Premium Choice and radio's future

[TheBigA]

Wait, wait, wait, didn't you guys tell us that niche' formatting would superserve those many narrow interests?

Which "you guys" are you talking about? As I've said many times, I don't work for CC, a CC station or subsidiary, and I never have. So maybe you can be specific.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious. What's worse than a bunch of soulless corporate mooks who want to put syndicated radio on hundreds of stations nationwide, 24/7 (OK, maybe 20/7)?

I think once again you're missing the point of this proposal. It's not traditional syndication. This is taking successful local shows with local hosts, and offering them from their stations to multiple stations. These shows and their talent are still very tied in with the audience, as opposed to coming from a soulless radio factory, like XM, where they churn out a hundred channels of voicetracking a day.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I think once again you're missing the point of this proposal. It's not traditional syndication. This is taking successful local shows with local hosts, and offering them from their stations to multiple stations. These shows and their talent are still very tied in with the audience, as opposed to coming from a soulless radio factory, like XM, where they churn out a hundred channels of voicetracking a day.

The only difference is that it's regional hub-and-spoke instead of national syndication. You're still going to have big-city jocks "relating" to other markets and smaller markets miles and miles away. So, what's the difference? They're in the same time zone?

Your "ties" to the audience are tenuous at best.

 

[TheBigA]

You're still going to have big-city jocks "relating" to other markets and smaller markets miles and miles away. So, what's the difference? They're in the same time zone?

Your "ties" to the audience are tenuous at best.

It didn't hurt Howard Stern, did it? It's a huge success for Steve Harvey. The music they play all comes from miles and miles away, and somehow the audience relates. It's not the 1920s. It's a big world, and it comes to us on our TVs every day. And from what I've seen, they are not all coming from "big cities." The key qualification is they're SUCCESSFUL LOCAL SHOWS. And what keeps them successful is the quality of the talent. Not that they talk about the local mall.

 

[nolaradiobuff]

I appreciate your point BigA, but I respectfully disagree.

Stern, Harvey, Seacrest are entertainers. If you're an LA or NY based entertaining air personality where stars in your format and other media regularly appear in your studio, I think that can have success.

However, if you're the Number 1 AM Drive Show at a CHR in Jacksonville, Florida, that does not mean and will not translate to success as a Midday Jock at an A/C station in Meridian, Mississippi. With no localism, no remotes, no phones, no listener interaction, I don't think you can have massive success.

An example, in Louisiana we have several stations that are voice-tracked from other markets. They have marginal rating success and are often ridiculed and have lost significant audience because jocks in Tampa can't pronounce Local Names or Towns. So, basically, these stations are glorified jukeboxes. Everyone knows the jocks aren't from here the minute they open their mouths. They have no credibility. They may be #1 in their daypart in Tampa, but they're #10 here.

So, if you're a top-level entertainer, yeah, that can get an audience in any market. But again, that's the exception. Just putting on the best jock from another market doesn't cut it. It's cheaper, but it's doomed to failure.

If your goal is to do exceptional radio, the Clear Channel hub & spoke system won't work. If your goal is to squeeze every nickel out of a dying business model, not care about declining ratings and audience, and not serve your local community, then the hub & spoke is for you.

 

[TheBigA]

With no localism, no remotes, no phones, no listener interaction, I don't think you can have massive success.

Who says they won't be doing phones, remotes, or listener interaction?

These are not voicetracked shows. These are regular shows that will continue to use phones, remotes, and listener interaction. They've just enlarged the audience a bit. Which is something any air personality wants. In fact, friends of mine at CC tell me there was huge competition to be chosen for this new service. And sure, there's a "kill or be killed" mentalilty here. But if you're an air talent who is good at what you do, you want to perform for as many people as you can.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Yes. "After months of doing three jobs and living in fear of the next round of budget cuts, we're going to whittle our on-air stable down to thirty syndicated shows. We like people who Dunkleman their co-workers, and, oh, by the way, you'll find it helpful to have a SAG card. Let the competition begin."

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Wait, wait, wait, didn't you guys tell us that niche' formatting would superserve those many narrow interests?

Which "you guys" are you talking about? As I've said many times, I don't work for CC, a CC station or subsidiary, and I never have. So maybe you can be specific.

P.S. Nice deflection, but you didn't answer the question: if you trumpeted niche' formatting so you could superserve those cores, and it's as unworkable as you now say it is, then wasn't the initial line of BS just that? A fraud, a hoax perpetrated on the American people so that a few folks could get their hands on more slices of the pie by increasing signals and, exponentially, sales forces?

As far as specifics, sure. Consultants, you, Officer Bar-Brady from the Visitors episode of South Park, corporate apologists, people who defend mass American layoffs and outsourcing, the guy who decided the Titanic would go faster and look prettier without all those pesky lifeboats, and, what they heck, Benedict Arnold, who liked to think of himself as an ordinary guy who had to make tough decisions due to a difficult economic situation, albeit one of his own making. You know, people who live and breathe disinformation and pursue and tout their own self-interests to the detriment of the greater good.

 

[TheBigA]

if you trumpeted niche' formatting so you could superserve those cores, and it's as unworkable as you now say it is, then wasn't the initial line of BS just that?

I never trumpeted niche formats. I don't know anyone who did. The main criticism radio gets from the Future of Music Coalition and every radio critic in the country is that there's a lot of music that doesn't get played. I think you're looking for some big conspiracy. If you're going to create a conspiracy, you have to be consistent. Not pick one person, and make him responsible for what someone else did. If I held you personally responsible for all the lies men told women, you'd be in jail.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

if you trumpeted niche' formatting so you could superserve those cores, and it's as unworkable as you now say it is, then wasn't the initial line of BS just that?

If I held you personally responsible for all the lies men told women, you'd be in jail.

Analogy = fail

 

[TheBigA]

if you trumpeted niche' formatting so you could superserve those cores, and it's as unworkable as you now say it is, then wasn't the initial line of BS just that?

If I held you personally responsible for all the lies men told women, you'd be in jail.

Analogy = fail

pot = kettle

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Really, Big A, look around you. 98% of the board is sharing their experiences and observations about the business, which are, in fact, diametrically opposite to your opinions. Yet, here you are, day in and day out, waving your arms and telling everyone else that they are the problem (not that there is a problem, that you can see) and the business isn't broken. "Nothing to see here, folks, move along. That?...That was...a pigeon."

Again: the warm trickle down our collective backs isn't rain, no matter how many times you try to sell us on the idea that it is.

 

[TheBigA]

Really, Big A, look around you. 98% of the board is sharing their experiences and observations about the business, which are, in fact, diametrically opposite to your opinions.

Which makes me question if any of them are actually still employed. Or if they were ever in the business to begin with.

This board is not a reality TV show where you can vote opinions you don't like off. You don't agree with what I say? Come up with some good reasons why I'm wrong, and be ready and willing to defend your position. But the line you've been taking is complete nonsense. If you can't handle opposing points of view on a message board, how in the hell are you going to handle them in person with your supervisor?

The facts are the facts. The companies that own radio stations are doing what they have to do to stay on the air and stay in business. They're entitled to do that. If you don't like the direction the boat is sailing in, then get off.

 

[SirRoxalot]

There are plenty of people still in the business - or recently "downsized" - who post here. They are not has-beens, or wannabes. They're people who have had respectable careers in markets of all sizes. They're also people who have watched an industry that they committed themselves to taken apart piece-by-piece.

The people running the companies that own radio stations are doing their damndest to keep collecting multi-million dollar paychecks, and they'll throw anybody in front of the bus to protect their own income.

The fact is that these "geniuses" didn't anticipate or prepare for a recession, and they ignored that radio has been a slow-growth industry since 2001 - even when the rest of the economy was booming. They're no smarter than the people who drove housing prices up 180% in the first decade of this millennium because a bunch of sharps were willing to give them ridiculous amounts of credit, then bundle the bad paper and sell it to other investors who were too naive to see what the pig in that poke really looked like.

These guys will shuffle money around, slice payroll with no concern for either employees or the effect on revenue, and even take stations dark to reduce both competition and costs. They've even sold off their tower sites - the life's blood of their operations - leaving the next owner with a major problem if the leases aren't transferable.

They've operated with NO regard for the long-term future of either the company or the industry. The investors and shareholders are reaping the rewards of listening to these "geniuses" who convinced them that "the rules have changed".

 

[TheBigA]

The key point being its THEIR companies.

The question you should ask is...if they're so dumb and you're so smart, why do they make millions, and you work for them?

 

[kinetic]

Well... I'm not here to defend TheBigA, although I do get 10 percent... but it seems we're debating apples and oranges at this point. A has said on numerous occasions that radio has to change. I think we all agree. To what it should change is part of the discussion, but what he's arguing here (and I'm sure he'll speak for himself momentarily) isn't about what's right or wrong but what is.
I agree with Roxalot's analogy to the real estate boom. We're talking about a diamonds in the teeth crowd that swooped in for a killing, made one and got caught up in their own mess without realizing they were creating one. Like real estate, radio owners are now the victims of their own circumstance and they can't get out. The recession's impact is just added insult to injury.
I don't think anyone likes what radio is, perhaps even the corporates who own it, but I don't think it's realistic to pine nostalgically for what radio was, and I think mostt of us know it. The question is what radio will be. Under the current crop of power brokers, that looks like a gloomy future, but they're the owners and you and I aren't. So instead of musing angrily about we want radio to be (can you muse angrily?), it appears there are three options:
1) Change the ownerships, which will only happen under the most disastrous of financial circumstances, such as a bankruptcy, and even then, it'll likely be a Chapter 11. I think a lot of these owners would love to get out, but they can't. There just isn't that kind of money out there, at least not at the moment. And if someone has that kind of money, radio doesn't seem like the first place they'd spend it. Unless perhaps bankruptcy filings result in fire sale liquidations, and who knows what kind of buyers that will bring.
2) Change the rules under which the owners operate, in which case public pressure on lawmakers will be required, and it's hard to know how galvanized that will be, let alone effective. Plus, let's remember that members of Congress aren't necessarily savvy about the radio business so there's no guarantee they'd make the right decision, whatever that is --especially when they're easily massaged by lobbyists carrying bags of money. I'm sure Clear Channel would cut another 590 people to raise the funds to pay the lobbyists if they had to. Also, sorry, but radio's sorry state isn't a priority for lawmakers. Although world peace is at hand, there were a few other problems on the plate, though it should be noted that one particular House member thought it important enough to introduce a bill banning Viagra ads between 6-10pm --something about "small children are bound to get curious." It may not have occurred to him that children don't need Viagra once they get curious and they aren't about to take it anyway unless daddy has it lying around the house, so someone better check the Congressman's medicine cabinet. Of coures, if what he was really saying is that he's too embarrassed to say the word "penis" in front of his child, I would suggest he just make a reference to a stimulous package and tell the kid, "Go ask your mother."
3) Oh, and there's the third possibility we could entertain: Is there a better radio business model? I think A is being kind of an "a" when he says, "If they're so dumb and you're so smart, why do they make millions, and you work for them?" Now in my case, I'm preparing to buy the island of Cuba because that needs a lot more fixin' than radio does (and I'm just the guy to do it!), but it does go back to the original point: Corporate types own the stations and they're coming up with the business models. If there's a better one --and surely there must be-- I'd love to know what it is so I can go back on the air. (There, I said it: I'm an alcoholic!) I'm not hurting financially since A pays me 10 percent, but I am hurting for our industry. It's awful. I don't know anyone who finds it redeemable, and I know 3½ people. (A certain GM I know counts as the half, not only because he's short but because he's a corporate ass munch.)

I'm sure I missed a few things here, including a punctuation mark or two, but maybe you have some thoughts.

 

[TheBigA]

1) Change the ownerships

Fine. To whom? You can't pick the new owners. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. New owners come in with basically the same interest: Make money. Worse would be if new owners come in with political or religious agendas. We see that at a lot of AM properties that have sold at fire sale prices.

2) Change the rules under which the owners operate,

You mean like they did in 1996? How'd that work out? Any time you create new regulation, you open the door for agendas that might not be what were intended. Also, when you start to over-regulate, you end up with an industry that is simply unprofitable for private companies, as we saw with railroads in the early 20th century, and you're starting to see now with the auto industry. That leads to government ownership. Ad-supported media is under such strain right now, John Kerry is saying the whole thing could go away. Not because of debt, but because ad revenues aren't enough to cover the costs.

3) Oh, and there's the third possibility we could entertain: Is there a better radio business model?

Only one problem: Taste and demand for entertainment is becoming more individual. Fewer music formats that attract the mass audiences. Jokes that offend. Political correctness. Schedules that prefer on-demand content to real time content. And as taste and demand become more individual, it becomes harder and harder to attract advertising. The only way it works is the satellite radio model, where one company owns all the formats each reaching small audiences, spread the costs out, and hopefully the combined mass provides enough to sell. I think we know the results there.

Here's what we know: Music audiences want personalization. They don't like interruptions. And they want their music for free, which means fewer commercials and thus less income. Where does investing more in DJs fit into that model?

In short, the future is not good, which is why stock prices for radio companies are so low. Sure they have debt, but the bigger problem is the prospects for improving income aren't great. Plus the potential for a new $2 billion music royalty. How do you pay for that?

Too many radio stations, combined with too many other sources for entertainment, the infinite dial, and a splintering of
music taste. That's the situation. We can all see how newer media is operating: Smaller more nimble staffs, less regulation, and more personalized programming options for customers. And even then, they're being killed by the same royalties that are about to hit broadcasting.

All of this will be much harder for small companies to absorb. The thing that killed radio companies is that they were radio-only companies. Back when radio stations were owned by diversified companies, they could absorb changes in the advertising market. But when all your income comes from one place, and that one place is in trouble, then you have no place to go. That means bigger, not smaller. That way the content you create for one platform can be reused over and over, charging money each time. Economies of scale. Here we go again. That brings us back to Premium Choice and similar models.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The sooner Premium Choice and other models are implemented, the sooner that those companies will go out of business. Religious and political agendas generally don't generate profits. They're a fine example of "repeater radio", to borrow a phrase from Jerry DelColiano, and I haven't seen them making any ratings splashes, have you?

Generic radio is what sent people in search of alternate entertainment in the first place. If you don't offer programming that people can relate to on a more personal basis, radio will fail to compete with other media. One of the biggest problems with radio now is the lack of flexibility to respond to what's happening locally in a LOT of ways. Until radio becomes "personal" to listeners again, it's just another music choice to be skimmed.

All of that requires talent, and enough flexibility for talent that they can reclaim some degree of control and do a "show" instead of a "shift". Where talent has that flexibility - mornings - radio is certainly more robust that in other dayparts.

Consultants began the drive to devalue radio personalities in the '70s. To this day, the biggest, most successful personalities are the guys who broke the rules, and built a loyal audience. Try that these days. That's why most of them are 50+. They built some leverage before the consultants and corporate programmers could get rid of them.

 

[kinetic]

The sooner Premium Choice and other models are implemented, the sooner that those companies will go out of business. Religious and political agendas generally don't generate profits. They're a fine example of "repeater radio", to borrow a phrase from Jerry DelColiano, and I haven't seen them making any ratings splashes, have you?

Generic radio is what sent people in search of alternate entertainment in the first place. If you don't offer programming that people can relate to on a more personal basis, radio will fail to compete with other media. One of the biggest problems with radio now is the lack of flexibility to respond to what's happening locally in a LOT of ways. Until radio becomes "personal" to listeners again, it's just another music choice to be skimmed.

All of that requires talent, and enough flexibility for talent that they can reclaim some degree of control and do a "show" instead of a "shift". Where talent has that flexibility - mornings - radio is certainly more robust that in other dayparts.

Consultants began the drive to devalue radio personalities in the '70s. To this day, the biggest, most successful personalities are the guys who broke the rules, and built a loyal audience. Try that these days. That's why most of them are 50+. They built some leverage before the consultants and corporate programmers could get rid of them.

This gets back to a question I've wondered about, what I've referred to as a farm system. I can remember the argument in 1996 and even more intensely as voicetracking became a more ubiquitous reality that proving grounds for young talent would be eliminated; people would not learn the craft and there would be fewer generations of broadcasters to replace those who are now 50+. But your post touches on what one could also refer to as a farm system for listeners: The industry doesn't seem to be building and maintaining a new audience. These people are the customer, and when you say "Generic radio is what sent people in search of alternate entertainment in the first place," that's one way of saying we overlooked the customer, or took the customer for granted. We probably all know people under 25 or 30 who don't listen to radio, haven't listened to radio for five, six, seven years, nor do they have any plan to start. The reasons: Too many commercials (we've always heard that), the music sucks, it's boring. Boiled down, boring means the radio station is just another juke box like their iPod or wherever they go online, neither of which has commercials. The industry has allowed itself to lose by attrition. I'm not sure those lost customers know what would get them to listen to radio but perhaps it might come down to what has always been radio's greatest strength: Its intimacy, its personal touch. But Roxalot, that's a term that has meaning to you; me, too. Does it mean anything to a younger generation of listeners? I'm not sure. Is that personal touch a strength of radio anymore, or is intimacy an arcane concept for younger listeners, sort of like reading an actual newspaper?
Look, I'm not saying there aren't younger generations of talent, because surely a grammar Nazi is going to say, "but there is new talent." Talent is a subjective term. I'd imagine corporate radio just sees talent as an inanimate tool, as interchangable as swapping out microphones. Seacrest isn't a talent, but he's definitely a useful tool. Is there enough talent to give the listener a reason to listen, to sit through the commercials, to build new audience? The elimination of talent in my market has saved two heritage FMs money by using useful tools, but it's cost them money because they lost listeners --a lot of listeners-- and of all places, the beneficiary has been the station that spent money to hire local talent. They spent money to make money, and they're just a radio company with no other amortize-able assets. Isolated incident, of course. I know. Or is that happening where you are? Maybe it isn't. Maybe Seacrest dominates in your town. You mentioned Jerry DelColiano; he recently wrote about "B" in Philadelphia. Is that model? What happens if Premium Choice fails?

Frankly, the people running the radio industry right now aren't bad broadcasters; they're bad business people. And I don't think they, or the majority of people in radio, are the ones who will figure out how to fix it. It may not be fixable. They may be able to buy some time, but the industry may require some kind of maverick thinker and/or outsider to devise a successful model, and we may not get that person because people outside of radio have no interest in getting in. Can't say I blame them.

 

[TheBigA]

I haven't seen them making any ratings splashes, have you?

Premium Choice was announced about a week ago. Not much time to put together a track record, don't you think?

Generic radio is what sent people in search of alternate entertainment in the first place.

That's absolutely not true. People were not in search of alternate entertainment. They bought new devices that didn't have access to radio. Also, music taste became way more fractionalized. People became far less tolerant of songs they didn't like. It's what killed music on MTV.

Until radio becomes "personal" to listeners again, it's just another music choice to be skimmed.

That's simply not possible. Radio isn't interactive, so it has no way to actually know the personal needs of the individual listening. The phone is a more personal device, and can be programmed to deliver the specific information desired.

No amount of change in terrestrial radio will cause people to give up their cell phones or computers. It isn't a matter of generic programming. The phone and the computer is simply a more useful device.

The biggest problem radio has to overcome isn't in terms of spending money, but how it brings the money in. Listeners hate commercials. And not the amount of commercials. They hate commercials regardless of the number or frequency. It's spam. But it's the only way stations have to pay for the services they provide. THAT is the biggest problem radio needs to figure out. How to charge listeners for its services without getting them to change the station. Once they figure that part out, then all things are possible. But right now, commercials on the radio are the single biggest reason listeners go to other devices. Say what you will about Premium Choice...there are fewer commercials in its format than a typical radio station. And I bet in the end, that will attract more listeners than the station with live and local DJs but 18 minutes an hour.