"Public airwaves"

[TheBigA]

It's not supposed to be easy. It never was easy, but it's harder today than it ever has been before.

I've talked to a lot of recording artists about getting started. You'd think it would be easy. Just enter Idol or The Voice, and you're a millionaire, right? Nope. Schools are turning out millions of kids with dreams of becoming singers, and less than 1/10th of a percent ever get anywhere. And we play music by recording artists every day on the radio, and assume they're all rich. We don't ever consider the millions of kids who never get the chance.

 

[tomservo]

I'm surprised to hear there are any entry level jobs at radio stations in bigger markets because my experience has been that those jobs are staffed by unpaid college interns. Interns that come from broadcasting schools. Anyone not in college and not seeking a broadcasting major is not even considered. Is that out of the ordinary? God knows I tried to get my foot in the door up in Birmingham as a teenager in college and was summarily shunned.

 

[snazzyjazzy]

I was lucky from the standpoint that I got my first paid gig in radio way back in 1996. I knew Malvin Massey at WUMR, who was also the overnight board operator at WCRV. I couldn't imagine how hard it would be today to get a paying job in radio starting out. If I hadn't know Malvin, I wouldn't have made the first dime in radio. I did volunteer work at WUMR without being a student at the U of M. I had graduated from Miss. State in 1995 and hadn't gotten anywhere in radio before I started at WUMR in 1996. The U of M experience helped me way more than my experience at Miss. State.

 

[Tom Wells]

The first really large loss of public airwaves was in the legal definition of satellite signals being designated as "private".

Natural law would seem to suggest that satellite broadcast companies owe a stipend to everyone who expereriences the signal
'falling upon" their property, as payment for the loss of a right to use that spectrum locally.

Under "old law" you were entitled to the full use of ANY signal that fell on your property.
Of course, you had to be able to decode the signal, AND/BUT you did NOT divulge content and/or host private party paid
presentations of content.
If it were private conversations, you could not ACT upon information, or share info intercepted.

Perhaps this concept of "public airwaves" was found to be unenforcable,
which seems weird, but in the same way the FCC cannot seem to control unintentional radiation in manufactured and imported devices, maybe it became "impossible" to enforce respect of the content of private communications.


It WAS a major distinction defined when the FCC decided that certain companies "owned' wavelngths.

It has never been challenged to my knowledge.

Someone needs to find a way to "legally require" the use of such wavelengths as would impair satellite TV reception, and then
produce a popular product in which the operative mode wipes out sat dish reception as dimmers, etc, wipe out AM reception.

There's no difference, except that digital "modulation" at high frequencies ofen causes byproducts affecting lower wavlengths, while there's almost nothing which can be "perpetrated" at MW which would cause disturbance to microwave freqencies.

 

[KFodor]

And how much of the ones in decline are declining because of stupid management decisions, such as curtailing local news and firing local news staffs?

Has nothing to do with it. The talk hosts are getting older, and so is their audience. Plus the general decline of AM.

Not in our market...with a successful FM simulcast. Our demos got younger. We do very well 25-54, with the majority being 35-54 men. So why can't others do that? I suggest it's news that helps us achieve those numbers.

 

[KFodor]

Internet radio will slowly but surely eat into the terrestrial market share. It hasn't made much of a dent yet. I realize that. That's the future of radio more so than satellite radio. Are these so-called "240 million" listening to terrestrial radio as much as they did in the past? I don't think so. Satellite radio has its share of problems. It may be this generation's "AM stereo", something that just doesn't take. However, satellite radio will stick around for a time as an option that will turn some people off of terrestrial radio. The amount of time listening to music on iPods will exceed the amount of time listening to music on terrestrial radio in the near future.

It isn't even nibbling at it now. For internet radio to succeed, it has to understand the concept of "broad-casting", which it does not now. Not with millions of vanity stations playing their favorite 10-thousand songs from a iPod to a winamp plug in. Added to that, a gazillion formats most of which nationally might attract, oh..say, 10,000 people each? You can't and won't make money like that.

Which is the next issue. Then, they have to come with a way to make money with it. Most internet stations are not.

To gain big audiences, you have to learn to narrowcast, which is against everything most internet radio types want to do. Radio has spent a gazillion dollars researching this. Is it possible there's something we know that you don't?

Look at the stats. Yes, people are listening. In fact, in some demos, TSL has increased a bit in the last year or so.

I'm not saying internet radio can't be a threat...it can. But, a lot of people in it need to swallow their pride and realize getting a mass audience is more difficult than it appears. Then, learn what makes that happen and proceed accordingly. Some will, over time, learn this lesson and do it. Others? They'll take the fall.

And satellite radio still has a big problem with churn.

 

[KFodor]

Internet radio will slowly but surely eat into the terrestrial market share.

Keep in mind that OTA radio is also on the internet. In fact, the top OTA radio companies are also among the top streamers. People don't buy radios anymore, but they love to listen to it. So it behooves any OTA radio station to make sure their content is available online. I was out in the middle of nowhere Saturday, went into a restaurant, and was surprised they were streaming an OTA station from Boston.

Are these so-called "240 million" listening to terrestrial radio as much as they did in the past? I don't think so.

They do. Arbitron picks up OTA radio listening regardless of the device. So people listening to Kicks on their desktop are counted as listeners to the station. The thing we notice is people don't just listen to one thing. They may listen to iPods while jogging and OTA while driving. The problem with iPod listening is every download costs money and takes time. Not the case with radio. And you have to know the song in order to download it. How do people find out about songs for download? Their traditional radio station. You see it when you go to concerts. Where did these people hear these new songs? They first heard them on the radio. Then they downloaded them.

Good point, Big A. And if the majority of internet listening is coming from the streams of OTA terrestrial radio stations, isn't it possible the "public perception" of a business in decline, is more wishful thinking by the "radio experimenters" and the "know it alls" who won't listen to common sense no matter what? And the success of press agents hired by those with an interest in creating the perception that radio is failing?

 

[KFodor]

"You don't need to go through a farm system in small market radio when you have so many other ways to do radio today. There are still entry level jobs in large market stations. Traffic reporters, morning show sidekicks, promotions stunt boys, web content creators, and other ways to get into the business that never existed 20 years ago. Once you're in the door, it's up to you to make your breaks."

With all due respect, on what planet? 20 years ago was 1993, and then the same kinds of entry level opportunities were everywhere. Difference is that then you could reasonably expect to turn those hard paid dues into a real job if you worked hard enough with the right amount of persistence. (And by real job I mean making a decent living wage WITH benefits being a local radio personality with ONE show to focus all of your efforts and talents on.)The payoff today is the exciting prospect of ending up voice-tracking 4 shows a day while "wearing many hats" around the cluster. Promotions, sales assistant, production, etc. for about 10 bucks an hour with meager to no benefits. Yes friends the bar is that low. But I suppose it beats Taco Bell. My advice to anyone considering a career in this business would be to not try to catch a falling knife.

Name a business not called radio where this is not happening...

 

[KFodor]

My first paid job in radio was in 1996 at WCRV for $5.50/hr as a Saturday board operator from 4 PM - 12 midnight. I had done a semester of radio at the University of Memphis jazz station before that on a volunteer basis. Malvin Massey, who was at both WUMR and WCRV, was instrumental in getting my foot in the door there. I think we all know that radio isn't a place to go to make a lot of money. That weekend job I had in 1996 no longer exists because of automation. It's not as if you can build on a job like that to get anywhere because it doesn't exist. It wasn't as if the path to success was easy back then. It's not supposed to be easy. It never was easy, but it's harder today than it ever has been before.

Geez...I'm envious. You made more than twice what I made in my first job...

 

[andydallas]

I was the director of radio for broadcast.com, which was actually "AudioNet" for the first few years I was there (we changed our name when we went public).

Streaming for OTA station was to help build TSL, just give you more opportunities for your audience to listen to your station, its percentage of listening is still very small, but slowly growing, but it won't be a 'threat' to OTA radio listening on a radio.

For internet only stations to work, they need to be able to have individual ads which address each individuals likes/wants. A ad that is aimed at the general public, won't have a high enough
CPM to make it work, however if you can serve ads for a boat dealership for people into boating, and ads for "plastic widgets" for people that like plastic widgets.

They have said for many years that was possible (it involves registering users, getting more information, etc),,only then will Internet station really be able to make money, look at Pandora, they have to limit how long a person can listen if they aren't paying for the service, the advertising revenue wont' support it (the more they stream the more money they lose.

Internet only stations have a place, especially among younger audiences,,,but there is a lot of work to be done before the business model works,,,someone like Apple and Google getting into that business is a little scary, because they can spend the money necessary to overcome those hurdles,,but it still will never replace OTA radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Apple and Google getting into that business is a little scary, because they can spend the money necessary to overcome those hurdles,,but it still will never replace OTA radio.

From what I read, they're spending premium money for music rights. But they seem to only be in the music distribution business, not the radio business. That's scary for sellers of CDs and other music download sites, but not to radio stations that curate their music mix for a certain target audience. The purpose, in the case of Apple, is to sell hardware. OTA Radio's problem is that very few companies are making the kind of AM/FM hardware that competes with other media options available.

 

[andydallas]

Google is going after Pandora with the new service, Apple is trying to work out the final rights issues for the same,,its not "radio" anymore than Pandora is radio,,but it is a competitor for ears listening to music

 

[TheBigA]

Google is going after Pandora with the new service, Apple is trying to work out the final rights issues for the same,,its not "radio" anymore than Pandora is radio, but it is a competitor for ears listening to music

Radio is not in the music business. Music is not in the radio business. These are two different businesses that may use each other, but neither has an exclusive on the other. I anticipate many more "competitors for ears listening to music."

 

[Dondd]

I know this is an old thread and the poster is no longer on board, but....
... in case he/she still reads their posts...

Has anyone else ever wondered if given a choice, people would prefer to hear a live and local person on the radio, rather than Ryan Seacrest, Delilah, or some disembodied voice-track?

Very true.

Since the day Bill Clinton signed Telecom '96 into law, a once rich, vibrant and locally important medium has been hollowed out and commodified to the point where it bears little resemblance to what it was before it was sold to the highest bidders, who went on a feeding frenzy using leveraged buyouts to gobble up radio stations from coast to coast, until only a handful of corporations controlled everything you hear.

Accurate description.

It's been sad and disgusting to watch this long slow circle to the bottom of the drain. The result is that what you hear in Cleveland is what you hear in Jacksonville, Sacramento, Memphis, San Antonio, and Tulsa. The local flavor of radio has been sucked out, discarded and replaced by a homogenized one size fits all, same menu everywhere paradigm, just like McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell, or Wendy's.

At the same time hundreds and hundreds of careers are being flushed away, as these companies struggle to manage all the bad debt that they created. People who have done nothing but radio all their lives are being tossed out into a job market that neither wants or needs their talents.

Of course, while businesses' primary reason for existence isn't to employ people, employment of local workforces is a big benefit and something exchanged by cities/states which provide economic incentives to companies to relocate to their regions.

The people who run this game today like to think of themselves as broadcasters, but in reality they are salesmen and systems managers who must squeeze harder and cut more fat every year in order to remain competetive with not only other companies, but also with the other brands they manage.

I read someone on this forum refer to "The public's airwaves". Well, they once were. But today radio stations are no longer a public trust, but just another commodity to be mined for corporate profit.

Walk the cavernous hallways of these corporate clusters these days and you'd be lucky to bump into another human being.

More accurate observations.
This shows how the "clusters" only care about the bottom line, nothing else, not even that tornado, ice storm or other calamity which might strike at 2 a.m. when not a soul is in the building.

The on air studios are empty, except for the computer screens and the voice of soem guy or gal who has never set foot in out city sending a "Shout out to the folks listening at FedEx" Or some other local company on their e-mail list that day. They might even put on a fake phone call or two, just to make the illusion even more believable.

But it sure was fun while it lasted.

Dittos.

This post is well-written.
It stings today's radio business defenders. You know, the ones who claim radio sole purpose is to ONLY make money, not be a "public service" or inspire others to enter the once great craft...

 

[TheBigA]

This post is well-written.
It stings today's radio business defenders. You know, the ones who claim radio sole purpose is to ONLY make money, not be a "public service" or inspire others to enter the once great craft...

The concept of "public service" is gone. It's been gone. It was killed by the "me generation." I want what I want when I want it, and I want it for free. That's the mindset today, and that's also the mindset of government. If the government wanted to force radio stations to do more public service, they could do it. But that would require the government to hire policemen to make sure stations do what they say. That's what killed public service. The people started to vote in "less government" politicians. Ronald Reagan eliminated lots of FCC rules, and then he passed Docket 80-90 that over licensed the spectrum. That doubled the number of radio stations and led to format specialization. Instead of a few stations getting 20 shares, you had 20 stations getting a 5 share or much less. That divided the money pie so nobody made money any more.

The solution is easy: You want more public service? Elect more politicians who will pass laws to enforce public service. Bring back the draft. Require people to volunteer and help people. Double the budget of the FCC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Cut back on the number of commercial radio stations, and increase the number of non-profits. Then require the public to pay for radio instead of advertisers. Very easy solution. But as long as the profit motive is in, don't blame radio companies for just doing their jobs.

 

[davideduardo]

The concept of "public service" is gone. It's been gone. It was killed by the "me generation." I want what I want when I want it, and I want it for free. That's the mindset today, and that's also the mindset of government. If the government wanted to force radio stations to do more public service, they could do it.

The dictates of a certain percentage of news, public affairs and "other" programming fell in part because nobody really believed that every station had produce programming that large portions of their audience did not like. This happened in the same era when newspapers were still healthy, cable TV was providing more and more news, sports and entertainment options an nobody worried about whether every radio station had news and information services.

Ronald Reagan eliminated lots of FCC rules, and then he passed Docket 80-90 that over licensed the spectrum. That doubled the number of radio stations and led to format specialization. Instead of a few stations getting 20 shares, you had 20 stations getting a 5 share or much less. That divided the money pie so nobody made money any more.

The Reagan administration did indeed push for less FCC regulation, but it was part of a general effort to reduce the "interference" of government in the economy. The main political move was to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine; the rest of the changes at the FCC were internal rules changes. At most, the changes were encouraged by an anti-regulation presidency but they were for the most part the product of the Commission itself.

Docket 80-90 was the product of the FCC trying to right a wrong. It all came out of the Bonita Springs case where a Class A FM applied to upgrade to a C. Under the rules, that opened a window for cross filings against an existing licensee; the station owner lost the license after nearly a dozen applicants filed for the "new" Class C. The FCC saw the inherent unfairness in the "major upgrade" process, and in its effort to right the wrong not only fixed the problem but also added a bunch of new provisions that allowed for new stations, upgrades and the moving of licenses from one place to another.

The solution is easy: You want more public service? Elect more politicians who will pass laws to enforce public service. Bring back the draft. Require people to volunteer and help people. Double the budget of the FCC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Cut back on the number of commercial radio stations, and increase the number of non-profits. Then require the public to pay for radio instead of advertisers. Very easy solution. But as long as the profit motive is in, don't blame radio companies for just doing their jobs.

Back in the 50's station owners learned that "public service" programming like news and public affairs was generally not liked by music station listeners. In battles between two (or more) Top 40's in the same market, it was obvious that listeners switched stations when the news came on; they simply did not listen when public affairs shows were on. So we developed ways of hiding news in overnights, creating capsules that somehow qualified as Public Affairs programming.

Today, if music stations were required to have hourly news and extensive PA and Other programming, music listeners would simply move even faster to Pandora and Spotify and satellite.

As you say, any such change would necessitate a severe reduction in the number of stations and that involves what would be a legal morass with an application of the concept of eminent domain. That would likely be held up in the courts for longer than over the air broadcasting will be viable and sustainable.

Of course, what those that want a return to "public service" (whatever that really is) fail to recognize is that consolidation came because radio was increasingly unprofitable under the old ownership rules... sort of the prize in the cereal box of 80's deregulation.

And today, with radio revenue off by perhaps 40% from the turn of the century peak, forcing stations to do things that would only result in a loss of revenue would annihilate the industry.