Radio 2006

[Element9]

A thread below discusses the future of WWKB. I’d like to address the future of radio. I have no crystal ball and don’t pretend to have all the answers, let alone all of the questions. But what I see for radio in the next ten years has me greatly concerned, and mildly hopeful.

Not long ago, a few of my nephews (16-24 demo) visited for about a week and with them came all sorts of electronic gadgetry, from Gameboys to iPods to CDs. It took me less than a day to realize they did not listen to radio. Not AM. Not FM.

AM radio does not exist for a majority of teens and young adults. It’s old, stodgy and filled with white men and women who talk about the same old political crap or an occasional sports station with hosts who don’t really reach impress young adult listeners who are as jaded as the talk show hosts and who believe they know as much as the talk show host, if not more.

FM doesn’t fulfill their need for “instant gratification.” The CHR and Active Rock stations “don’t play any real new music, just old stuff that nobody’s interested in anymore.”

Radio is in a cataclysmic period, similar to what occurred when FM erupted with Progressive Rock, strictly formatted Beautiful Music and Top 40 in the late 60s, the 70s and early 80s. Think of where radio was twenty years ago… ten years ago. Consider what stations were on top of their games and how many people used radio. Now, consider where we are today.

You don’t have to have a PhD in statistics, math or sociology. You have only to observe how people under the age of 25, particularly teens, are using (or perhaps, NOT using) radio. Objectively extrapolate your observations. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind’s blowing.

I think AM is dead. Yes, it serves a limited purpose for older demos. I genuinely enjoy DX’ing the Amplitude Modulated band. But it’s become a curiosity. Digital will not save AM. Filled with static, interference and IBOC hash, to say nothing of the dreadful, uncreative, canned and syndicated programming, AM appeals primarily to 45+ Men, if that.

Please don’t deride me for this observation. I happen to be 45+.

FM radio is only marginally better. If FM doesn’t get its act together, it too will succumb to the new technologies such as Wi-Fi, cellular, satellite and direct FM. Just as AM was in denial in the late 70’s, when teens, young adults and even geezers embraced FM, FM operators are in denial today. If they don’t rise to the needs and challenges of a changing landscape, FM’s popularity will fade in the next ten years. It’s undeniable.

Here is where I become mildly hopeful. I believe the new technologies will force FM, which maintains clarity and technical excellence, to adapt and compete. It will take a body blow to the radio conglomerates, but FM will adapt. It won’t be the digital sub channels that save the medium, it will be the programming and the people who save it with live local talk, direct feedback music on demand and specialty programming that adapts to and challenges young listeners to “check it out” and embrace it.

In the end, talented programmers, producers, personalities, writers and musicians may become more valuable to the programming needs of FM which will be forced to produce programming that appeals to a new generation of listeners. Live and local may become increasingly important and critical to the survival and success of FM, whether the format is music or news-talk.

 

[brian71]

The problems radio is facing today are the result of greed which lead to short-sighted planning. Profit over creativity. The technology isn't what's moving people AWAY from radio, it's radio's inability at this point to be little more than a highly manipulated marketing tool for advertisers and record companies. Yes, it's always been that, but never before has there been such a lack of emphasis on actually providing something of quality for the listener.

The attitude is: Here's a product, buy it. Here's a new song, buy the CD. To clean up a vulgar phrase: Before I give up my money, I like to be kissed first. Radio today is doing a lot more taking and a lot less kissing (entertaining).

I am far from an anti-capitalist, but radio has been irreversably damaged by the unstoppable greed that typically drives corporate America. And no one but radio people seems to care---and the majority of them seem either complacent, if not totally ignorant of the situation.

In short: It's over, Johnny.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Radio's Future

Like you I do not have a crystal ball or pretend to have psychic abilities when it comes to predicting the future of radio. But after spending 30 years of my life in the business, I have a pretty good indication of where the industry is heading.

When it comes to why young people do not listen to the radio I can speak from experience. My two children, ages 26 and 21, never listen to the radio anymore. Instead they play CD’s or download music from the internet. Why? Because they told me they were tired of hearing the same songs played over and over again, plus were fed up with the barrage of commercials and station promos. My son was the most critical telling me that he was sick of hearing, and these are his own words, “blathering idiots who enjoy laughing at their own stupid jokes.”

When it comes to AM radio I believe it will survive because most of your public radio stations on located on AM and there is an audience for NPR programming. The same can be said for such formats as Air America and those stations featuring conservative talk shows. Granted young people are not going to listen to these formats, but there are still enough of us “baby boomers” out there that will. Unfortunately some of the conglomerates have chosen to use ignore their AM stations in favor of their FM operations. Thus these AM stations are nothing but latch-key operations; especially in smaller markets.

As for FM, many station owners have opted to go with a format designed to concentrate on more music and less on personality. As for any local news, its either one of the morning jocks reading from the newspaper or wire service, or some TV newscaster hired to read headlines. After morning drive is over, the switch is thrown and Otto Mation runs the station until the following morning. That way instead of paying announcers a decent salary and benefits, its cheaper to voice-track or run syndicated programs. Plus it puts more revenue into the pockets of management. And God knows those people who make six-figure salaries need the money.

So here is my take on radio of the future. With the advent of voice-tracking and syndication, the number of available jobs in radio will continue to diminish. This means that those currently in the business will stay on until they either retire, or find other jobs. Meanwhile the talent pool consisting of young college graduates will continue to shrink until virtually nobody with a communications degree will seek out radio as a career. And those who do manage to land a job will have no on-the-job training, which provides the necessary skills to improve and move on to larger markets.

<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>

 

[Bob1370]

> A thread below discusses the future of WWKB. I’d like to
> address the future of radio. I have no crystal ball and
> don’t pretend to have all the answers, let alone all of the
> questions. But what I see for radio in the next ten years
> has me greatly concerned, and mildly hopeful.

Why don't young people like those you watched this past week, listen to radio?
Simple...we don't give them good reason to listen.

What needs to happen in order to reverse the decline in use of commercial radio in all demos, is to offer compelling programming once again. It isn't that hard. You hire personalities with wit and creativity, and something to say (and not worry if a few feathers get ruffled in the process). You program music based on whether or not you think it deserves to be a hit, not whether or not some consultant has pronounced it hitbound, and let your audience make the final decision. In short, you program today's radio according to the same philosophy that the programmers of 1965 used. Guys like Rick Sklar and Ron Jacobs knew what they were doing...and what they did then, is a formula that still would work today if only someone would try it.

And that goes for talk radio as well. Forget about the agenda most talk stations seem to be pursuing after having vetted it with Karl Rove. Read your own market, hire personalities with minds of their own, and have them hit all the big issues just like music stations play the hits.

 

[Debaser]

And no one but radio people seems
> to care---and the majority of them seem either complacent,
> if not totally ignorant of the situation.
>
> In short: It's over, Johnny.
>


Amen, brother. Amen.

I would suggest that radio people are not ignorant of the situation, but rather are in a hopeless position: they need jobs to support their families and they know if they rock the boat by attempting to circumvent the accountants and lawyers who have taken over our beloved business they will be out on the street in the time it takes to say "automation costs far less."

 

[SirRoxalot]

It ain't over 'til it's over

I see the future of "broadcasting" as being independent from "radio" the way it's done now. Will AM and FM stations exist in the future? Sure, for at least a while. Will IBOC and multiple digital streams be a savior for the people who now own radio stations? Nope. Even Canada, who did it more sensibly than the US, can't sell it to consumers. As my friend Vito says, "Fuggeddaboudit".

As I've stated many times before, within 5 years we'll have MP3/Cell Phone/Streaming media players hooked into our Bluetooth stereo earphones allowing us to select any digital "radio" station we want over our high-speed Internet connection. Old fogies (like me) will still tune in AM and FM stations because that's what we grew up with and we're familiar with the technology. But, that's not necessarily all we'll tune.

Now, about MP3s... It takes time to download, sort, and transfer MP3s to your player, and it isn't exactly free anymore. In fact, it takes more time than I'm willing to devote to it. Podcasts are interesting, and I might download some of those if I'm looking for information or depth on a particular topic, but they're not necessarily timely or well done, require me to know where to find them, and actually spend time downloading them. For the right content, it might be worth my time and trouble, and I might even pay for a podcast from the right source on the right topic.

Which brings us to streaming media, or "Internet radio stations". Are you going to provide an Internet radio station if it costs you money? Of course not - especially with the RIAA requirements for payment on streaming music. How will you pay for it then, through subscription? Does that mean I have to write a monthly check to every stream I'm interested in hearing? Or, do I buy a service - like Sirius or XM - who'll provide streams through the Internet instead of via satellite. What about the old advertising model - I put up with some ads and I get the stream for free.

As far as the streams go, do I really want to hear a jukebox? Maybe you do, but not me. I LIKE people who add to the music, who entertain and inform. I like to know what's going on around town, what the weather's going to be like, what the traffic is doing - all that stuff that I get from a well-programmed radio station. I don't care if it comes over AM, FM, XM, or Internet stream as long as the audio quality is good, and it's live.

Who's best prepared to deliver live & local content, that's targeted toward me and my community instead of generic, homogenized mush? Local broadcasters, that's who. As their over-the-air signals bring in less money, I expect them to focus on providing live and local content using the people they already have for talent, sales, billing, administration, etc.

If anything, local broadcasters won't have to restrict the formats they offer because they have a limited number of signals. Don't you think Entercom or Citadel would LOVE to have a country station if they didn't have to give up a successful format to go there? With Internet streaming, they can do that. Look at WHTT, which beat Star and WJYE to the Christmas punch by offering a special stream. Will it really impact those two stations? Maybe a little this year, but maybe a lot more down the road.

You see, the bottom line is content. Live and local beats syndicated pap in market after market after market. If anything, the future will open up more opportunities to provide targeted local programming for specific audiences. Smaller advertisers - who are currently shut out by the big dollars required per spot for an effective campaign - may be able to get back in the game by targeting those focused audiences more efficiently.

Overall, there may be more media jobs available 10 years from now than we have today. Which is a good thing, because it looks like the manufacturing sector is circling faster and faster in the Big White Bowl.

 

[mike704]

Re: It ain't over 'til it's over

Speaking of LIVE & LOCAL remember when you would hear an old radio show there was an announcemnt saying this program comes to you transcribed (which was a criptic way of saying recorded, not live). Why aren't stations required to do that today?

As a listener I keep thinking if no one at the station is listening, why should I?

MikeM