Somewhat related to this thread, one report I just saw says that the Sirius bankruptcy plan might be to bankrupt XM, which is a subsidiary. That would keep the parent company intact, and free it from the subsidiary debt. Interesting idea. I did a search on subsidiary bankruptcy, and it has been done. So that may be the story in the next few weeks.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio is in BIG trouble
- Thread starter wpiv926
- Start date
Lifting the "ownership" of AM, FM and TV, was a mistake, which is why radio and maybe, television, is
facing a grim future, unless we return the limit companies can own, but also keep in mind the internet
could help give broadcasting a boost, as long as we don't "overregulate" it, i still expect the biggest
sell off of radio properties ever very soon, what i want to see again is "local" owners.
facing a grim future, unless we return the limit companies can own, but also keep in mind the internet
could help give broadcasting a boost, as long as we don't "overregulate" it, i still expect the biggest
sell off of radio properties ever very soon, what i want to see again is "local" owners.
OK...I'm confused. You don't want the internet to be "over-regulated," but you DO want radio and TV to re-regulate. How about a little consistency? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?
In the markets where CC and others have sold stations to "local" owners, I have seen no improvements in programming, staffing, or finances. It's obvious that ownership is not the issue here. ALL media is in trouble, not just radio and TV. Adapting to a changing media marketplace and sociology is the real issue.
In the markets where CC and others have sold stations to "local" owners, I have seen no improvements in programming, staffing, or finances. It's obvious that ownership is not the issue here. ALL media is in trouble, not just radio and TV. Adapting to a changing media marketplace and sociology is the real issue.
Radio is in real trouble, and I'm concerned for several reasons. First, I started in the 60s living and breathing radio. I still work in radio, but only in the capacity of voiceover and consulting for automated stations. My "day" job is TV management to pay the bills. 
Second, radio should be the dominate media due to the ease of technology. Let's face it, if you're competing against newspaper and TV, it should be a no brainer.
That said, it hurts to see what has been happening in the industry. The lack of public service, no news, stale and lethargic presentation on many stations. I have not listened to any of my local stations except to spot check them. There is nothing on to hold my interest or serve my needs. What happened? Fifteen years ago two AMs in town were beating the snot out of each other for listeners and ad dollars. Today, I bet you could turn them off and nobody would notice. The FMs are not too far behind. When two of them changed format, only the media people noticed. There was no buzz by the public.
My kids, a 22 year old daughter and 15 year old son, do not know radio. They don't own a radio, listen to it, or are even mildly curious about it. My daughter is the best example of what we are facing. When consolidation really started to hit hard, and stations cut back on their services to the listener and started the homogenized formats, they lost her. And she never went back.
When I was helping with my son's band-booster camp I asked a lot of kids what they listened to and why. Only one listened to radio, out of fifty-two.
What I think is an interesting study in psychology is I have a lot of airchecks from the past. When I have played them on CDs in my car, my kids comment on the quality (programming) of the stations and the fact that radio then sounds better then now. And when you think about it, some of these stations air the programs before the kids were born!
More recently I pulled out some airchecks of stations from 1987 and 1988 and found some real gems that I had forgot about. A couple of them, CHYR-710 and CKJD-1110 really sounded great, and the aircheck was recorded on a weekend. I shared them with a guy that works with me and we both marveled that they sounded better than the stations locally do during morning and evening drive.
Getting back to 2009, in some areas there are stations, (usually the last remaining mom & pops and small regional groups), that see the writing on the wall. But most of these guys are in small markets, often unreported, and unnoticed. And the question remains, are they surviving?
Some are doing quite well, often turning a profit, even in Q1 2009. Contrast that to one cluster nearby that was down $650,000 for 2008.
The bottom line is that radio can do better, and will have to do better if it wants to survive. Owners can brag about shares all they want, but if your 15 share is .001% of a population, that is nothing to brag about.
It's going to take some soul searching and a lot of hard work. The first thing with any disease is to admit the problem. Then you search for a cure.
I brought up my thoughts that you're reading to one local radio manager who has a station that just posted a .6 in the last book, and missed his 2008 revenues by 23%. I suggested a few things to help his problem. His reply? "What problem?"
Yep, we're in trouble. The question is, who has the stones to admit it and make the change?
Second, radio should be the dominate media due to the ease of technology. Let's face it, if you're competing against newspaper and TV, it should be a no brainer.
That said, it hurts to see what has been happening in the industry. The lack of public service, no news, stale and lethargic presentation on many stations. I have not listened to any of my local stations except to spot check them. There is nothing on to hold my interest or serve my needs. What happened? Fifteen years ago two AMs in town were beating the snot out of each other for listeners and ad dollars. Today, I bet you could turn them off and nobody would notice. The FMs are not too far behind. When two of them changed format, only the media people noticed. There was no buzz by the public.
My kids, a 22 year old daughter and 15 year old son, do not know radio. They don't own a radio, listen to it, or are even mildly curious about it. My daughter is the best example of what we are facing. When consolidation really started to hit hard, and stations cut back on their services to the listener and started the homogenized formats, they lost her. And she never went back.
When I was helping with my son's band-booster camp I asked a lot of kids what they listened to and why. Only one listened to radio, out of fifty-two.
What I think is an interesting study in psychology is I have a lot of airchecks from the past. When I have played them on CDs in my car, my kids comment on the quality (programming) of the stations and the fact that radio then sounds better then now. And when you think about it, some of these stations air the programs before the kids were born!
More recently I pulled out some airchecks of stations from 1987 and 1988 and found some real gems that I had forgot about. A couple of them, CHYR-710 and CKJD-1110 really sounded great, and the aircheck was recorded on a weekend. I shared them with a guy that works with me and we both marveled that they sounded better than the stations locally do during morning and evening drive.
Getting back to 2009, in some areas there are stations, (usually the last remaining mom & pops and small regional groups), that see the writing on the wall. But most of these guys are in small markets, often unreported, and unnoticed. And the question remains, are they surviving?
Some are doing quite well, often turning a profit, even in Q1 2009. Contrast that to one cluster nearby that was down $650,000 for 2008.
The bottom line is that radio can do better, and will have to do better if it wants to survive. Owners can brag about shares all they want, but if your 15 share is .001% of a population, that is nothing to brag about.
It's going to take some soul searching and a lot of hard work. The first thing with any disease is to admit the problem. Then you search for a cure.
I brought up my thoughts that you're reading to one local radio manager who has a station that just posted a .6 in the last book, and missed his 2008 revenues by 23%. I suggested a few things to help his problem. His reply? "What problem?"
Yep, we're in trouble. The question is, who has the stones to admit it and make the change?
A
aunti-terrestrial
Guest
FredRichards said:
Great post, Fred. The thing I love about Radio-Info is that it gives us all the chance to get together and share experiences, and our theories about what would help resuscitate our industry.
I think, though, that it's going to take a lot more than that. We don't have a team of a thousand lawyers, or powerful, unscrupulous lobbyists to ply Washington with enough booze and flooze to change the rules back in order to preserve the industry. The demand for change is going to have to come from us---a whole heck of a lot of us---and we're going to have to get organized.
The problems began with deregulation and consolidation. Ownership caps must again be limited. The FCC compliance and accountability rules must be reimplemented. Class C licenses should be required of each and every individual who holds a job anywhere near the programming side of the building.
And yes, we need localism rules.
aunti-terrestrial said:
You're dreaming. The past is over. The future won't be like the past. We will not return to old laws, because the entire playing field has changed. The FCC has no budget to impliment additional laws, and the federal government is a trillion dollars in debt. The Democrats are more concerned with the environment and health care to divert a single dollar to something their advisors consider a "dinosaur." Even Michael Copps is talking about rethinking the newspaper cross ownership rules, something he found repugnant two years ago.
A
aunti-terrestrial
Guest
Lee, you've made your position abundantly clear. You like your paycheck and the status quo, and consultants don't share any part of the responsibility for bad programming decisions that have chased off the listeners in droves. We get it. Repeatedly. How about letting some other people express their opinions, for a change?
A
aunti-terrestrial
Guest
TheBigA said:
FredRichards said:Radio is in real trouble, and I'm concerned for several reasons. First, I started in the 60s living and breathing radio. I still work in radio, but only in the capacity of voiceover and consulting for automated stations. My "day" job is TV management to pay the bills.
Second, radio should be the dominate media due to the ease of technology. Let's face it, if you're competing against newspaper and TV, it should be a no brainer.
That said, it hurts to see what has been happening in the industry. The lack of public service, no news, stale and lethargic presentation on many stations. I have not listened to any of my local stations except to spot check them. There is nothing on to hold my interest or serve my needs. What happened? Fifteen years ago two AMs in town were beating the snot out of each other for listeners and ad dollars. Today, I bet you could turn them off and nobody would notice. The FMs are not too far behind. When two of them changed format, only the media people noticed. There was no buzz by the public.
My kids, a 22 year old daughter and 15 year old son, do not know radio. They don't own a radio, listen to it, or are even mildly curious about it. My daughter is the best example of what we are facing. When consolidation really started to hit hard, and stations cut back on their services to the listener and started the homogenized formats, they lost her. And she never went back.
When I was helping with my son's band-booster camp I asked a lot of kids what they listened to and why. Only one listened to radio, out of fifty-two.
What I think is an interesting study in psychology is I have a lot of airchecks from the past. When I have played them on CDs in my car, my kids comment on the quality (programming) of the stations and the fact that radio then sounds better then now. And when you think about it, some of these stations air the programs before the kids were born!
More recently I pulled out some airchecks of stations from 1987 and 1988 and found some real gems that I had forgot about. A couple of them, CHYR-710 and CKJD-1110 really sounded great, and the aircheck was recorded on a weekend. I shared them with a guy that works with me and we both marveled that they sounded better than the stations locally do during morning and evening drive.
Getting back to 2009, in some areas there are stations, (usually the last remaining mom & pops and small regional groups), that see the writing on the wall. But most of these guys are in small markets, often unreported, and unnoticed. And the question remains, are they surviving?
Some are doing quite well, often turning a profit, even in Q1 2009. Contrast that to one cluster nearby that was down $650,000 for 2008.
The bottom line is that radio can do better, and will have to do better if it wants to survive. Owners can brag about shares all they want, but if your 15 share is .001% of a population, that is nothing to brag about.
It's going to take some soul searching and a lot of hard work. The first thing with any disease is to admit the problem. Then you search for a cure.
I brought up my thoughts that you're reading to one local radio manager who has a station that just posted a .6 in the last book, and missed his 2008 revenues by 23%. I suggested a few things to help his problem. His reply? "What problem?"
Yep, we're in trouble. The question is, who has the stones to admit it and make the change?
Reality check.
In 2008 our company, a mid-size radio outfit with several dozen stations in smaller markets, finished down 1 percent in sales and up 2 percent in cashflow.
Through the first three months of this year, we are down about 5 percent in sales and dead even in cashflow.
We have tightened our belt, but no fulltime staff has been laid off.
Most of the trouble we read about has to do with companies that took on too much debt, so their problems are very similar to those problems being experienced by every other highly-leveraged company in America. That isn't a "radio" issue. It is a "banking" issue.
The biggest cuts in radio ad budgets are in major markets, not smaller markets. We have been impacted directly by the problems in the auto sector since car dealers used to be our biggest clients, and many other direct advertisers have grown more cautious.
Much of what you have shared above regarding your own listening habits and those of your children is apocryphal--that is, stories that may have some validity, but are not the equivalent of research. In fact, much of this thread fits that category. Your observations are not reflected by research from both Arbitron and RADAR, indicating that overall radio listening has remained pretty consistent over the past decade, continuting to reach more than 90 percent of humanity. Time Spent Listening is down a bit, but is still at levels reflecting the highest usage of any media.
To borrow the phrase, radio's death has been greatly exaggerated.
Sorry to spoil anyone's Pity Party. But a lot of us who actually do this for a living continue to do very well. Our radio stations continue to offer full service programming to grateful communities, and we continue to operate very successful & profitable businesses.
In radio.
I'm pretty sure the folks in Fargo and surrounding areas were happy to have their radio stations, many if not all doing round the clock public service during the flood and blizzard. WZFG stayed at 25000 watts and was heard over a wide area, and from what I heard from Ohio, were doing a bang-up job.
I do find it interesting that in all the talk of removing the licesnses of thousands of radio stations, and delivering them to "more deserving" owners (who decides and by what criteria?), you also want local program,ming decisions to be overseen by beauraucrats in Washington.
Are we really going to set up field offices all over the country to verify the amount of "live and local programming"? Who honestly cares except for people on radio boards, who apparently hope that somehow they'll be legislated back into a DJ or talk show host job for $25000 a year.
If "no one" listens to radio, why is our lite A/c station's listener appreciation lunches, the Hot A/C's big summer concert and even the alternative station's summer concert packed and sold out? I guarantee that if I set up a booth asking people to sign petitions to have these stations' licenses revoked because they "don't do enough public service programs" they'd look at me like I was nuts.
I do find it interesting that in all the talk of removing the licesnses of thousands of radio stations, and delivering them to "more deserving" owners (who decides and by what criteria?), you also want local program,ming decisions to be overseen by beauraucrats in Washington.
Are we really going to set up field offices all over the country to verify the amount of "live and local programming"? Who honestly cares except for people on radio boards, who apparently hope that somehow they'll be legislated back into a DJ or talk show host job for $25000 a year.
If "no one" listens to radio, why is our lite A/c station's listener appreciation lunches, the Hot A/C's big summer concert and even the alternative station's summer concert packed and sold out? I guarantee that if I set up a booth asking people to sign petitions to have these stations' licenses revoked because they "don't do enough public service programs" they'd look at me like I was nuts.
If you're serious I wish you best of luck. The problem is, if you're in the shadow of the big signals, how do you really get the hometown folks to turn off the big signals and listen to you. I've been down that road with a small AM and the folks in the town weren't switching off the metro stations, anymore than they were avoiding shopping in the big mall while their own mall and downtown died.
gr8oldies said:
Nobody is suggesting field offices to monitor stations. The business model we have is one where the public chooses the winners and losers. The stations who have made the choice to cut back on the types of programming people want are those in the most trouble. And sadly, sometimes those in control of correcting the problem deny there is a problem.
I'm also not suggesting that the answer is live DJs or that pay scales have a factor, except there is the formula in employment that often you get what you pay for. What I'm suggesting is that much of radio's problems are developed by a lack of paying attention to what the end user is looking for.
gr8oldies said:
I don't know what station you're even talking about, or why people are attending, or if these are listeners or advertisers.
To counter I can say that I know of many stations in deep trouble because of fundamental flaws in their operating structure. This seems to be more the norm in 2009 as evident by the number of stations reducing staff and services to improve the bottom line.
When stations loose programming elements that people desire, the listeners go to other stations or media that have what they want. The listener is tolerant to the point where they find something better. If you're not the best, then you can't expect them to stick around.
If you're on top this month, good for ya. If you think you're on top, better watch your back. There is too many choices out there for people to make.
FredRichards said:
A little specificity would help.
FredRichards said:
Most radio stations spend lots of money to find out what the "end user is looking for." So that's not the problem.
Perhaps you might consider that there is no single thing an "end user is looking for." Perhaps we're at a point where music taste, opinion, and interest has become so individualized that it's almost impossible to get the audience figures you need to pay for the kind of programming the audience wants. I think that's where we are. The biggest complaint I get comes from people who missed what they wanted because they were doing something else. That's where web sites come in.
FredRichards said:
You can't pay for people when you don't have money. Right now, the one very clear and obvious fact is that revenues are declining regardless of programming, and regardless of platform. If you're an ad-supported medium, you have declining revenues. That has nothing to do with staffing or services.We have a glutted media market with a shortage of people who want to advertise. Many who want to advertise are not using mass media like radio, TV, or newspapers. So the reality is that these stations have to adjust what they do because of money. That's what you do. Even the government is reducing staff and services because of declining tax revenues. So this is not a radio problem.
FredRichards said:
Here's the key thing to know: If listeners go to other media, they're going to find the programming isn't built like a traditional radio station with DJs playing music and giving news & weather. So if that's what they want, they're not going to find it on an ipod or at pandora. The real fact here is that the audience for what traditional radio has been doing is going away. They don't want what traditional radio has been doing for the past 50 years.
What I'm talking about is a complete sociological revolution in what the public wants. It's very different. So losing staff or programming only matters if the public actually wants it, and if it's available in the traditional sense somewhere else. So far, it appears the answer to both of those is no.
What the public doesn't want is vapid jocks reading the same liner cards between the same songs. The entertainment value dictated largely by strict formatics is worse than nil - it's detracts listeners instead of attracting them.
Jocks who are allowed to entertain - morning shows, some syndicated jocks with enough "juice" to call their own shots, and those personalities with both good enough ratings and smart enough owners to appreciate them, are still delivering the goods.
The economy and the debt load of the consolidators is dictating cuts in programming. The result is even steeper declines in revenue - declines that are greater than the "savings" that came from those programming cuts. Syndication and generic voicetracking are reducing any reason that the listeners have for choosing radio over other media.
Without immediacy, without relatable personalities, radio is just "somebody else's iPod". Too many corporate owners have cut the very core of radio's strength in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy. Add to that corporate cuts to the sales force - the very people who bring the money in the door - and you have the sad state that radio is in today.
Citadel and Regent are likely the first to go bankrupt. Cox and Entercom are likely to survive, but they'll be faced with competition from new companies who'll buy radio stations from the liquidation of other companies at 3-5x multiples. They'll have a lot less debt, which means that they'll be able to operate in the current marketplace and still have money for sales, promotions and talent. If they're smart enough to rebuild relationships with advertisers AND listeners, radio will survive. If they follow the thinking of Clear Channel and others who want to essentially bring back network programming originated from a few national hubs, radio will fade as the listening population ages out of the demographics that advertisers want.
Jocks who are allowed to entertain - morning shows, some syndicated jocks with enough "juice" to call their own shots, and those personalities with both good enough ratings and smart enough owners to appreciate them, are still delivering the goods.
The economy and the debt load of the consolidators is dictating cuts in programming. The result is even steeper declines in revenue - declines that are greater than the "savings" that came from those programming cuts. Syndication and generic voicetracking are reducing any reason that the listeners have for choosing radio over other media.
Without immediacy, without relatable personalities, radio is just "somebody else's iPod". Too many corporate owners have cut the very core of radio's strength in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy. Add to that corporate cuts to the sales force - the very people who bring the money in the door - and you have the sad state that radio is in today.
Citadel and Regent are likely the first to go bankrupt. Cox and Entercom are likely to survive, but they'll be faced with competition from new companies who'll buy radio stations from the liquidation of other companies at 3-5x multiples. They'll have a lot less debt, which means that they'll be able to operate in the current marketplace and still have money for sales, promotions and talent. If they're smart enough to rebuild relationships with advertisers AND listeners, radio will survive. If they follow the thinking of Clear Channel and others who want to essentially bring back network programming originated from a few national hubs, radio will fade as the listening population ages out of the demographics that advertisers want.
SirRoxalot said:
You have some statistics to go with your opinion?
The fact is that formatics are what made radio great. Ask Rick Sklar. Ask Bill Drake. Ask Lee Abrams.
SirRoxalot said:
There is no direct connection between programming and revenues. The revenues were either steady or declining long before the programming cuts, and they continue regardless of whether stations make cuts or remain unchanged.
SirRoxalot said:
Which, for many people, is fine. They don't have to program it. Just turn it on, and it does the work for you.
SirRoxalot said:
You assume that if they have money for such things, that they'll spend it. History has shown that owners don't spend money on anything that isn't required.
SirRoxalot said:
I guess you're saying national programming is such a failure for TV, internet, phones, and cable, right?
The problem for radio isn't the programming. The problem for radio is that one-dimentional content is losing to 3-D (audio/video/interactive). Until radio fixes that problem, it will have problems.
"Interactive" has been around since the 78 RPM record came out. When it comes to radio, people complain more about "homogenized programming" than any other factor. They complain about "annoying jocks" who offer no meaningful content - i.e. promos and liner cards - every time they crack the mic.
You want statistics? Why? You ignore them when they're posted anyway.
Rick Sklar, Bill Drake, and Lee Abrams are appalled at what corporate radio is dishing out. Ask 'em. They'll tell you that they never intended for radio to take formatting and research this far.
But, what do I know? You're correct, it's just my opinion - based on conversations with hundreds of people who USED TO listen to terrestrial radio.
Carry on, Corporate Stooge. You and your ilk are doing SUCH a fine job that pretty soon either your corporation, or radio as a medium, will be dead. If we're lucky, radio will be the one to survive.
You want statistics? Why? You ignore them when they're posted anyway.
Rick Sklar, Bill Drake, and Lee Abrams are appalled at what corporate radio is dishing out. Ask 'em. They'll tell you that they never intended for radio to take formatting and research this far.
But, what do I know? You're correct, it's just my opinion - based on conversations with hundreds of people who USED TO listen to terrestrial radio.
Carry on, Corporate Stooge. You and your ilk are doing SUCH a fine job that pretty soon either your corporation, or radio as a medium, will be dead. If we're lucky, radio will be the one to survive.
- Status