Radio News?

[Element9]

Ah, ah, ah... let's be careful here:

Clear Channel, CBS, Citadel, Cumulus and the other big companies own less than 25% of all radio stations in this country

As it happens the conglomerates own concentrations of stations (clusters) in most major markets. Yes, they also own in markets like Youngstown, Providence, Syracuse and as is the case of Entercom, Buffalo. But clearly, these companies cornered the market in the majors. LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago. From my perspective, this has led to homoginized, mediocre radio, with a tit-for-tat approach, especially when it comes to staffing and programming.

Station X runs Delilah at night. Station Y retaliates with Kim Iverson. Station Z adds John Tesh. Station Q had a live, local night show that did very well, but they 'canned the night guy and now voice tracked the daypart with some generic guy from Scranton.

I know, I know... Steve Harvey, Tom Joyner, Rush, Imus, Stern... BTW, BigA, Wease beat Stern in Rochester and I believe Norton beat Stern in Buffalo. According to Ron Dobson's blog, many years ago when he was on WGR, Dobson was on his way to beating Rush when the plug was inexplicably pulled on him because WBEN and WGR were co-owned or in an LMA or something of that nature.

Next observation. And excuse me for getting off on a tangent. Another perspective is the polarization that occured within the staffs in news-talk formats. For example, years ago at WABC, the news department was getting whittled down while at the same time, exorbitant amounts of money were being spent on talkers. Same happened at WLS, to a degree. Sorry I cannot quote specifics. The situations were written up in the local press and mention was made in Radio & Records and Broadcasting & Cable. The news departments were grunting it out on the streets while the yakkers were sitting in a studio making big money.

Now then, back to the fray.

A good correlation is made to the FCC and the SEC. What we've seen in the last eight to 12 years (and please, I'm not trying to turn this into a conservative v. liberal political pissing match) is a lot of "looking the other way" by federal agencies charged with dutifully regulating everything from mining, health, education, banks and broadcasting. And speaking of Madoff, it's been documented in hearings and publications that the SEC was alerted to Madoff but chose NOT to follow up on investigating him and his operations. This happened under Dubya's watch, but again, Clinton was no saint, either.

It's my contention (and I'll argue this against all the "facts" that anybody offers to counter my contention) that big radio companies didn't help matters. I say this after watching friends work in ALL aspects of the radio business, from management to the front lines in sales and on-air get fired. It's as if the limbs of the patient have been cut off, but the doctors expect the patient to run the 50 yard dash in 40 seconds.

The big boys of radio created junk bonds and Wall Street couldn't get enough. Wall Street then turned around and sold the crappy stocks, bonds and mutual funds to Americans who were all to eager to jump on the prosperity train in their 401k's. Why get a steady 5% a year when you can jump into a fund that yields 25% a year.

America is damned by debt, whether it's individuals or corporations. For so many years, Americans had a savings rate in negative numbers. NEGATIVE numbers. Corporate America wasn't any better. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Entercom, Citadel and Emmis couldn't AFFORD to buy the stations they bought. They cooked the books. OK, they didn't "cook" the books, they re-wrote a few chapters and created a happy ending... still, it was FICTION.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost. Radio's on the brink. If Sirius-XM tanks, it's likely to start a domino effect. I'm not yet wholly convinced, but each day I get closer to believing that the only thing that's going to solve this mess and stop the profuse bleeding is bankruptcy.

One thing more. I suspect BigA has not received such robust response on any other board in the R-I network. Buffalo (and Rochester too). City of no illusions. In a way, we're like Missouri... you gotta show us.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Boy, lots of bang from a very little firecracker here.

First, this was no bigger "emergency" than any other major fire, in terms of its risk to the public outside a one-block radius. So yes, almost everyone who stayed glued to their radio dials listening for endless detail and speculation was either a pilot, or a voyeur, and wall-to-wall coverage certainly qualified as ambulance-chasing.

However, there were 50 peole killed, many who had friends and family in the market. There were many people who, if not in immediate danger, were at least affected at some level. So, if it didn't deserve emergency treatment, it was at least a valid news story. Big A seems to think broadcast radio's response should be dictated by the technical needs of responders. Broadcast radio exists to serve the needs and wants of the public at large, and some segment of the public usually wants news.

News coverage as a contributing factor to crowds at the scene is a responder's dillusion. A 100-foot fireball fueld by Jet-A will draw a very healthy crowd with no help required from radio. As has been noted above, people who get their kicks from watching stuff burn enough to travel to the scene probably heard about it on their scanners.

The decent thing to do if you're a music station is to let listeners know there's been a plane crash, then go on playing music.

I do think every station should be required to have SOME arrangement to provide details on a developing emergency 24/7, even if many otherwise unstaffed stations shared one "night watchman." By the time the county emergency responders get EAS sent, private-sector reporters will already be wrapping up.

 

[TheBigA]

From my perspective, this has led to homoginized, mediocre radio, with a tit-for-tat approach, especially when it comes to staffing and programming.

I don't see programming as a function of ownership. Because if the stations were all owned individually (as they once were), they'd do what many used to do, and carry formats by outside consultants, follow national airplay charts, or do whatever's easiest. People have created this myth in their minds that radio used to be creative and innovative, and it all stopped in 1996. I'm here to tell you it isn't true, and I've got reels of airchecks from stations around the country to prove it.

I suspect BigA has not received such robust response on any other board in the R-I network. Buffalo (and Rochester too). City of no illusions. In a way, we're like Missouri... you gotta show us.

I've found a lot of passion here, which is good, because I'm extremely passionate about radio. And people have been mostly very polite, which is appreciated.

 

[TheBigA]

Big A seems to think broadcast radio's response should be dictated by the technical needs of responders. Broadcast radio exists to serve the needs and wants of the public at large, and some segment of the public usually wants news.

I don't know if that's correct. By and large, I think NEWS coverage is different from emergency coverage. As you point out, this was not an emergency. Thus this story should be covered as news by the news stations in town. The public knows where to find news on the radio, and apparently it was available in those places. Having said that, radio stations are not responsible for solving the emergency needs of the public. Emergency officials shouldn't "dictate" radio's response, but they determine what the proper response should be. Radio station personnel shouldn't be the ones determining emergency response until they've received that information from the proper authorities.

 

[listener-in]

I don't see programming as a function of ownership…….People have created this myth in their minds that radio used to be creative and innovative, and it all stopped in 1996.

If programming were not a function of ownership, you wouldn’t be seeing chains like Citadel and Salem single-mindedly concentrating their talk in conservative hands.

And while radio had already suffered some decline before '96, it’s no myth – and certainly no accident - that it’s been going steeply downhill since then. From my viewpoint as a listener, relaxed ownership rules have been a disaster. When one can drive across country and, with rare exceptions, hear only the same limited varieties of music and talk hour after hour, it proves the point, despite any “proof” to the contrary from some insider or other.

About the Buffalo crash coverage, local stations should have elevated it higher than their normal coverage. Granted I wasn’t tuned in to AM 1520 all that much (given that I can hear the same stuff much better on WiFi when I’m not in the car) but I don’t recall hearing anything about Flight 3407 other than what CNN News reported in its half-hourly bulletins. In a nutshell, the absence of local content explains why KB’s format doesn’t go down well with listeners. In a more competitive ownership environment, they couldn’t get away with it. The economy may be poor right now, but trouble is that radio owners started cutting their own throats when times were better. When the recovery comes, much of their audience will have gone elsewhere. I’m with Nine all the way.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't see programming as a function of ownership…….People have created this myth in their minds that radio used to be creative and innovative, and it all stopped in 1996.

If programming were not a function of ownership, you wouldn’t be seeing chains like Citadel and Salem single-mindedly concentrating their talk in conservative hands.

They do it because it's what the listeners want. They've tried other types of talk, and it simply doesn't deliver the same size audience. The Citadel station in DC used to run Bill Press's show, and it was a flop.

When one can drive across country and, with rare exceptions, hear only the same limited varieties of music and talk hour after hour, it proves the point, despite any “proof” to the contrary from some insider or other.

I can show you radio station playlists from 30 years ago that are remarkably similar. WQAM Miami played the same songs as WFIL Philadelphia who played the same songs as WLS Chicago.

 

[listener-in]

They do it because it's what the listeners want. They've tried other types of talk, and it simply doesn't deliver the same size audience. The Citadel station in DC used to run Bill Press's show, and it was a flop.

We're wandering off topic a little (and I plead guilty) but I would challenge any talkers to get good ratings if they're confined to radio Siberia in the form of inferior signals and/or zero local content.

I can show you radio station playlists from 30 years ago that are remarkably similar. WQAM Miami played the same songs as WFIL Philadelphia who played the same songs as WLS Chicago.

No doubt, but what about the countless other stations that didn't play the same stuff? I could make the sweeping statement that cats don't have tails and "prove" it by showing you pictures of three different Manx cats.

 

[TheBigA]

They do it because it's what the listeners want. They've tried other types of talk, and it simply doesn't deliver the same size audience. The Citadel station in DC used to run Bill Press's show, and it was a flop.

We're wandering off topic a little (and I plead guilty) but I would challenge any talkers to get good ratings if they're confined to radio Siberia in the form of inferior signals and/or zero local content.

I just said that the Citadel-owned station in DC that carries Rush also carried the Bill Press show. It was a flop. It's not a function of signal or local content. It's a function of non-conservatives being able to attract an audience. As Rush or O'Reilly say every day: The media is owned by liberals. It kills them to air these conservatives. But they pay the bills.

 

[listener-in]

As Rush or O'Reilly say every day: The media is owned by liberals.

Repeating it every day doesn't make it true - methinks they protest too much. Anyway, I'm grateful you cited your sources - it explains a lot.

 

[Steven21]

I just said that the Citadel-owned station in DC that carries Rush also carried the Bill Press show. It was a flop. It's not a function of signal or local content. It's a function of non-conservatives being able to attract an audience. As Rush or O'Reilly say every day: The media is owned by liberals. It kills them to air these conservatives. But they pay the bills.

For the record: I cannot stand ANY ideologically oriented program line-up. All conservative all the time is just as nauseating as all lib-talk. I don't play favorites.

But let's be clear about history:
If conservative talkradio started out with the same obstacles that lib-talk has, the talkradio landscape would look a lot different. To say lib-talk had a fair chance to succeed is dishonest.

In the Beginning.....
Rush Limbaugh came along in the late 80s and started to catch fire. He was an entertainer above all else and knew how to get attention. Radio programmers, in their infinitely uncreative wisdom, did what they've been doing for years---they hired a million more like him. They didn't understand that it really wasn't his politics that made Limbaugh good, it was his personality. Politics was secondary. Still, having hired every conservative blabbermouth capable of turning on a mic, talk stations from coast to coast started edging more and more and more conservative. The lesser talented conservative hosts went by the wayside, while the more talented ones systematically inherited the Earth.

Stations once filled with a variety of personalities, were now wall to wall conservatives---which was fine, since over the last 20 years, they've increasingly catered to just that mentality and have built predominantly conservative audiences.

Talkradio, and by that I mean "conservative talk", has been nurtured along by the most established calls in the biz, and has now became so entrenched and the audience so skewed, that the average American isn't even likely to bother with it.

And while that's fine with the niche it attracts, I think it's pretty sad for the format as a whole.

So spare me this "only conservative talk will work" BS, because anyone who has a normal life knows, MOST people have opinions that span the political spectrum, you just won't find much of it on TALKradio.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Personally I've noticed a major decline in the number of radio stations that bother to carry their own local news.
Sure there are some stations that have their announcers read out of the morning newspaper, or stations that depend on TV coverage for news.
Here in Rochester the so-called "News Leader" recently fired a man with close to 30 years of service to the station, thus reducing that station's news department down to just 3 or 4 people.
A number of managers that I've personally spoken with have told me quite frankly that news is not that important to their operations anymore. (Legends 102 comes to mind). Yet when there is a story, like the one in Clarence Center, those stations that have local news departments have to scramble to assemble their team to make sure the story is covered.
I just don't understand how some stations that are gearing their audience to baby-boomers will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on just one announcer, yet when it comes to budget cuts will start hacking away at local news operations where the average news person is lucky to make $40,000 a year. Yet these same managers will raise holy hell if their station doesn't cover a major story, like the plane crash in Clarence Center. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Nor should these executives depend on other news operations either.

 

[TheBigA]

It depends on the market. In Seattle, the commercial news station recently expanded from AM to FM, replacing a popular music station in order to reach more people with local news. The thinking is to replace newspapers as multi-plaform source for local news. Key part being "multi-platform." So the radio station is also doing streams and podcasts on the internet. Their web site is the most-viewed local information site in the area, exceeding the local TV and newspaper sites. You can sell those metrics to an advertiser. If you own the content, you can sell and resell it multiple times and ways. It could be the model for the future.

 

[Bob1370]

"A number of managers that I've personally spoken with have told me quite frankly that news is not that important to their operations anymore."

If that's so, you have to wonder how competent they are. They're missing an opportunity to make money.

News, well-done, SHOULD be a significant profit center for any adult-oriented radio station, and one that aspires to be a major player in the market should never think of operating without a decent news effort. In good times advertisers would pay a premium for placement in a newscast. And even in bad times a newscast on such a full-service station should be an easy sell even if you can't always get a premium price per commercial unit.

I never worked for a commercial radio station that didn't make enough extra money from its newscasts to make its newsroom a significant profit center for the whole station.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Rewriting the Past?

I don't see programming as a function of ownership. Because if the stations were all owned individually (as they once were), they'd do what many used to do, and carry formats by outside consultants, follow national airplay charts, or do whatever's easiest. People have created this myth in their minds that radio used to be creative and innovative, and it all stopped in 1996. I'm here to tell you it isn't true, and I've got reels of airchecks from stations around the country to prove it.

There are lots of airchecks available from around the country for the era prior to 1990. Listen to them, and tell me that radio wasn't more diverse and creative than the overprogrammed pap that now inhabits the airwaves. Even if the music was similar, the presentation varied from station-to-station and market-to-market. Here in Buffalo, KB and WYSL had a lot of similarity in their playlists. Their presentation, however, was very different. Throw WNIA into the mix if you like, and get a third flavor. By the time that "WYSL-FM" and/or "Y-103", and "The Super Q" came along, the move of music toward FM was obvious. But, you certainly heard a much richer variety of programming in those days in one city than you hear now. When you look at different cities, you find significant differences between WABC in NY and KHJ in Los Angeles. As I recall, Bill Drake got spanked in NY. What killed out west didn't do so well back east.

The homogenization began in the '70s in major markets, and worked its way down the markets in the '80s. Consultants convinced GMs that their format was a guaranteed winner, and local program directors began to lose control. Consultants actively campaigned against personalities outside of morning drive, and the role of the "air personality" was reduced to "liner card reader". Format restrictions were cranked down tight - regardless of numbers - at the insistence of consultants. To quote our resident corporate apologist:

Mass appeal is mass appeal. You can quote me. Bill Drake told DJs at his stations exactly how long they were allowed to speak. That was 30 years ago. Sound familiar? Nothing changes. Give a radio guy some power and he wants to rule the world.

Rick Sklar started to program the other stations, and they began to sound the same. As did RKO and Storer. Lots of station groups did the same thing. As certain PDs became successful, they got promoted and became group PDs. I can run through all the corporate PDS from all the station groups in the 80s, and they'll all swear they had a lot to say about what their local stations did.

GMs loved it because it made jocks more easily replaceable - which means that they could keep talent costs down. They had the same view on air personalities that TheBigA has expressed several times:

Oh, BTW, a lot of their live and local is done by part-timers, which saves significantly on personnel costs.

Great idea. I think Citadel should do the same thing. They should also encourage local volunteers who will program their classic rock station for free. I believe that would be a lot better than the lazy aging overpaid boomers they have now. Community involvement in the station would be promotable, give listeners a stake in their station, and be cheaper than syndication. I bet people would KILL to be on the air for free. That would allow Citadel to cut the spotload in half.

I believe the talent pool was diluted during the past 20 years. Too many stations, too many people, all doing basically the same thing... You can't have thousands of radio stations with thousands of local DJs. The real talent gets lost in the shuffle. So you need to pick...who of the group will resonate with large audiences? The issue isn't local vs. syndicated, but rather finding talent who will become household names the way Dick Clark, Rick Dees, Howard Stern, and Wolfman Jack did. People you can build an industry around. People who can put a face to what radio is...

Certainly, to be able to afford more people like Steve Harvey and Rush Limbaugh, radio has to forego more of the local talent.

Yet, this is the same guy that says:

If you care about the art of radio, yes. Art has no price. It's priceless, or should be.

Apparently, radio is an art - but only certain artists are allowed to display their talents - and, we all want to see the same art, right? What we're getting from syndicated talent now allows you to choose between Big Eyed Children, Dogs Playing Poker, and Velvet Elvis.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Rewriting the Past?

There are lots of airchecks available from around the country for the era prior to 1990. Listen to them.

I don't have to. I was there. In big cities and small towns. I was there. Sure there were a handful of exceptions. But radio was, for the most part, just as it is now. Probably worse in some places. But I also have a collection of tapes from American Aircheck. Lots of very dated stuff that wouldn't work now.

When you look at different cities, you find significant differences between WABC in NY and KHJ in Los Angeles. As I recall, Bill Drake got spanked in NY. What killed out west didn't do so well back east.

There were a couple of mega-PDs, like Drake and Sklar who ran the radio divisions of their companies. They made sure they always played the hits, and the hits were basically the same in all places. Everyone else followed them by reading the trades like Cash Box and Billboard. That's led to the success of the oldies format now, and why there is so much shared experience among boomers, regardless of where they grew up.

The homogenization began in the '70s in major markets, and worked its way down the markets in the '80s.

The homogenization began with Gordon MacLendon in the 50s. He hit on a formula, and cashed in. Before that, you had individuals buying air time and playing what they wanted. But the history of rock radio for the last 50 years has been to find a formula, and stick with it. There have been variations on the formula, but the key part was that it WAS a formula, and everyone knew it. Including the listeners. As a little kid, I could tell you when the pick hit would air in the day part.

Apparently, radio is an art - but only certain artists are allowed to display their talents - and, we all want to see the same art, right?

I often compare on air talent with recording artists. There are loads of black female singers. There's only one Aretha. From her earliest records you could hear her talent. It was bigger than the producers who worked with her, especially when she was on Columbia. But when she teamed with Wexler in the late 60s, it was magic. Same thing with on air talent. Not everyone is Aretha. Not everyone has access to the same content. Not everyone is in the right place at the right time. The public knows the difference between a star and a poseur.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Conundrum

I often compare on air talent with recording artists. There are loads of black female singers. There's only one Aretha. From her earliest records you could hear her talent. It was bigger than the producers who worked with her, especially when she was on Columbia. But when she teamed with Wexler in the late 60s, it was magic. Same thing with on air talent. Not everyone is Aretha. Not everyone has access to the same content. Not everyone is in the right place at the right time. The public knows the difference between a star and a poseur.

So, according to your logic, Aretha was the only black female singer worth listening to? If you're a songwriter, you'd better get your song to Aretha if you wanted a hit?

I guess that means that you ignore everybody from Diana Ross (and the rest of the Supremes), Gladys Knight, and Dionne Warwicke, and Roberta Flacke to Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and Jennifer Hudson. Aretha is one of a kind, but she's not the ONLY one of a kind, and there are plenty of other black female singers worth listening to for their own unique artistry and abilities. And, we haven't even mentioned some darn good local talent (Barbara St. Clair comes to mind, among others).

I drove through a small market recently that I worked in early in my career. As a radio geek, I tuned in that old AM signal, and was amazed at what I heard. Live, local on-air talent talking to the people of that town directly. Were they major market talent? One guy I heard might be, another guy never will be, but he's been in the market for over 30 years, so he's part of the fabric. The news guy - who did a 5-minute local cast that followed up the network at the top of the hour - made me want to reach through the radio grab him by the ear lobe, and say "Emphasize the IMPORTANT words - and, the, a, are NEVER important words". At the same time, I knew that people would listen through that five minutes because he was talking about what was going on in THEIR town, not the big city 50 miles away.

According to current corporate logic, everybody there should be replaced by a national host who's a "major market talent". News isn't important anymore, so that can go. Yet, these guys in this little town - which I don't think is even a rated market anymore - had a full spot load of local advertisers, and live bodies in mornings, mid-days, and afternoon drive. Ratings? Who knows, but if they've got a full spot load and everybody's getting paid, who cares?

Corporate radio is killing itself because it doesn't get the whole idea of radio. Once again, let me quote our resident corporate voice:

I think the future won't be like the past. Radio needs to become more personalized, more integrated with new technology, and more creative in its use of content.

Also, I believe the talent pool was diluted during the past 20 years. Too many stations, too many people, all doing basically the same thing. We've seen it with American Idol. Who can name the second person voted off in season three? Who cares? No one. Same with radio. You can't have thousands of radio stations with thousands of local DJs. The real talent gets lost in the shuffle. So you need to pick...who of the group will resonate with large audiences? The issue isn't local vs. syndicated, but rather finding talent who will become household names the way Dick Clark, Rick Dees, Howard Stern, and Wolfman Jack did. People you can build an industry around. People who can put a face to what radio is. Right now, when you think radio, you think about company names and CEOs. That's wrong. You need to be thinking about products and brands, and those brands are the on-air people.

Certainly, to be able to afford more people like Steve Harvey and Rush Limbaugh, radio has to forego more of the local talent. In order to afford more integration with new technology, radio has to replace people with limited equipment skills with people who know new technology. In order to replace another ten-in-a-row, radio has to create more original content that it can market across numerous platforms.

So, radio needs to become "more personalized, more integrated with new technology, and more creative in its use of content", yet the way that we're going to "personalize" radio is to "forego more of the local talent" and replace them with "more people like Steve Harvey and Rush Limbaugh". You cite the need to "resonate with large audiences", yet radio is a one-to-one medium. There was talent like "Dick Clark, Rick Dees, Howard Stern, and Wolfman Jack" who became household names, but there was also talent like Dan Neaverth, Stan Roberts, Don Berns, Jack Armstrong, and Shane who became household names. Right now, today, Norton and Lederman are household names. Shredd and Ragan are household names. J.P. and Carl Russo are household names. Roger Christian is a household name. Janet Snyder is a household name. Bill Lacy is a household name. Jim Pastrick was a household name until Citadel whacked him in favor of non-descript voice tracking from a clueless female two time zones away. Well, Pastrick still is a household name, but he's not on the radio anymore.

Stern came into the Buffalo market, and was soundly beaten by Norton & Co. Same story in Rochester. Local talent beat him handily - and he was on a big FM signal in Buffalo. Is there anybody bigger than "The King of All Media"? Yet live and local beat him.

You see, "the public knows the difference between a star and a poseur". There are a lot of talented people who don't go to NY or LA for a variety of reasons. Did a lot of on-air people start out trying to emulate "Dick Clark, Rick Dees, Howard Stern, and Wolfman Jack" - and our local stars? Sure. The ones who ONLY emulated other talent ended up in small markets until they found their own voice, or got out of the business. The people who built successful local careers found their voice, and their audience, and delivered - and still deliver - for that audience every day.

We have thousands of radio stations, in thousands of towns and cities across a wonderfully varied American landscape. Why can't we have thousands of local DJs who relate to those different audiences in a way unique to the time and place? Isn't that the essence of a radio that's more personalized, more integrated with new technology, and more creative in its use of content?

Are there people who want Ryan Seacrest, Howard Stern, and Rush Limbaugh? Of course, but most of them don't want ONLY Ryan Seacrest, Howard Stern, and Rush Limbaugh. Are people interested in national stories? Of course, but they're also interested in local stories, local happenings, and local attitudes. It's not "all or nothing", and radio shouldn't be either. Especially now, when anybody with a decent Internet connection can hear Seacrest anytime they want. What they can't get from the Internet is what's going on right now in THIS town - unless they go to a local media source that still focuses on local content and local talent.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: The Conundrum

So, according to your logic, Aretha was the only black female singer worth listening to? If you're a songwriter, you'd better get your song to Aretha if you wanted a hit?

I guess that means that you ignore everybody from Diana Ross (and the rest of the Supremes), Gladys Knight, and Dionne Warwicke, and Roberta Flacke to Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and Jennifer Hudson. Aretha is one of a kind, but she's not the ONLY one of a kind, and there are plenty of other black female singers worth listening to for their own unique artistry and abilities.

I think you're missing my point. The fact that you can NAME them is the point. One of the problems with music right now is anyone can sing, win a TV contest, and get a record deal. Or rap music...you don't need actual musical talent, either as a singer or musician, to make millions as a rap star. That cheapened the concept of being a recording star. Same with being a DJ. I was at a wedding not long ago, and someone introduced me to their son, who they said was a DJ. I'd say probably 90% of the people who have jobs at radio stations are nameless, faceless people who have no Q ratings with the public. So when they get fired, no one knows or cares. They never built themselves as personalities. They didn't have a MySpace or a Facebook, where they interacted with their listeners off the air.

According to current corporate logic, everybody there should be replaced by a national host who's a "major market talent".

I haven't seen ANY company replacing ALL local talent with national talent. BUT if no one knows who you are, who cares? The fact is there are some local people who ARE major market personalities. What I'm seeing is that companies are looking at them as being mini-national personalities. Syndicating them among three or four stations. The DJs who get this gig LOVE it, because it expands their audience. It's what they live for. And if you study them, they all make local appearances (even though they're out of market), they all have a huge web presence, with podcasts of their best bits, and people actually know who they are. THAT is the point. Right now, with 14,000 radio stations, the talent pool has been diluted. Not enough of the people on the air have the talent to connect with audiences. They AREN'T using the advantages they have as local talent to connect. I see this every day. And it's not because of their boss or their corporation. It's because they simply don't have the drive or ambition to build themselves into the next Casey Kasem. Or the next Aretha or Whitney. They're satisfied being one hit wonders.

So, radio needs to become "more personalized, more integrated with new technology, and more creative in its use of content", yet the way that we're going to "personalize" radio is to "forego more of the local talent" and replace them with "more people like Steve Harvey and Rush Limbaugh".

You're looking for a one-size-fits-all answer, and there's no such thing. All local isn't the answer. All syndication isn't the answer.

We have thousands of radio stations, in thousands of towns and cities across a wonderfully varied American landscape. Why can't we have thousands of local DJs who relate to those different audiences in a way unique to the time and place? Isn't that the essence of a radio that's more personalized, more integrated with new technology, and more creative in its use of content?

It's only creative use of content if those people are creative, and to put it simply, most of them aren't very creative. There simply AREN'T thousands of local DJs who relate on a mass level. Sure, they can host their own internet stations, and reach a few hundred people. But radio needs to be more than that. Sure they're FAMILIAR. But familiar isn't necessarily creative. Yes, there are thousands of radio stations, which is way too many. Even when you list the names of great local people, there are maybe ten people whose names resonated with the public over the last 30 years to become legends. Those are the people radio needs to concentrate on. There AREN'T thousands of Arethas or thousands of Warwicks or thousands of Whitneys. There is only one of each. And there ARE radio people who fit that description. Those are the people who radio needs to concentrate on.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You Kids Get Off My Lawn

Your feelings about today's talent reminds me of how my parents sounded about "that damn noise you listen to" when I grew up.

You want creative radio? Tell me how you fit that in when you've got 4-5 opportunities to talk per hour, and each of those opportunities has a liner or positioner that HAS to run? Half of those are over music, so you're restricted in your "creativity" by the intro time of the song. The other opportunities are going into long commercial sets, so you'd better keep them short or risk the wrath of the PD and the consultant.

Yeah, I know that you can be entertaining and succinct at the same time, and a lot of guys manage to do that day in and day out and still make enough out of their opportunities to make a difference in the ratings. But it just isn't fair that the "voice guy" doing promos between songs gets more airtime than a live jock. Half of the people who complain about "clutter" are talking about the :20 music promo between songs, and they blame it on a jock who had nothing to do with it. Locked-down formats are more responsible for the fact that the audience doesn't recognize guys who've been around for a while than a lack of creativity. That's by design, thanks to consultants that wanted anonymous jocks so the audience wouldn't follow them down the dial if they left.

Remember your own post:

You can quote me. Bill Drake told DJs at his stations exactly how long they were allowed to speak. That was 30 years ago. Sound familiar? Nothing changes. Give a radio guy some power and he wants to rule the world.

I'm not sure if he'll want to "rule the world", but he may expect to get paid a little more if he manages to bring ratings up because he is more entertaining and/or creative than the guy down the dial. And we all know how corporate feels about pay increases.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Local emergency officials in Texas specifically excluded radio people from assisting the public this past summer. Radio personnel were forced to evacuate, and not allowed to return until the general public was also allowed to return.

Gee, how did those people know that there was a mandatory evacuation order if it wasn't for the MEDIA. Sounds to me like a case of cooperation between the media and emergency officials. Nobody advocated that radio, any other media personnel, or even emergency personnel put themselves in immediate danger to aid the public. They certainly didn't evacuate the media people until the deadline, and the media people were certainly among the first people back in when the immediate danger had passed.

Rox is correct.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: You Kids Get Off My Lawn

You want creative radio? Tell me how you fit that in when you've got 4-5 opportunities to talk per hour, and each of those opportunities has a liner or positioner that HAS to run?

Somehow Bill Drake and Rick Sklar found people who could do it, and do it in an entertaining and memorable way. As I said, not everyone can do radio. There's a KHJ fan site on the web somewhere that posted some of Drake's memos about talking in between songs. You should read them. It might inspire you.

Locked-down formats are more responsible for the fact that the audience doesn't recognize guys who've been around for a while than a lack of creativity.

Once again, listen to the tapes of the legends from 40 years ago. They don't talk for more than 20 seconds. There have been "locked down formats" for 20 years preceding the arrival of consultants. So don't make stuff up. If you want a format where talk is the centerpiece, go to talk radio.