in style in pop the way they once might have. Despite how hype may have it, a Katy Perry or Lady Gaga doesn't "loom"--at least, not musically--the way their equivalents might have 25 or 30 years ago, when it could truly pass more as One Nation Under A Casey Kasem Groove...

 

[SirRoxalot]

Fact: If you haven't made it on the radio, you haven't made it to the mass audience.

Not that all artists WANT to appeal to a mass audience. In fact, I think that most artists prefer to make music that THEY'RE satisfied with, not music to satisfy either the audience or the record company. If the mass audience accepts them, it's gratifying, but life becomes more complicated.