Re: Radio Misinformation
> "....in most cases, radio has never offered better product
> in more different varieties."---David Eduardo
>
> David....You're kidding, right? You meant to say "....radio
> has never offered a more mediocre product in more
> varieties." Correct? To say otherwise simply denies both
> current, and probable future reality, does it not?
This is the subjective area of the argument. I actually believe most stations do a better job of serving the listener than they did 20 or 30 years ago.
For example, a person int he 60´s or even most of the 70´s who wanted softer contemporary music (what we call AC today) with limited talk and intrusion had nowhere to go. I use this exmple because there is a belief that all lsiteners at all hours whnt personality jocks, which is untrue.
Similarly, look at the contituencies that were not served well in the 50's through the 70's, such as Hispanics nd African Americans. Today, these groups, accounting for over 25% of America's popultion, have multiple choices in the areas where sluch groups are a dignificant element of the popultion.
We have kid's radio, we have different focuses of talk, we have all sports, we have vrious kinds of country and rock... while in the pre-consolidation days, if there were multiple country statins, they usully were near identical, in head on battles... Same with CHR and rock/AOR.
> "Almost all markets have gone to having at least three times
>
> the viable, usable stations from the 50's to today. As a
> result, shares have decreased. #1 was once a matter of
> having shares in the 20's or even 30's. Today, in most
> markets, like DFW, #1 is a 6 share."---DE
>
> So you're saying brand extension and product fragmentation,
> accompanied with a near catastrophic reduction in
> experienced workforce is a good thing?
I don't see such a "catastrophic" reduction. What I do see is a bunch of government regulations and rules and miscellaneous fcts of life that make it very hard to get into radio "the old way."
Today you can not hang around a station and lern. Insurance, labor laws nd even EEOC rules make that very dnagerous for the licensee. Intern programs in most staates are ineffective as they either require the intern to be paid, or requiere the intern to rotate through deprtments, neither of which is practical. And those are just two of the things that have changed in more recent years.
>
> "When any market fragments, there is going to be a
> difference
> in what you can spend when you get a third of the revenue
> and when you get 1/20th or less of it."---DE
>
> In my view, Radio at its best is defined as a service with
> an attendant and secondary business component. Your Radio
> seems to be a fragmented, quality-diluted business with
> service to....who? A dissatisfied customer base looking for
> a commercial-free alternative they're willing to pay
> hundreds of dollars for?
There is nothing radio can do to compete with non-commercial, generally subscriber financed alternatives. Interestingly, if you look at the case studies, many thought 25 to 30 years ago that the HBO type cable model of permium paid channels would be the big ticket. Actually, the sme-as-terrestrial-TV commercial channels get the most cable viewership, so having no commericals alone does not seem to be the working model.
Fragmentation is a good thing for the listener. It is not a good thing for owners. I have had stations with double digit shares (one, with 30's and 40's in a Top 15 market) and it is a lot easier to sell bulk thaan niche audiences. But advertising is increasingly targeted, too. So fragmentation fits both consumers, the advertiser and the listener.
When I listen to Top 40 airchecks of the 60's and even 70's, I am often reminded that I did not like at least a third of the songs, but put up with them because there was nothing closer to what I wanted. Today, there are much more specific choices.
But, if a listener wants all reggae in Dallas without commercials, they will have to buy such a service. No one can satisfy such tiny niche groups on an ad supported medium at the local level.
>
> "Still, there are more different formats and most are
> decently executed."---DE
>
> In comparison to what? Today's Radio formatting is nothing
> more than a search for an automatable niche, rather than a
> competition between two or more teams of Live & Local On-Air
> professionals in search of/quest for higher ratings in the
> same format. Which leads to a better product; competition,
> or avoidance of competition?
Again, there are many formats where live personality jocks are not only not required, but are a nuisance the listener will not put up with.
I am reminded of two AC stations in Miami. One is very personality, the other is totally linered. Both have historiclly done very well, and each has listeners who, when interviewed personally, will reject the other staiton as being totally unappealing. The music is the same... but one gorup wnts personality, the other hates it. Both are big groups, and therein lies the conclusion that less invsive formats have a definite place in radio.
>
> "Radio costs are ever increasing. Group insurance has
> increased over 30% in the last 5 years in America. Don't
> forget that many of us got no insurance until relatively
> recently, as small radio companies could not afford
> insurance. Where I work, and in the companies I am familiar
>
> with, regular rasies are granted, the companies contribute
> to retirement plans, and the most talented have very good
> opportunities."---DE
>
> GE, McDonalds, and General Dynamics pay those costs too, to
> a product workforce numbering in the 100's of thousands.
Radio in the pre-consolidation era could not afford insurance because small groups were expensive to insure. These big companies can afford it because they have much better risk spreding over a big workforce.
> The insurance packages you speak of were once offered to
> every member of a 6-7 member airstaff....Now, they're
> offered to a 2-3 member airstaff.
Single stations not part of a company were notorious for having no benefits... now or then. 3 or 6, you can not get good coverage with such a small group at a reasonable rate. Remember, insurnce covers the whole station, nut just airstaff... so a single 15 person station often had no insurance, while today's groups with hundreds of employees can afford decent coverage.
> Further, Adobe Audition
> 1.5 with a Flame-Throwing PC to run it costs 5-Grand....3%
> of the cost of the multi-track analog studio it replaced.
> That leaves the cost of the facilities themselves, and
> you've already argued on this board that those costs
> were/are completely in line. I don't know, Dave, but Radio
> looks, and sounds cheaper than it ever has to me.
Yet we used $1,300 Yard boards in the 60's, while today we buy $40,000 control services in better stations. One thing cancels out the other.
Other expenses, like power, phone, legal, rent, business licences, insurance, etc., cost far more than an inflation adjusted equivalent of pre-consolidation cost.
>
> "Meanwhile, [today's] radio workers have never known less,
> made less, or faced a more uncertain future."---JD/FB
>
> "You must have picked the wrong people to work for. This is
> totally contrary to my experience, which has included
> recruiting on an ongoing basis, bonuses, incentives,
> raises,
> and opportunities."---DE
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, those are the biggest companies in
> the industry.
Companies like Emmis, Radio One, Cox, Univision, and many others are well regarded. In many places, the stitons of CCU are good places to work, too. there have always been good and bad in all markets. Today, I think the good predominantes. Radio was pretty awful as far as work benefits, etc. when I started.
>
> "In fact, the recruiting and training I
> see at McDonalds fairly well parallels what I see in my
> sector of radio."---DE
>
> I completely agree. Radio's current recruiting, training,
> and protection of its product worker's intellectual
> competence does parallel McDonalds.
But that is good. Most radio is learned on the job, not in a school. McDonalds promotes through the ranks (it's present CEO started at the store level) allowing people to acquire working knowledge and be trained by those with greater knowledge.
McDonalds rewards people who do things well, within its system. Very few systems in business reward rebels and nonconformists.
>
> "I can not see, at present, any of the alternative media
> offering any significant opportunity for the innovation or
> growth that was mentioned."---DE
>
> Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there have
> been forgotten, look away, look away, look away, from what's
> real....
What is the economic model? Satellite is ephemeral, and will be totally wiped out by the coming gnerations of broadband wi-fi, and free distribution via the web meaans thousands of choices, huge fragmentation and no model to support it. Or to pay salaries.
>
> "In fact, until Asian connection speeds come to America, I
> can not see any significant competiton to terrestrial
> radio."
> ---DE
>
> A simple matter of time....
The infrastructure and spectrum availablity and government and private secotr interest mean this is more than a decde away in the US. At the speed of technology, that is an eternity. I do not know of any business that can predict 10 years out.
>
> "Satellte is ephemeral, and will be wiped out by the
> practical application of WiMax and none of the models have
> the economies of scale to reward the creative elements
> adequately."---DE
>
> A thousand lousy-tasting crackers may indeed have a bigger
> market share than two expensive, delicious ones. But David,
> you're still touting the benefits of a thousand
> lousy-tasting crackers.
95% of Americans use radio weekly. In the areas radio serves, 18-54, the usage pertty closely prallels that of the many prior decades. There are always people looking for something different, and there have always been light users or non-users of radio. These are the satellite prime targets. For most people, terrestrial radio is serving needs. And if it isn't, the sectors that are not being served will either be lost, or certain stations will decide to address the issues.
>
> "One big deal for Howard Stern is hardly a
> groundswell of creative opportunity, except perhaps, for
> recently fired potty-mouthed non-talents who bring a buzz
> to
> satellite among a small but active niche market."---DE
>
> Absolutely Correct....Unless Terrestrial Radio continues its
> concerted, short-sighted, and pathological refusal to offer
> a better product to the marketplace. Beginning now.
For huge segments of the population, and for many years, this is not an issue of anywhere near the size you paint it. Your biggest filure is to ignore the ability of radio, or any business, to adapt to changing conditions. Radio is not in the WalMart vs. Ma and Pa retailer in Lake City, FL. It can and will respond to most challenges, but there is a knowledge that there are some people we did not have and some we only theuously had. They will go.
<P ID="signature">______________