Payola's Dead...

[softmachine]

...why does radio still suck?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...dead-so-why-does-radio-remain-a-wasteland.ars

 

[davideduardo]

...why does radio still suck?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...dead-so-why-does-radio-remain-a-wasteland.ars

That is, even by the "play unknown songs by unknown aritsts" crowd's standards, an amazingly disingenuous article.

The part that says, "FMC doesn't chalk this up to continued payola. Instead, the data "reinforce the notion made earlier that major labels' longstanding relationships with radio, and their tacit promise to devote additional resources to a release (tour support, retail placement, ads, sponsorships) incentivizes radio to play their songs more frequently than those of indie labels.""

I have never paid any attention to the retail actdivities of any record company (tour support, retail placements, ads, etc.) as it is irrelevant to the programming of music on the radio. I've never been told "we have prime display space" at WalMart by a record promoter or via record company press releases. Nor do I know anyone who has.

Programmers add new songs based on how good the songs are for their formats.

A few things do matter... if there are too many fast songs, or slow songs, on the list already, that fast or slow song may have to wait a week or two so the total station sound does not get unbalanced. An artist with a history of many hits will have a better chance of immediate adds than an artist with a few hits or none. And, of course, if we are unsure of a song have been holding onto it, but we see some stations we respect add it, we may go on it too. But if we see the song stiffing elsewhere, we may not add it.

More important, new adds are pretty much made by gut feeling, experience and skill as a programmer. But within a few weeks, bigger stations have listener feedback from callout or web-based research and they know whether a song is a keeper or not.

And in most formats, new or current songs are either not part of the format or only a component in it, not the whole base of the format. So stations like that will be by nature conservative in adds because the listeners have proven to be conservative in acceptance of new music.

In the PPM ratings era, all one has to do is look at a station's "dial count" as each song is played and it's easy to realize that 1) all new music is pretty negative at first, and 2) bad songs are easy to spot, and they hurt ratings.

But, the bottom line is that most PDs are blind to the label. The artist is important, the recent history of the artist is important, the sound of the song is important. The size of the label isn't important; radio is in the ad sales business, not the music sales business.

 

[SoulCrusher]

There's no denying it - radio sucks.

Some markets more than others. I would definitely say that the entire Tri-State Area overall has the worst radio my ears have ever had the misfortune of hearing. How many practically identical "lite rock", classic rock, and especially Top 40 stations do we need?

We can speculate endlessly about why FM radio is so terrible ... clueless boneheads running most media outlets, collusion between Sirius XM and some broadcasters to get people to subscribe to satellite radio (hey, someone's got deep pockets over there), tax write-offs, and countless other possibilities.

But I firmly believe that the federal government is at least partially to blame. We can thank the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for turning already large broadcasting outlets like CBS, Citadel, Clear Channel and the like into massive behemoths. In its wake, we have witnessed the birth of McRadio. It is my opinion that this act has contributed to the decline of terrestrial radio, and action must be taken to prevent the potential demise of terrestrial radio.

In 1996, Clear Channel owned only 43 radio stations.
In 2004, Clear Channel owned 1,239 radio stations - making them the largest radio broadcaster in the country.

Read these articles to find out what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has done to radio:

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{...665}/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF
http://www.aftra.org/press/pr_20040128_AFLCIO_study_blasts_CC.html

 

[TheBigA]

In its wake, we have witnessed the birth of McRadio. It is my opinion that this act has contributed to the decline of terrestrial radio, and action must be taken to prevent the potential demise of terrestrial radio.

I'm probably older than you, and I can tell you factually that "McRadio," as you call it, was not born in 1996. It's been around since at least the 60s. Call it what you will, copycat radio, cookie cutter radio, or anything else. It's latest incarnation began with the rise of Top 40 radio in the late 50s. Then the explosion of album rock on FM in the 70s.

I can tell you that the 96 Act had little or no effect on the programming of terrestrial radio. Had it not become law, we would have witnessed the same effect through LMAs, which were the rage in the late 80s.

Say what you will about Clear Channel. They own less than 10% of all radio. And all the major corporate players have been selling off stations, so overall corporate ownership is less than 20%. They just happen to be the most successful and most popular stations, which means they're targets for all the haters. But if they suck so much, why are they so popular? Certainly not because they're the only choice. Listeners have tons of alternatives.

My view is simple: It's hard to talk about music radio without first talking about music. The fact is that most of the music today sucks. It's sucked for a long time. And even though major label music is bad, it's even worse at the indies. How do I know? I listen. The FMC can't understand why more than 50% of the music was released before 1999. The answer is simple: Most of today's music sucks. Why doesn't the FMC direct its attacks at those who make the music instead of those who play it? Unfortunately, we have to listen to it. Have pity on us in radio. Please teach singers how to sing on key, and musicians how to play their instruments. I'm also shocked at the terrible technical quality in some music I receive. These studios don't know how to mic instruments properly.

One has to wonder when a 22 year old college student from Oklahoma can go from waiting tables to winning a TV talent show to selling 10 million records in just 3 years. She won a Grammy for Best New Artist in 2006, and just a few weeks ago was named the ACM's Entertainer of the Year. Carrie Underwood wasn't even a music major in college. Know what her major was? Broadcasting! What does that say about all the music schools in this country? What does this say about all the talent scouts and A&R people looking for new recording artists. They need a TV show to find talent, and then they want to charge radio for playing their music. Fat lot of nerve if you ask me.

I can't understand how the FMC and AFTRA can be against payola, and in favor of the performance royalty. Especially after Jon Simson of SoundExchange has already said he'd use the royalty as a form of reverse payola to give discounts to encourage airplay of new music. That's illegal! He can't influence airplay with a royalty discount! Who is he kidding?

All these people will have nothing to complain about in a few years. The way music is going, its audiences are so splintered, and its costs are so high, no one in radio will play ANY music any more. Then what will the Future of Music do?

 

[neo11]

I'm probably older than you, and I can tell you factually that "McRadio," as you call it, was not born in 1996. It's been around since at least the 60s. Call it what you will, copycat radio, cookie cutter radio, or anything else. It's latest incarnation began with the rise of Top 40 radio in the late 50s. Then the explosion of album rock on FM in the 70s.

I'm sorry to say that older doesn't always mean wiser. And while there may have been copycat radio since the 50s or 60s, what we see today with voicetracking, with the same DJ holding down airshifts in hundreds of markets, etc. is definitely a far more recent phenomenon, especially at the scale it's reached today.

I can tell you that the 96 Act had little or no effect on the programming of terrestrial radio. Had it not become law, we would have witnessed the same effect through LMAs, which were the rage in the late 80s.

See above.

Say what you will about Clear Channel. They own less than 10% of all radio. And all the major corporate players have been selling off stations, so overall corporate ownership is less than 20%. They just happen to be the most successful and most popular stations, which means they're targets for all the haters. But if they suck so much, why are they so popular? Certainly not because they're the only choice. Listeners have tons of alternatives.

They may own less than 10% of all radio, but that's a simplistic argument...like using the 12+ numbers exclusively instead of looking at demo breakdowns to evaluate how a station is doing.

What percentage of *urban* *commercial* signals does CC own? I bet it's much higher than 10%. What about their dominance in certain formats. Don't think that affects programming at all? The same argument can then be expanded to all corporate ownership. What percentage of high-powered and urban signals do these corporations own...you know, the signals that are actually most likely to be moneymakers anyway? What are the percentages after you take the non-commercial stations out of the mix? What about the pea-shooter AM stations that are barely a blip on the radar even in urban areas nowadays?

You mention listeners have tons of alternatives, but is that really true? It's an overused example, but look at what happened in Minot, ND just a few years ago. 6 FM stations, all 6 owned by CC. Doesn't sound like much choice to me! But there's no need to even go as far as Minot. Let's look at the commercial FM dial in NYC:

17 commercial FM stations, out of which:

-5 are owned by Clear Channel
-3 are owned by CBS
-2 are owned by SBS
-3 are owned by Emmis
-1 is owned by Univision
-1 is owned by Citadel
-1 is owned by the NY Times

And the last one is owned by Inner City. Doesn't seem like much diversity to me! In fact, let's take this one step further and look at the viable commercial AM stations.... 570, 660, 710, 770, 880, 1010, 1050, 1130, 1190, 1280, 1560, 1600.

We have three more stations owned by CBS, two owned or managed by Citadel or Disney, two by Salem, one by Buckley, one by Univison, one by Bloomberg. Once again, big corporations dominate, and the independently-owned stations belong to the Arthur Lius of the world.

We can even go one step further and look at the viable suburban signals. Let's use Long Island, itself a #19 market in its own right. The three biggest LI stations belong to CC, Cox and Cox. The Class A stations with the inferior signals (and thus inferior ratings and billing) are mostly left over for the local owners or LMA agreements.

Don't you think that those urban signals, those powerful FM signals are the ones that are most likely to be successful anyway? Are they successful *only* because they are owned by the Clear Channels and CBS Radios and Citadels of the world? Until you can present evidence to prove that, then they will remain ripe for criticism and "hate."

Oh, and if they are so successful, how do you explain how poorly these corporations are all doing now? Look at CC and Citadel for starters.

My view is simple: It's hard to talk about music radio without first talking about music. The fact is that most of the music today sucks. It's sucked for a long time. And even though major label music is bad, it's even worse at the indies. How do I know? I listen. The FMC can't understand why more than 50% of the music was released before 1999. The answer is simple: Most of today's music sucks. Why doesn't the FMC direct its attacks at those who make the music instead of those who play it? Unfortunately, we have to listen to it. Have pity on us in radio. Please teach singers how to sing on key, and musicians how to play their instruments. I'm also shocked at the terrible technical quality in some music I receive. These studios don't know how to mic instruments properly.

This is a purely subjective argument. Whether or not you like today's music or not or think that it's any good, what matters is whether the audiences that radio is targeting think the music is good. I'm sure Z100's listeners think that the Jonas Brothers and Lady Gaga are fantastic, and that's what matters. It wouldn't matter if Z100 was owned by CC or by Joe Schmoe, as long as they played the music the target demographic enjoys.

The issue goes deeper. Radio is becoming less relevant and audiences are not "held hostage" by the music that radio stations decide to play, good or bad. There's a whole universe of music--good, bad, new, old--that can easily be discovered today, and radio hasn't adapted so far. There are still some very successful stations out there for sure, but as a whole the industry is not even close to what it once was, and it's getting worse with each passing year.

One has to wonder when a 22 year old college student from Oklahoma can go from waiting tables to winning a TV talent show to selling 10 million records in just 3 years. She won a Grammy for Best New Artist in 2006, and just a few weeks ago was named the ACM's Entertainer of the Year. Carrie Underwood wasn't even a music major in college. Know what her major was? Broadcasting! What does that say about all the music schools in this country? What does this say about all the talent scouts and A&R people looking for new recording artists. They need a TV show to find talent, and then they want to charge radio for playing their music. Fat lot of nerve if you ask me.

Here we finally agree about the performance royalties.

I can't understand how the FMC and AFTRA can be against payola, and in favor of the performance royalty. Especially after Jon Simson of SoundExchange has already said he'd use the royalty as a form of reverse payola to give discounts to encourage airplay of new music. That's illegal! He can't influence airplay with a royalty discount! Who is he kidding?

All these people will have nothing to complain about in a few years. The way music is going, its audiences are so splintered, and its costs are so high, no one in radio will play ANY music any more. Then what will the Future of Music do?

Agreed, though again, I don't view it only in terms of the quality of music. The more important issue here is the greed and incompetence of both the music industry, including the Jon Simsons of the world, and the radio industry as well.

 

[TheBigA]

the same DJ holding down airshifts in hundreds of markets, etc. is definitely a far more recent phenomenon, especially at the scale it's reached today.

I worked at an automated station in a large market about 25 years ago. No live or local voices. All piped in from out of town. The company that provided the content had hundreds of affiliates. So no, it's nothing new.

What percentage of *urban* *commercial* signals does CC own? I bet it's much higher than 10%. What about their dominance in certain formats.

That's not the point. The point is if they suck, their signal doesn't matter. No one is holding a gun to anyone, forcing them to listen. Yet millions do. And that's why the FMC did this study. They want to influence what the public hears.

You mention listeners have tons of alternatives, but is that really true? It's an overused example, but look at what happened in Minot, ND just a few years ago. 6 FM stations, all 6 owned by CC.

I once did a survey to find out how many towns in the entire country had all radio stations owned by CC, and could only come up with two. In the entire country! I think the other one is in Ohio.

My point is that radio is not the only media alternative available to the public today. Even Minot ND has four TV stations.

Oh, and if they are so successful, how do you explain how poorly these corporations are all doing now? Look at CC and Citadel for starters.

They're successful in the ratings. Ad-supported media in general is doing poorly. Even Bloomberg had to lay people off.

New York is a big city. Its radio stations, for the most part, have always been owned by big corporations. Starting with Westinghouse and AT&T in the 1920s. Sure you can bring up the Hoyt Brothers (WHBI), but some of the biggest companies in the world are headquartered in NYC. Cost of living is not the place for mom & pop, if you know what I mean.

This is a purely subjective argument.

I agree with that, and that's why I think the article at the top of this thread is a load of hooey. No one cares what the Future of Music Coalition thinks.

The issue goes deeper. Radio is becoming less relevant and audiences are not "held hostage" by the music that radio stations decide to play, good or bad. There's a whole universe of music--good, bad, new, old--that can easily be discovered today, and radio hasn't adapted so far.

Which is why the future for music on the radio, as I said, is not very good. Everyone wants their "own private radio station," playing their favorites, and no commercials. Why play music if all it does is alienate your audience?

 

[neo11]

the same DJ holding down airshifts in hundreds of markets, etc. is definitely a far more recent phenomenon, especially at the scale it's reached today.

I worked at an automated station in a large market about 25 years ago. No live or local voices. All piped in from out of town. The company that provided the content had hundreds of affiliates. So no, it's nothing new.

But it still wasn't the norm anywhere close to the level that it is today.

What percentage of *urban* *commercial* signals does CC own? I bet it's much higher than 10%. What about their dominance in certain formats.[/quote.

That's not the point. The point is if they suck, their signal doesn't matter.

Suck according to who? Sometimes it's not how many people are tuning in to a station, but how many people are *not* tuning in to that or any station.

And if you don't think there is a correlation between the quality of a station's signal and its likelihood of success, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

You mention listeners have tons of alternatives, but is that really true? It's an overused example, but look at what happened in Minot, ND just a few years ago. 6 FM stations, all 6 owned by CC.

I once did a survey to find out how many towns in the entire country had all radio stations owned by CC, and could only come up with two. In the entire country! I think the other one is in Ohio. [/quote]

Why don't you show us the results of this survey? It does seem to me that the design is flawed from the outset. Of course there's not many towns out there with *only* CC-owned stations. But there may be many towns where there's one or two additional Class A FM's or peashooter AM's, or where the stations are owned either by CC and another broadcasting behemoth. Did your survey design take that into consideration?

My point is that radio is not the only media alternative available to the public today. Even Minot ND has four TV stations.

Wow, stop the presses. What a revelation! Radio hasn't been the only medium available to the public in several decades...actually never, unless you narrow it down to electronic/broadcast media, and even then, TV's been around since the 40's. What's your point?

Oh, and if they are so successful, how do you explain how poorly these corporations are all doing now? Look at CC and Citadel for starters.

They're successful in the ratings. Ad-supported media in general is doing poorly. Even Bloomberg had to lay people off.

Not always. We've seen CBS Radio's poor performing FM's in NYC as a prime example. And radio's decline began LONG before the decline in ad-supported media overall and the current economic downturn, to use a much-overused phrase.

New York is a big city. Its radio stations, for the most part, have always been owned by big corporations. Starting with Westinghouse and AT&T in the 1920s. Sure you can bring up the Hoyt Brothers (WHBI), but some of the biggest companies in the world are headquartered in NYC. Cost of living is not the place for mom & pop, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps, but do you deny the role the Telecommunications Act had in helping the CC's of the world acquire 3-5 stations each in cities like New York? That would not have been possible prior to 1996.

This is a purely subjective argument.

I agree with that, and that's why I think the article at the top of this thread is a load of hooey. No one cares what the Future of Music Coalition thinks.

The issue goes deeper. Radio is becoming less relevant and audiences are not "held hostage" by the music that radio stations decide to play, good or bad. There's a whole universe of music--good, bad, new, old--that can easily be discovered today, and radio hasn't adapted so far.

Which is why the future for music on the radio, as I said, is not very good. Everyone wants their "own private radio station," playing their favorites, and no commercials. Why play music if all it does is alienate your audience?

But wait, I thought you said the CC and CBS Radio stations out there didn't suck, which is why millions listen to them. Then you say that the music today sucks. Now you say that people want to hear their own private stations, commercial-free. Which is it?

 

[TheBigA]

But it still wasn't the norm anywhere close to the level that it is today.

Sure it was. And far cruder than it is today. Technology has made it better, but not more widespread. There's more hand-wringing about it now, but that doesn't mean it's more widespread. A lot of upset people. Someone moved their cheese. But half of the radio stations on the air in the 70s were automated. Most of the NPR stations around the country have been running various network shows for 30 years. It hasn't hurt them.

And if you don't think there is a correlation between the quality of a station's signal and its likelihood of success, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

When WYNY was on 103.5, it got a 1.6 share, and it's PD complained the signal sucked. When they sold to Broadcast Partners and flipped the format to WKTU, it went to #1. Same signal. Different format.

Why don't you show us the results of this survey? It does seem to me that the design is flawed from the outset.

So do your own survey, and see if you come up with different results. Let me know.

Not always. We've seen CBS Radio's poor performing FM's in NYC as a prime example.

They don't care. FM is gravy to them. It's not like there are loads of formats available that would do substantially better, are there? Sure, someone could take the FMC's advice and do indie radio. But the college stations already have that area covered. No point at trying to take them on.

Perhaps, but do you deny the role the Telecommunications Act had in helping the CC's of the world acquire 3-5 stations each in cities like New York? That would not have been possible prior to 1996.

In the 1960s, there were just a couple thousand radio stations in the entire company. In 1996, that number had quintupled. Lots of companies, like NBC, Westinghouse, and GE, were getting out of radio. In the 60s, a station like WABC could get a 20 share. By the 90s, no one could get more than an 8. AM was in shambles. Something had to be done. We're at a similar point now, but I don't think anyone wants to buy stations any more.

But wait, I thought you said the CC and CBS Radio stations out there didn't suck, which is why millions listen to them. Then you say that the music today sucks. Now you say that people want to hear their own private stations, commercial-free. Which is it?

All of the above, depending on who you ask. We're in a transitional phase now.

 

[neo11]

But it still wasn't the norm anywhere close to the level that it is today.

Sure it was. And far cruder than it is today. Technology has made it better, but not more widespread. There's more hand-wringing about it now, but that doesn't mean it's more widespread. A lot of upset people. Someone moved their cheese. But half of the radio stations on the air in the 70s were automated. Most of the NPR stations around the country have been running various network shows for 30 years. It hasn't hurt them.

We're looking at two slightly different things here, first of all: syndicated programming versus voicetracking or complete automation. Most syndicated programming falls in the realm of talk: NPR programs, or the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world. If the discussion is about national/international issues, it makes sense to have programs and personalities with a national reach. There's also nothing about talk programming that sounds "automated." And until recently, such programming hadn't come at the expense of local news/talk personalities. However, in the past few years, we've seen stations do away with local news departments, fire local personalities and go the easy way out with more and more syndicated fare. Look at WABC as a prime example.

Now, regarding automation: of course I am aware that it has been around for a while. However, you conveniently reach back to the 70s. How many of those stations which originally ran automation later switched to live programming? Why did they switch? Could it be because having live personalities on the air drew more listeners and offset the cost of hiring said personalities? How many of those automated formats were on the same pea-shooter signals that are most likely to be automated today as well? How many of the nation's *premiere* stations were fully automated? How many of those automated stations still employed local sales staff, perhaps even a news team, or aired at least some live programming? How many of those were FM stations in an era where FM had yet to take off? These are all significant questions that you leave unanswered.

And if you don't think there is a correlation between the quality of a station's signal and its likelihood of success, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

When WYNY was on 103.5, it got a 1.6 share, and it's PD complained the signal sucked. When they sold to Broadcast Partners and flipped the format to WKTU, it went to #1. Same signal. Different format.

This is an absolutely ridiculous example to use. Just because some moronic PD complained about the signal to cover for his own station's programming shortcomings, we're going to use this as an example about "bad" versus "good" signals? 103.5's signal, though one of the few that was on the WTC instead of Empire, was essentially equal to the other full-power FM's in NYC. Perhaps that 1.6 had to do with the format and not the signal, but the PD didn't want to own up to the station's failure?

Why don't you show us the results of this survey? It does seem to me that the design is flawed from the outset.

So do your own survey, and see if you come up with different results. Let me know.

Again: why not show us the results of your own survey first, then we'll talk.

Not always. We've seen CBS Radio's poor performing FM's in NYC as a prime example.

They don't care. FM is gravy to them. It's not like there are loads of formats available that would do substantially better, are there? Sure, someone could take the FMC's advice and do indie radio. But the college stations already have that area covered. No point at trying to take them on.

You can absolutely bet that they *do* care. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have pulled the plug on CBS-FM in 2005 (like it or not, billing was going down and the average age of listeners was going up), they wouldn't have pulled the plug on an underperforming Mix 102.7, and they wouldn't have pulled a plug on grossly underperforming formats in Free FM and, later, K-Rock. They do care. The fact that they may be clueless in other ways, such as poor format execution, does not mean that they do not care. Those are two very different things.

And I have to laugh at your assertion about college stations, and not because I disrespect college radio (far from it). But let's look at NYC: which college stations play indie rock? Perhaps WNYU a few hours a day. There's also WNYE, which is not a college station but which rebroadcasts KEXP a few hours a day. Of course, there's more stations in the suburbs, depending on where you live. But with college radio, you often go to the other extreme: very esoteric music with limited mass appeal (not a judgment on whether the music is "good" or not, just a fact). Limited appeal, coupled with limited signals in most cases, and limited promotions, which means that far fewer people can hear the stations and even fewer people know they exist or even bother to look in the 88-92 MHz section of the dial. Not just that, but CBS already operates other stations, such as KROQ in Los Angeles, that fit what many posters here and on other message boards feel would be a good fit in NYC. If you think CBS is holding off because they feel that college radio has got that niche covered, you're sadly delusional.

Perhaps, but do you deny the role the Telecommunications Act had in helping the CC's of the world acquire 3-5 stations each in cities like New York? That would not have been possible prior to 1996.

In the 1960s, there were just a couple thousand radio stations in the entire company. In 1996, that number had quintupled. Lots of companies, like NBC, Westinghouse, and GE, were getting out of radio. In the 60s, a station like WABC could get a 20 share. By the 90s, no one could get more than an 8. AM was in shambles. Something had to be done. We're at a similar point now, but I don't think anyone wants to buy stations any more.

You say something had to be done. Why do you feel that is? Because the likes of NBC and Westinghouse were getting out of radio? It seems to be they had no problems finding buyers for their stations, buyers who were not named Clear Channel and CBS and Emmis and Citadel. KTU, which you referenced above, wasn't launched by Clear Channel, but by a company named Evergreen. And it shot to the top in one ratings book. They didn't need the programming "geniuses" from San Antonio to achieve that, did they? Just like with Z100 and Malrite back in 1983. And even back in 1983, when a station like Z shot to the top, it was not coming anywhere close to a 20 share. If radio had changed, it changed long before 1996. And let's not forget that in 1996, the internet was still essentially in its infancy, and mp3s and streaming radio were still a thing of the future. No satellite radio either. 1996 may not seem like too long ago, but 1996 had many more similarities with the 80s than it did with even 2000 or 2001.

It can also be argued that AM was pretty much in shambles since the early-mid 80s. I'm not sure how you feel the Telecommunications Act somehow revived AM radio, since it's continued to go downhill since then, despite the "expert" programming touches of the likes of Clear Channel.

It seems to me that successful stations were still making lots of money in 1996 without the help of deregulation. Good programming is good programming, and one doesn't need a CC or CBS to achieve that. Your reasoning makes one wonder how radio survived before these guys came on the scene.

But wait, I thought you said the CC and CBS Radio stations out there didn't suck, which is why millions listen to them. Then you say that the music today sucks. Now you say that people want to hear their own private stations, commercial-free. Which is it?

All of the above, depending on who you ask. We're in a transitional phase now.

Nice non-answer. You should go into politics!

 

[Silkie]

Payola's dead except for RIAA. They get their cut if you want to play music on the radio. Wanna play an unknown artist? RIAA gets their cut - however it is worded.

 

[TheBigA]

We're looking at two slightly different things here, first of all: syndicated programming versus voicetracking or complete automation.

Slightly different. But the issue to me is local vs non-local.

How many of those stations which originally ran automation later switched to live programming? Why did they switch? Could it be because having live personalities on the air drew more listeners and offset the cost of hiring said personalities?

And that's what has changed. Not a unique issue to broadcasting. It's been an issue in many more industries for a long time. Technology made it possible. But competition with other cheaper unregulated media made it a necessity. Revenues at radio stations are falling, live and local DJs aren't helping, so they become expendable. At some stations, certain dayparts still bring in lots of money, or certain personalities are simply too valuable. Otherwise, there are other ways to do the same thing.

How many of the nation's *premiere* stations were fully automated? How many of those automated stations still employed local sales staff, perhaps even a news team, or aired at least some live programming? How many of those were FM stations in an era where FM had yet to take off? These are all significant questions that you leave unanswered.

All good questions, and I don't have the time to do an analysis on thousands of stations. But the point is that the radio marketplace has changed. Live personalities didn't prevent that from happening. The needs of the audience has also changed. People don't need local DJs to tell them about new music being made in LA. And the economies of running a radio station has changed. So what do you suggest?

This is an absolutely ridiculous example to use.

Not at all. To anyone who lived in NYC during the time, they will tell you the signal of WYNY wasn't as good as other stations. It wasn't just the comment of a PD. It was a fact. Yet when the format changed, people found a way to listen. Put crap on a great signal, and no one cares.

Again: why not show us the results of your own survey first, then we'll talk.

I did. I said there were only two markets where all the stations were owned by one company. Minot and Youngstown. By the way, the FCC also has a rule about market concentration, so that situation has now changed.

The fact that they may be clueless in other ways, such as poor format execution, does not mean that they do not care. Those are two very different things.

I think you're parsing my words rather than dealing with the issues. As I said, are there other formats available that could give them a 6 share?

If you think CBS is holding off because they feel that college radio has got that niche covered, you're sadly delusional.

I think they're holding off because the cost of blowing up a station won't offset any improvement. It goes back to my point that just about everything is being done. Indie rock is a limited appeal format, the audience has shown itself to be fickle and unwilling to sit through commercials, and is not going to get them more than a 1.8. So why bother? They made the change at K-Rock, and we'll see what happens. But the fact is that music formats on the radio, especially those aiming at people under 40, are going to have limited success. That was something that the FMC study didn't even mention.

You say something had to be done. Why do you feel that is?

Because, as I said, the number of stations had quintupled in just ten years. Too many stations in a town and splintering of audiences by format was driving down shares. So it would take five stations to get the same size audience as they used to get with just one or two. My WABC example was the most obvious. But it was a problem everywhere.

And let's not forget that in 1996, the internet was still essentially in its infancy, and mp3s and streaming radio were still a thing of the future. No satellite radio either. 1996 may not seem like too long ago, but 1996 had many more similarities with the 80s than it did with even 2000 or 2001.

Even the FMC, no friend of consolidation, points out that radio audiences reached their peak in 1988. One of the motivations of the 96 Act was all the new technologies on the horizon, from the internet to satellite to cell phones. That's what opened the door to even considering new legislation. Al Gore went on TV and said he thought it was crazy that broadcasting was still operating under the same rules that had been written in 1934, before TV. He felt something needed to be done to modernize regulation. At the same time, broadcasters could see their shares dropping. The FCC had already begun adjusting by changing ownership limits in the 80s. So that's how it happened.

It can also be argued that AM was pretty much in shambles since the early-mid 80s. I'm not sure how you feel the Telecommunications Act somehow revived AM radio.

It required companies to buy AM stations if they bought FMs. All the companies just wanted to buy FMs. The government required them to buy AMs too, in order to use some of the money made from FM to keep AM on the air. At least that was the intent. Read the law.

It seems to me that successful stations were still making lots of money in 1996 without the help of deregulation. Good programming is good programming, and one doesn't need a CC or CBS to achieve that. Your reasoning makes one wonder how radio survived before these guys came on the scene.

As I said, radio was already in decline by the end of the 80s. That's why NBC got out. New owner GE could see no growth there. But I put a lot of responsibility on government. Bad regulation in the 80s cheapened the value of radio licenses. They attempted to fix that with more bad regulation. It was the government that sought deregulation, not the owners. It was in the Contract With America that got the Republicans elected in 1994. The Democrats also wanted it because they saw themselves as the technology party. So it was a bi-partisan plan that sailed through both Houses. It worked pretty well for 5 years, and then the new technologies came in that were far more devastating than broadcasters anticipated. That's where we are now.

 

[Dick Skinner]

...why does radio still suck?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...dead-so-why-does-radio-remain-a-wasteland.ars

That is, even by the "play unknown songs by unknown aritsts" crowd's standards, an amazingly disingenuous article.

The part that says, "FMC doesn't chalk this up to continued payola. Instead, the data "reinforce the notion made earlier that major labels' longstanding relationships with radio, and their tacit promise to devote additional resources to a release (tour support, retail placement, ads, sponsorships) incentivizes radio to play their songs more frequently than those of indie labels.""

I have never paid any attention to the retail actdivities of any record company (tour support, retail placements, ads, etc.) as it is irrelevant to the programming of music on the radio. I've never been told "we have prime display space" at WalMart by a record promoter or via record company press releases. Nor do I know anyone who has.

Programmers add new songs based on how good the songs are for their formats.

A few things do matter... if there are too many fast songs, or slow songs, on the list already, that fast or slow song may have to wait a week or two so the total station sound does not get unbalanced. An artist with a history of many hits will have a better chance of immediate adds than an artist with a few hits or none. And, of course, if we are unsure of a song have been holding onto it, but we see some stations we respect add it, we may go on it too. But if we see the song stiffing elsewhere, we may not add it.

More important, new adds are pretty much made by gut feeling, experience and skill as a programmer. But within a few weeks, bigger stations have listener feedback from callout or web-based research and they know whether a song is a keeper or not.

And in most formats, new or current songs are either not part of the format or only a component in it, not the whole base of the format. So stations like that will be by nature conservative in adds because the listeners have proven to be conservative in acceptance of new music.

In the PPM ratings era, all one has to do is look at a station's "dial count" as each song is played and it's easy to realize that 1) all new music is pretty negative at first, and 2) bad songs are easy to spot, and they hurt ratings.

But, the bottom line is that most PDs are blind to the label. The artist is important, the recent history of the artist is important, the sound of the song is important. The size of the label isn't important; radio is in the ad sales business, not the music sales business.

Thanks, David, for stating what I've been too lazy to articulate in these pages.

There's another reason the process favors major label releases over independents: In marketing it's called profile.

Atlantic sends me three or four CD pros of each song they're working. I get numerous weekly calls, voicemails and email updates from national and local label reps. The artist swings by the station with lunch for the staff, plays a mini-concert in our conference room and, if warranted, makes an on-air appearance. I'm invited to see the band play at a local venue. Every one of these impressions impacts my awareness of the act and brings that record's profile to top-of-mind in my next music meeting. This is the nature of effective promotion and the costs are enormous.

Your typical indie label sends me a copy of the full CD in a mailer with a printed one-sheet directing me to a lead track or two. I might get a call from an under-informed "head of promotion" who knows little or nothing about my station, and rarely is there any follow-up. The result is little or no profile. By the way, I take or return all calls regardless of label. The point is that most independent labels are ill equipped to compete in the marketplace. They don't wield the budgets or experience to impact the programming community. They simply lack the resources to run with the big dogs.

And before you jump up and assert that it's our job to give all this music the attention it deserves, know that we're overwhelmed with multiple station responsibilities, airshifts, promotional appearances, meetings, airchecks, and the list goes on. There literally aren't enough hours in the day to screen every record that comes through the door And if your indie band is blowing up at iTunes, it's your job to make us aware of it. If there's something going on with a record, I want to know about it. I like breaking records; who doesn't?

Oh, and for the record, radio's problems today are more a function of mismanaged debt and a weakened economy than its failure to embrace every new record that every indie label can churn out. Look at which channels on satellite radio garner the highest ratings. It's not the boutique formats; it's the channels that present a mass appeal product.

So, go ahead and tell me how much I suck for participating in such an evil and corrupt system. It is what it is and all the whining won't change a thing.

 

[Silkie]

And before you jump up and assert that it's our job to give all this music the attention it deserves, know that we're overwhelmed with multiple station responsibilities, airshifts, promotional appearances, meetings, airchecks, and the list goes on. There literally aren't enough hours in the day to screen every record that comes through the door

You must be the manager or the owner.

It is what it is and all the whining won't change a thing.

 

[softmachine]

Thanks, David, for stating what I've been too lazy to articulate in these pages.

There's another reason the process favors major label releases over independents: In marketing it's called profile.

Atlantic sends me three or four CD pros of each song they're working. I get numerous weekly calls, voicemails and email updates from national and local label reps. The artist swings by the station with lunch for the staff, plays a mini-concert in our conference room and, if warranted, makes an on-air appearance. I'm invited to see the band play at a local venue. Every one of these impressions impacts my awareness of the act and brings that record's profile to top-of-mind in my next music meeting. This is the nature of effective promotion and the costs are enormous.

Your typical indie label sends me a copy of the full CD in a mailer with a printed one-sheet directing me to a lead track or two. I might get a call from an under-informed "head of promotion" who knows little or nothing about my station, and rarely is there any follow-up. The result is little or no profile. By the way, I take or return all calls regardless of label. The point is that most independent labels are ill equipped to compete in the marketplace. They don't wield the budgets or experience to impact the programming community. They simply lack the resources to run with the big dogs.

And before you jump up and assert that it's our job to give all this music the attention it deserves, know that we're overwhelmed with multiple station responsibilities, airshifts, promotional appearances, meetings, airchecks, and the list goes on. There literally aren't enough hours in the day to screen every record that comes through the door And if your indie band is blowing up at iTunes, it's your job to make us aware of it. If there's something going on with a record, I want to know about it. I like breaking records; who doesn't?

Oh, and for the record, radio's problems today are more a function of mismanaged debt and a weakened economy than its failure to embrace every new record that every indie label can churn out. Look at which channels on satellite radio garner the highest ratings. It's not the boutique formats; it's the channels that present a mass appeal product.

So, go ahead and tell me how much I suck for participating in such an evil and corrupt system. It is what it is and all the whining won't change a thing.

Why not quit radio and do yard work instead? At least the crap you push around will grow something.

 

[davideduardo]

You must be the manager or the owner.

No, he sounds like any PD. In today's economy, PDs don't have a lot of help, and often program several stations. The first responsibility is to protect the license, by making sure all reules are observed. Then the job is to deliver to sales a product that attracts as many listeners as possible.

Selling records or breaking artists is not one of a PDs responsibilities. However, when discovering artists will attract listeners, something it will not do in most formats, then it is a minor responsibility.

 

[adma]

My view is simple: It's hard to talk about music radio without first talking about music. The fact is that most of the music today sucks. It's sucked for a long time. And even though major label music is bad, it's even worse at the indies. How do I know? I listen. The FMC can't understand why more than 50% of the music was released before 1999. The answer is simple: Most of today's music sucks. Why doesn't the FMC direct its attacks at those who make the music instead of those who play it? Unfortunately, we have to listen to it. Have pity on us in radio. Please teach singers how to sing on key, and musicians how to play their instruments. I'm also shocked at the terrible technical quality in some music I receive. These studios don't know how to mic instruments properly.

Though is this a matter of "commercial music radio", or "commercial radio music"? Maybe we're also talking about a shift in values that's a little more complicated than "sucking" versus "not sucking".

For instance, there may be an argument that when it comes to technical quality + mass reach, commercial music radio/radio music peaked about 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a "peak" that now tends to be ridiculed as Yacht Rock or whatever; and it was already then being deemed squaresville then by those who were championing punk/new wave/whatever-the-roots-of-indie may be.

And I hate to say it, but however much I would have supported the Clash and Ramones on principle 30 years ago, if I were to have listened to their fare with 70s-style "radio ears", it really did sound meager, cramped and barren.

Yet the paradigm--a paradigm--shifted in that direction anyway. And as it turned out, away from the need to validate itself through commercial radio, i.e. better the sloppy "authenticity" of the Ramones/Clash than the slick sleazeball radio-friendly professionalism of Toto...

 

[TheBigA]

Though is this a matter of "commercial music radio", or "commercial radio music"? Maybe we're also talking about a shift in values that's a little more complicated than "sucking" versus "not sucking".

I just see a rise in more music for fewer people, such as lots of artists who aim what they do for small groups of dedicated fans. Rather than the emphasis on creating mega acts who could play stadiums. I don't know many acts who've begun in the last 15 years who could headline stadiums (except for country stars). But take a dozen acts from the 80s, and they could all do it, from Bon Jovi to Springsteen to U2 to the Police to the Stones.

Part of me wonders if this is because the record labels (RCA, Columbia, and MCA) are no longer owned by American media giants, but rather foreign companies. Has the focus of these companies changed because of foreign ownership and the lack of a connection to American media? Outside of country, most artists that have been launched in the last 15-20 years don't do a lot of radio visits or interviews. They mainly do TV, internet, and print. I notice the labels have been firing radio promo staffs. And then they wonder why radio doesn't play their music. They don't seem to work radio as hard as they once did.

 

[adma]

Though is this a matter of "commercial music radio", or "commercial radio music"? Maybe we're also talking about a shift in values that's a little more complicated than "sucking" versus "not sucking".

I just see a rise in more music for fewer people, such as lots of artists who aim what they do for small groups of dedicated fans. Rather than the emphasis on creating mega acts who could play stadiums. I don't know many acts who've begun in the last 15 years who could headline stadiums (except for country stars). But take a dozen acts from the 80s, and they could all do it, from Bon Jovi to Springsteen to U2 to the Police to the Stones.

Part of me wonders if this is because the record labels (RCA, Columbia, and MCA) are no longer owned by American media giants, but rather foreign companies. Has the focus of these companies changed because of foreign ownership and the lack of a connection to American media? Outside of country, most artists that have been launched in the last 15-20 years don't do a lot of radio visits or interviews. They mainly do TV, internet, and print. I notice the labels have been firing radio promo staffs. And then they wonder why radio doesn't play their music. They don't seem to work radio as hard as they once did.

Or maybe, again, it's just the shift in values: after all, "corporate rock" and the excesses of the culture of mega-acts and selling-out-stadiums were being lambasted by a certain potent grassroots even before foreign ownership took effect. And in fact, you'll find that a lot of them don't even care any longer whether commercial radio plays their music, because their "small groups of dedicated fans" make for a manageable base without all the gee-whillikers-I-just-won-the-lottery excesses.

And it's probably also telling that country is the last true bastion of things working "the old way", given its association w/old tyme retro values, etc--"conservative music radio", so to speak.

 

[videokilledtheradiostar]

But it still wasn't the norm anywhere close to the level that it is today.

Sure it was. And far cruder than it is today. Technology has made it better, but not more widespread. There's more hand-wringing about it now, but that doesn't mean it's more widespread. A lot of upset people. Someone moved their cheese. But half of the radio stations on the air in the 70s were automated. Most of the NPR stations around the country have been running various network shows for 30 years. It hasn't hurt them.

We're looking at two slightly different things here, first of all: syndicated programming versus voicetracking or complete automation. Most syndicated programming falls in the realm of talk: NPR programs, or the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world. If the discussion is about national/international issues, it makes sense to have programs and personalities with a national reach. There's also nothing about talk programming that sounds "automated." And until recently, such programming hadn't come at the expense of local news/talk personalities. However, in the past few years, we've seen stations do away with local news departments, fire local personalities and go the easy way out with more and more syndicated fare. Look at WABC as a prime example.

Now, regarding automation: of course I am aware that it has been around for a while. However, you conveniently reach back to the 70s. How many of those stations which originally ran automation later switched to live programming? Why did they switch? Could it be because having live personalities on the air drew more listeners and offset the cost of hiring said personalities? How many of those automated formats were on the same pea-shooter signals that are most likely to be automated today as well? How many of the nation's *premiere* stations were fully automated? How many of those automated stations still employed local sales staff, perhaps even a news team, or aired at least some live programming? How many of those were FM stations in an era where FM had yet to take off? These are all significant questions that you leave unanswered.

And if you don't think there is a correlation between the quality of a station's signal and its likelihood of success, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

When WYNY was on 103.5, it got a 1.6 share, and it's PD complained the signal sucked. When they sold to Broadcast Partners and flipped the format to WKTU, it went to #1. Same signal. Different format.

This is an absolutely ridiculous example to use. Just because some moronic PD complained about the signal to cover for his own station's programming shortcomings, we're going to use this as an example about "bad" versus "good" signals? 103.5's signal, though one of the few that was on the WTC instead of Empire, was essentially equal to the other full-power FM's in NYC. Perhaps that 1.6 had to do with the format and not the signal, but the PD didn't want to own up to the station's failure?

Why don't you show us the results of this survey? It does seem to me that the design is flawed from the outset.

So do your own survey, and see if you come up with different results. Let me know.

Again: why not show us the results of your own survey first, then we'll talk.

Not always. We've seen CBS Radio's poor performing FM's in NYC as a prime example.

They don't care. FM is gravy to them. It's not like there are loads of formats available that would do substantially better, are there? Sure, someone could take the FMC's advice and do indie radio. But the college stations already have that area covered. No point at trying to take them on.

You can absolutely bet that they *do* care. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have pulled the plug on CBS-FM in 2005 (like it or not, billing was going down and the average age of listeners was going up), they wouldn't have pulled the plug on an underperforming Mix 102.7, and they wouldn't have pulled a plug on grossly underperforming formats in Free FM and, later, K-Rock. They do care. The fact that they may be clueless in other ways, such as poor format execution, does not mean that they do not care. Those are two very different things.

And I have to laugh at your assertion about college stations, and not because I disrespect college radio (far from it). But let's look at NYC: which college stations play indie rock? Perhaps WNYU a few hours a day. There's also WNYE, which is not a college station but which rebroadcasts KEXP a few hours a day. Of course, there's more stations in the suburbs, depending on where you live. But with college radio, you often go to the other extreme: very esoteric music with limited mass appeal (not a judgment on whether the music is "good" or not, just a fact). Limited appeal, coupled with limited signals in most cases, and limited promotions, which means that far fewer people can hear the stations and even fewer people know they exist or even bother to look in the 88-92 MHz section of the dial. Not just that, but CBS already operates other stations, such as KROQ in Los Angeles, that fit what many posters here and on other message boards feel would be a good fit in NYC. If you think CBS is holding off because they feel that college radio has got that niche covered, you're sadly delusional.

Perhaps, but do you deny the role the Telecommunications Act had in helping the CC's of the world acquire 3-5 stations each in cities like New York? That would not have been possible prior to 1996.

In the 1960s, there were just a couple thousand radio stations in the entire company. In 1996, that number had quintupled. Lots of companies, like NBC, Westinghouse, and GE, were getting out of radio. In the 60s, a station like WABC could get a 20 share. By the 90s, no one could get more than an 8. AM was in shambles. Something had to be done. We're at a similar point now, but I don't think anyone wants to buy stations any more.

You say something had to be done. Why do you feel that is? Because the likes of NBC and Westinghouse were getting out of radio? It seems to be they had no problems finding buyers for their stations, buyers who were not named Clear Channel and CBS and Emmis and Citadel. KTU, which you referenced above, wasn't launched by Clear Channel, but by a company named Evergreen. And it shot to the top in one ratings book. They didn't need the programming "geniuses" from San Antonio to achieve that, did they? Just like with Z100 and Malrite back in 1983. And even back in 1983, when a station like Z shot to the top, it was not coming anywhere close to a 20 share. If radio had changed, it changed long before 1996. And let's not forget that in 1996, the internet was still essentially in its infancy, and mp3s and streaming radio were still a thing of the future. No satellite radio either. 1996 may not seem like too long ago, but 1996 had many more similarities with the 80s than it did with even 2000 or 2001.

It can also be argued that AM was pretty much in shambles since the early-mid 80s. I'm not sure how you feel the Telecommunications Act somehow revived AM radio, since it's continued to go downhill since then, despite the "expert" programming touches of the likes of Clear Channel.

It seems to me that successful stations were still making lots of money in 1996 without the help of deregulation. Good programming is good programming, and one doesn't need a CC or CBS to achieve that. Your reasoning makes one wonder how radio survived before these guys came on the scene.

But wait, I thought you said the CC and CBS Radio stations out there didn't suck, which is why millions listen to them. Then you say that the music today sucks. Now you say that people want to hear their own private stations, commercial-free. Which is it?

All of the above, depending on who you ask. We're in a transitional phase now.

Nice non-answer. You should go into politics!

You will NEVER get a straight answer out of anyone that works in radio management. So forget about it! They are all double talking, gutless, weasels.

 

[Silkie]

You will NEVER get a straight answer out of anyone that works in radio management. So forget about it! They are all double talking, gutless, weasels.

Sooooo...give us your honest opinion.

I will now go and duck under the table.