TheBigA said:
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the question: What is entertaining? And what's entertaining for one person won't work for someone else. That's the problem with a diverse audience that has narrowcasted itself into small tribes that aren't big enough for advertising support. At least with music, you can quantify what works. But tell what you think is a funny joke, and you alienate half of your audience, with another 20% ready to file a lawsuit. The unemployement lines are filled with former DJs who thought they were entertainers.
Look at what's working in talk radio, and you'll understand what might work in music radio. The best talk show hosts are those who have built up a fan base through a unique style, and a certain level of credibility. That's what's missing with most on air talent. They don't live the lifestyle, they aren't in the lifegroup, and they work isolated in a studio with a fake name and don't interact with their listeners. They don't have a personal relationship with the music they play, or the people who listen. That's not going to work. No one cares what that person has to say. We all know the public doesn't trust the media. That's what a DJ represents. Unless you can separate yourself from the radio you're on, you are just another piece of spam in their inbox.
So now that you know what you have to do...how do you feel now?
Back in the day, show business relied on people with an intuitive feel for the mood of the public. Some say that the early show business professionals knew what the public taste was, other say that they shaped the public taste. Regardless of the branch of show business, vaudeville, motion pictures, music recordings, radio, television, live theatre, or even circuses, the decisions were made by people who took risks on their own instincts, and whose careers rose and fell based on their track records. The old-time greats in show business, from E.F. Albee to Flo Ziegfeld, didn't use focus groups or scientific research to make decisions about whether or not a performer was entertaining or not. They relied on their own perceptions and instincts. In radio, there were people who used their own gut instincts to pick songs, and the ones who were good at it got promotions and raises, and the ones who weren't were fired and replaced.
Then the corporations took over, and instead of people making decisions, you had empty suits (often made of grey flannel) who had no minds or perceptions of their own, but who instead attempted to reduce the art of entertaining people to a numerical equation. Songs aren't picked based on their sound, as evaluated by someone who has proven they have the knack by virtue of their track record. They're picked by a computer program. It's like picking food for a restaurant by running a chemical analysis on the ingredients.
But that's not the only problem. There was a time when DJ's saw themselves as working in a branch of show business. They understood the synergy between working on the air in radio and doing stand up in a club, even if only occasionally. A DJ's first interest was in being entertaining. He learned what made people laugh by making people laugh in person. Then, when he was locked away in that little room, he had some foundation to rely on in knowing whether a bit would work or not.
For the most part, those days are also gone. Now, DJ's see themselves as "radio professionals". No longer is their ambition to break out of radio and move up to being a TV game show host, or maybe landing a role in a sitcom or becoming a good enough stand up comedian to make a living in night clubs. Now, the typical DJ's ambition is to become a PD so he doesn't have to pull an air shift, and can instead look at graphs and printouts to make decisions.
It's no wonder broadcast radio is going down the toilet.
