Predictions For Radio In 2006

[Mark_Giardina]

* These are just my personal observations. Please feel free to add your own opinions not only about Rochester radio but Buffalo as well.


WHAM and WBEE will continue to battle for first place in the ratings.

The Zone’s morning show will experience a major decline in audience now that Stern has gone to Sirius. I just don’t see “Rover” generating a solid following in Rochester. It will be interesting to see if Wease will pick up some of that audience.

Public radio’s ratings will average around a 2 share, which is still below the over 3 share both stations once enjoyed. Don’t expect to see any programming changes at WXXI radio but I can’t say the same when it comes to on-air personnel.

Some people have wondered if Air America on WROC-AM has taken audience away from WXXI. We might get a clearer picture if that scenario is true or not with the release of the ratings in 2006.

WYSL should have its 20kw transmitter up and running in 2006. With a much stronger signal into Rochester, it will be interesting to see what impact that station will have on other news/talk operations.

I’m keeping a close eye on the CBS Radio stations in Rochester. If you remember back in 2005, parent company Viacom promised to shed their radio properties not in the top 25 markets. Well Rochester isn’t in the top 25 market. So is there a “For Sale” sign in the future?


I hope that someone will keep statistics to determine if there is more of erosion in radio listenership from 2005 to 2006. Also how many people have switched from terrestrial to satellite radio, or have abandoned radio altogether for CD’s or I pods.

Finally let me take this opportunity to wish all of you a Happy New Year!






<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[Element9]

Maybe we need more of a prognosis than a prognostication. Is the state of radio really that seriously afflicted? The debate goes on as to the problems facing the terrestrial AM-FM radio business and just what direction the medium will have to take in order to survive not only for the New Year but the next ten years.

Think about where we were ten years ago and ask yourself where we’ll be ten years from now. Some readers will laugh and say, “Hopefully, retired.” Others might sigh and say, “Probably out of the business.”

Cogent arguments are offered from both sides of the argument. The pessimists offer that radio is in deep trouble because of competition from satellite, XM and Sirius, developing broadband as well as the presence of the iPod, which seems to be springing forth like kudzu in Mississippi. Optimists counter that radio will continue to survive and thrive because, after all is said and done, it’s survived the onslaught of television, cable, eight track tapes, cassettes and CD’s.

The truth lies somewhere between these two camps. I may be wrong, but from my perspective it looks like most of the problems facing the business are self-inflicted. Radio has been killing itself. Yet it’s far from dead, primarily because its initial condition not so many years ago was reasonably healthy and robust.

It isn’t as if radio in any form, AM, FM, News-Talk, AOR, Classic Rock, CHR, AAA, Active Rock, Country, Urban or A-C is on death’s door. Some formats, like Active Rock and CHR may be more precariously perched because they’re joined at the hip to the whims of the music industry. (I’m thinking Sam Goody and Media Play here.) Yes, advertisers still buy and salesmen and women still sell. Commission checks get printed and cashed and CEO’s still wear Armani suits. We’re on a slippery slope and it’s not getting any more secure.

Arguably, it started the moment some voices uttered the words, “More music, less talk!” We inflicted even more damage on ourselves when another voice repeated the words, “Another commercial free hour of back-to-back soft rock favorites from yesterday and today.”

I’ve heard a number of analysts and listeners say radio lacks honesty. We’re like a drunk who tells anybody who’ll listen that he’s going on the wagon after just one more drink, which always seems to lead to one more binge. We’ll lie to our sponsors, our listeners and to ourselves just to make it through the day, the week, the month, the quarter. I think this is a harsh assessment, but the logic can be easily seen.

The problem lies not only with radio (and TV) because it’s the same in banking, real estate, the housing industry and most notably over the last year, the U.S. auto industry.

We’d do ourselves a lot of good if we treated our customers and listeners like they had an inkling of what we’re up to rather than the nudge and a wink they usually get from us, because they really do have an inkling. It’s going to take a lot more than a Madonna or Rolling Stones “I heard it first, free on the radio” campaign to turn this battleship around. Listeners let us know they’re hip to the game when they buy iPods, CDs, mp3 players and cell phones that will soon be radios, digital streams and cable and Internet streaming. Is this the first step in the exodus?

The radio business survived and arguably won the war with cassettes and eight tracks. But compared to today’s technology, that battle was fought with conventional warfare. Today, we’re in guerilla war mode and the I-E-D’s are there at every step. The old rules don’t apply as fittingly as they might have 20 years ago. That’s easier said and written about than done, but it needs to be done.

Here’s one very small example: How many times have you listened to your favorite radio station, whether it’s WJYE or WRRM, and heard a bumper, promo or sweeper done by the big voice guy telling you “it’s more at work lite rock…” followed by ABBA? Tell me a good jock can’t creative position the station LIVE with a similar approach?

Another thing. Why must listeners be subjected to the same three ^*insert artist/group here songs? Some would ask why listeners deserve to be subjected to Boston in the first place, but that’s another skew to the point. If nothing else, maybe the iPod rush will force radio stations in all formats to open up their playlists and libraries. Along the way, they should open up their air personalities and let them color the music presentation with different hues and textures.

I’m not a pessimist by nature, perhaps a skeptic, more like a realist. I wish the business well. If “More is less” is the answer or part of the solution, sign me up. But slogans, programming and technology alone will not win this competition. Success will be derived by putting live, talented, knowledgeable people on the air and encouraging them to be creative and spontaneous.

I wish the business and those that make their living in it a happy, successful, healthy New Year.

-9-

 

[Philip_Airtime]

Great analysis, Element-Nine! I've been thinking about many of the issues you brought up since my wife bought me an iPod for Christmas. I've spent the past week downloading CDs and podcasts. It'll be interesting to see if I'll be using the iPod as much as I am now once the novelty wears off.

I think stations that are information-oriented have the brightest future. No iPod or satellite radio station can duplicate what WBEN does, for instance. 'BEN is now largely local from 5 in the morning till 10 at night. We can argue about the quality of the presentation. But the fact that it is local, local, local will ensure its long-term survival. Same with WGR. It was the day after a disasterous Bills season, and I was tuning into Brad Riter's "Football Monday" presentation for analyis. Again, I can't get that on my iPod.

The challenge will be greater for the FM music stations. I think stations like WHTT and 97 Rock are getting it right. The mix of local, strong personalities with the music can't be replicated on my iPod. In fact, I was listening to 97 Rock's countdown of the Top 400 albums. Early on in the countdown, one of my favorite Bruce Springsteen albums was featured. The host gave me some information about Bruce that I wasn't aware of. That was good, and it kept me listening. So, even though I listen to cable's Music Choice, my computer's MSN Radio, my CDs and now my iPod, I'm still listening to terrestrial radio. And as long as they continue to make that experience worthwhile, I'll continue to do so.

On the other hand, a station like WBUF (Jack-FM) has no future. Sure, its numbers spiked in the summer. But I prefer my iPod over Jack. Music Choice and MSN Radio have no commercials. What reason is there for me to listen to Jack?

In 1995, just as talk about the future of radio was starting, I wasn't sure if radio has we knew it would exist in 2005. Obviously, it did. Today, I feel more assured than ever that that radio as we now it today -- in the form of WBEN, WGR, WHTT, 97 Rock, and WYRK (and others) -- will be here in ten years because the new alternatives can't duplicate these stations' local presence. All we need is enlightened management that is willing to continue investing in the product.

 

[Bob1370]

> * These are just my personal observations. Please feel free
> to add your own opinions not only about Rochester radio but
> Buffalo as well.
>
>
> WHAM and WBEE will continue to battle for first place in the
> ratings.

Maybe...although we could possibly see WBEE pull away and establish some distance between it and WHAM unless WHAM freshens its programming. I think something similar could happen in Buffalo, but bringing Ron Dobson on board is a sign of positive things to come for WBEN.

> The Zone’s morning show will experience a major decline in
> audience now that Stern has gone to Sirius. I just don’t see
> “Rover” generating a solid following in Rochester. It will
> be interesting to see if Wease will pick up some of that
> audience.

Wease may pick up audience from a number of places. Haven't heard Rover yet so I'll reserve judgment on his appeal until I do. But Wease is becoming the baby boom generation's Jack Slattery in any event.

> Public radio’s ratings will average around a 2 share, which
> is still below the over 3 share both stations once enjoyed.
> Don’t expect to see any programming changes at WXXI radio
> but I can’t say the same when it comes to on-air personnel.

What do you know that I don't? Makin' me nervous, boy...

> Some people have wondered if Air America on WROC-AM has
> taken audience away from WXXI. We might get a clearer
> picture if that scenario is true or not with the release of
> the ratings in 2006.

Don't think Air America is having even as much effect on WXXI as on WHAM, because its approach and style is a lot more akin to WHAM's (although from the opposite side of the partisan spectrum). What you're getting lately from 'XXI is numbers that closely match the historic norm. It had a temporary spike early in 2004 just before Bob Edwards was dumped by NPR...a major mistake from which the network is yet to fully recover.

> WYSL should have its 20kw transmitter up and running in
> 2006. With a much stronger signal into Rochester, it will be
> interesting to see what impact that station will have on
> other news/talk operations.

That will depend on how good a job they do of letting everyone know they're there. They'll have to promote and market aggressively in order to deliver any numbers. Most news/talk listeners in Monroe County probably aren't even aware of them now.

> I’m keeping a close eye on the CBS Radio stations in
> Rochester. If you remember back in 2005, parent company
> Viacom promised to shed their radio properties not in the
> top 25 markets. Well Rochester isn’t in the top 25 market.
> So is there a “For Sale” sign in the future?

CBS' top radio honcho Joel Hollander talked during 2005 about a number of markets where they planned a partial or full divestiture. It's true that they said that by and large the divestitures would NOT come in the top 25 markets, and they named some smaller markets including Buffalo where they planned to put up the for-sale sign. But Rochester was not among the markets Hollander mentioned one way or the other, as either a keeper or seller. That tells me they have no firm plans in mind yet for Rochester, and might even be planning on holding on to what they have here for at least a while. That could change if someone offers the right price. But CBS may be here to stay for a while.


> I hope that someone will keep statistics to determine if
> there is more of erosion in radio listenership from 2005 to
> 2006. Also how many people have switched from terrestrial to
> satellite radio, or have abandoned radio altogether for CD’s
> or I pods.

We should be getting numbers on that subject from Bridge Research and/or Zapoleon pretty soon.

 

[Mark_Scott]

> What you're getting lately from 'XXI is
> numbers that closely match the historic norm. It had a
> temporary spike early in 2004 just before Bob Edwards was
> dumped by NPR...a major mistake from which the network is
> yet to fully recover.

Bob, I'd be really interested in hearing more about why you think the loss of Bob Edwards is affecting WXXI's ratings. We see no indication of that at WBFO. Our numbers for Morning Edition are in the ballpark of where they were before Bob left. Plus, our fundraising numbers were up during Morning Edition in the Fall drive. I think Steve Inskeep and Renee Montaigne are doing a wonderful job. I even think they display more personality than Bob ever did. There are numerous instances where they have delivered a humorous line when coming out of a lighter story. Plus, I like the consistency. One of them is always there. Personalities are important. But in NPR's case, it's the quality of the reporting and content that keep people listening.

 

[Jay_Surly]

The NPR Morning Show

> > It had a
> > temporary spike early in 2004 just before Bob Edwards was
> > dumped by NPR...a major mistake from which the network is
> > yet to fully recover.
>
> Bob, I'd be really interested in hearing more about why you
> think the loss of Bob Edwards is affecting WXXI's ratings.
> We see no indication of that at WBFO. Our numbers for
> Morning Edition are in the ballpark of where they were
> before Bob left. Plus, our fundraising numbers were up
> during Morning Edition in the Fall drive. I think Steve
> Inskeep and Renee Montaigne are doing a wonderful job. I
> even think they display more personality than Bob ever did.
> There are numerous instances where they have delivered a
> humorous line when coming out of a lighter story. Plus, I
> like the consistency. One of them is always there.
> Personalities are important. But in NPR's case, it's the
> quality of the reporting and content that keep people
> listening.
>

As a regular NPR listener, I'll admit to having had reservations about the stability and appeal of Morning Edition when Bob Edwards was, ahem, re-assigned. As time has passed, I've made the adjustment and enjoy the personalities that anchor Morning Edition. No disrespect, but I don't miss Bob Edwards.

Having paid a compliment, I'll now offer some constructive criticism. There's one issue that has driven me away from WBFO/WNED in morning drive and that's the repetition on Morning Edition. Perhaps I notice it more now that my territory has expanded and I drive more extensively, but I get my fill of Morning Edition in one hour (or less) and move on, now listening more to WBEN and WHAM; WYRK and 97 Rock.

It's not the NPR Morning Edition hosts that have affected my listening, it's the repetition. Don't misinterpret my criticism. I continue to listen, but not as long.

Best regards,

Janos Surlikevich

 

[Mark_Scott]

Re: The NPR Morning Show

> Having paid a compliment, I'll now offer some constructive
> criticism. There's one issue that has driven me away from
> WBFO/WNED in morning drive and that's the repetition on
> Morning Edition. Perhaps I notice it more now that my
> territory has expanded and I drive more extensively, but I
> get my fill of Morning Edition in one hour (or less) and
> move on, now listening more to WBEN and WHAM; WYRK and 97
> Rock.

Please know, Jay, that Morning Edition is a two-hour show. So, the 5:00 hour on WBFO airs at 7 and again at 9. On mornings where there is breaking news, like the morning of the London bombings last summer, Morning Edition is continually updated with new content. Yes, for someone listening for an extended period, there is repitition. But in any given two hour block, a listener is receiving new content, both locally and nationally. Some of the stories may be repeated. But they are always rewritten and contain different sound. So, rather than an hour, Jay, you can listen to any given two hour period -- 6 to 8, 7 to 9 or 8 to 10 -- and you shouldn't hear any repeats. Occasionally, the NPR newscast may recycle a short wrap 90 minutes later. But the in-depth stuff, and local material, is not repeated until after two hours, at least here at WBFO. Thanks for listening