passion

[aaronk]

So, you've reduced a discussion over the fact that most people - especially people under 30 - no longer relate to radio, to an arguement over playlist size.

Nice. Carry on with business as usual. Your stock is still sinking, and your TSL is still dwindling.

I'm not really in a position to claim that listeners are "no longer relating," since I've only been in the industry for 14 years. I started when I was 15, so I'm just under the 30-year-old mark. I don't remember what radio was like in the mid- to late-80s, although I remember listening a lot when I was a kid. I became fascinated with music and records even at the young age of three! So even back then, I was probably not the "average" user of radio.

As far as stock prices go, there's no denying that a few major companies are in serious financial trouble, especially Citadel and Cumulus. But I'm also in no position to directly correlate poor stock performance with the content of what's on the air today.

...falling TSL tells us that they tune out because of the lack of entertainment value.

This is certainly one explanation, and it appears to be a valid one. We just need the data to back it up. So, where do we get that data? Are there any stations that you think are providing better entertainment value than their competitors? What stations are they? How are the ratings of those stations? I REALLY want to believe that we CAN get people to listen longer if we provide more entertainment value (larger playlists, better talent, etc.). I'm not in programming, nor am I a VP or CEO. All I am concerned about is winning, and the winner is the one with the better numbers.

 

[12 In a Row]

So, you've reduced a discussion over the fact that most people - especially people under 30 - no longer relate to radio, to an arguement over playlist size.

Nice. Carry on with business as usual. Your stock is still sinking, and your TSL is still dwindling.

Why so bitter?

You've stated you're still on the air. You're still collecting a nice paycheck.
You're not willing to put your money, on the line and prove us wrong.

Sitting around complaining about successful people making more money than you.
placing the blame but doing nothing gives gets you nowhere.

I hope you don't become the guy yelling at the kids to "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"

 

[Roger That]

Looking back to when radio WAS more successful, we find that there was more content that was entertaining and relatable to the listener.

At the risk of getting lashed out at, can you provide examples? I don't happen to agree (at all), but am interested in knowing what you personally feel was compelling about the content in that era. I'd argue that the breaks a lot of jocks are doing now are eerily similar to that of 20 years ago, and that lack of evolution is what has caused a lot of the issues we're facing with content today.

But I digress...would love to hear your examples...

 

[12 In a Row]

Looking back to when radio WAS more successful, we find that there was more content that was entertaining and relatable to the listener.

At the risk of getting lashed out at, can you provide examples? I don't happen to agree (at all), but am interested in knowing what you personally feel was compelling about the content in that era. I'd argue that the breaks a lot of jocks are doing now are eerily similar to that of 20 years ago, and that lack of evolution is what has caused a lot of the issues we're facing with content today.

But I digress...would love to hear your examples...

Roger, I agree and if anyone needs to jog the memory bank, log on to

northeastairchecks.com/

Jocks from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and now.
As time goes on, we tend to develop selective memory.


Listen in and hear for yourself. With a few exceptions, awful then, awful now.

 

[aaronk]

northeastairchecks.com ...With a few exceptions, awful then, awful now.

Thanks for the link. I just clicked on a few random ones from major markets: New York, Boston, etc. You're exactly right. They were awful then!

 

[TheBigA]

So, high cume tells us that young people still tune in to radio hoping to hear new music, and falling TSL tells us that they tune out because of the lack of entertainment value.

You know that for a fact? I've watched people tune out programming they like simply because their cell phone rang. Or because something in their real life (ie, their baby crying) takes priority over the radio.

If a talk station has high cume, it's not because people are tuning in for new music. If that's the reason, they'll be very disappointed.

So far, the only thing proven is that YOU don't have a solution to falling stock prices and dwindling TSL.

I asked for your solutions, and this is how you respond?

Looking back to when radio WAS more successful, we find that there was more content that was entertaining and relatable to the listener.

That may be your recollection, but not factual. More than 3000 radio stations were automated during that time. And there were only 7000 stations licensed at that time.

But, pay no attention to any idea that doesn't fit your pre-determined corporate pathway to (your) wealth.

I don't know who you think you're talking to, but my "wealth" doesn't come from radio. Thankfully.

 

[TheBigA]

falling TSL tells us that they tune out because of the lack of entertainment value.

This is certainly one explanation, and it appears to be a valid one. We just need the data to back it up.

He obviously doesn't have data. Just opinion. The reality is that TSL varies depending on format, market, and even time of day or day of the week. Talk stations have great TSL. Some music formats have great TSL. We find that TSL is higher in different dayparts. Some stations control TSL by their format clock. So I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about can make a generalization about TSL.

As far as stock prices go, there's no denying that a few major companies are in serious financial trouble, especially Citadel and Cumulus. But I'm also in no position to directly correlate poor stock performance with the content of what's on the air today.

You're exactly right. Investors don't by stock based on program content. I also wouldn't connect stock price with the financial viability of a company. Cash flow and profits are still very good, although it hasn't been growing. That's what the stock price reflects.

 

[aaronk]

I also wouldn't connect stock price with the financial viability of a company. Cash flow and profits are still very good, although it hasn't been growing. That's what the stock price reflects.

Good point.

 

[davideduardo]

Listen in and hear for yourself. With a few exceptions, awful then, awful now.

Yep. I listen to some of the airchecks of stations I programmed or ran, and am embarassed. One, which had shares over 50 at night in the 60's, is unlistenable.

Like oldies songs, a few are still good but most stink today.

 

[porkythepig]

To quote a post from a poster named John Galt, err JohnGault:

There are some very smart posters on this board. I'll bet most of them have seen this before:

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"We'll see," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"We'll see," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"We'll see," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

"We'll see" said the farmer.

The moral of the story is open for your interpretation. It could mean that the story is ever unfolding, with many twists and turns. It could mean that things might turn out differently than you expect, especially those who are quick to judge. It definately means that both good and bad things happen to everyone.

I for one, argue that Radio needs more and bigger stars, and to keep the stars it has. It's not about the money, and yet it is all about the money. That is the paradox. Pay is determined at time of agreement by the marketplace.

This story is still unfolding. I have not read the next chapter.

"We'll see".

Welcome to the jungle, we've got fun and games.

This is the wailing wall of radio, friend. The village square. Where town criers come to hail the news, hawk their opinions an debate runs free. Village idiots and savants all in one place. I've played both parts. It's somewhat like Parliament (without George Clinton, Bootsy Powell & Funkadelic) wherein there's ribald debate over just about every issue.

An' every once in a while, we tear the roof off the sucker. Unlike Fox Noise, we ain't fair and balanced.

One thing about this board, it has some of the best writers and well-weighed, knowledgeable opinions of all available boards. Seems like most of the people here know how to construct a sentence, frame an argument and present their cases. Hell, even verbs and nouns match most times and people know how to spell.

tho we gt txt postrs 2, f u no wht i mn... np jd w it