Radio Nowhere

[Radknowski]

Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band are touring again and it's interesting to hear and read some of the comments of the band members as they reflect on maturing and growing into middle age, their fans and what they hear (or don't hear) on radio.

Reading an interview and seeing him on 60 minutes a few weeks back, it struck me as to how Bruce Springsteen and a few of his bandmates relate to radio. Little Steven Van Zandt of course, has his own radio show. It's a kitchy niche show that most affiliates which air it tuck away on Sunday nights. An entertaining two hours, the show's an "entitlement" of sorts, the kind of production that big name stars or those close enough to being big name stars, have. It allows them to dabble in a hobby. This observation is made in a most complimentary way, of course.

It's remarkable how these stars and performers in the music business relate and feel about radio. Whether it's Bono from U2 talking about what he has to do to get a humanitarian message out, when the only thing radio seems to want is another serving of the latest U2 album, to Billy Gibbons and ZZ Top wailing "I Heard It On The X," a driving paean to Mexican Border Blasters, which are also delightfully and mystically regaled in Wall Of Voodoo's "Mexican Radio" ("I wish I was in Tijuana, eating barbequed iguana") or Tom Petty writing about and cursing corporate radio and music companies on The Last DJ, it's clear that these guys had a close relationship with radio.

Now it's Bruce Springsteen singing lyrics like, "Driving through the misty rain, tryin' to make a connection... Is anybody alive out there... This is radio nowhere..." These 50- something year old guys clearly remember a time when DJ's were vital to radio and were an integral reason why they were attracted to radio in their formative years, as individuals and musicians.

You wonder if today's musicians, the (and ladies) guys who can MIDI their keyboards into ProTools, producing 30 instruments and a hit CD in their bedrooms or basements, have that same attachment to radio. I'm thinking they don't. None at all. If anything, they have a greater attachment to the Internet. Which might just confirm Springsteen's assertion that what's available on the AM and FM band may in fact be "radio nowhere."

Listen to what's going on in Buffalo and Rochester. Is there anything that listeners can get excited about? Is there some human element that drives them to make a connection with a radio station and its perosnalities? I'm not talking about us radio dweebs here, we've made dissecting radio six ways to Sunday a fine art. I'm talking about Jill Doe or Bill Sixpack in Depew. Is there anything really out there that drives them to being "in love" with radio?

The Lake? Three Buffalo stations playing AC? Droll Jack in the box? One station playing country? A heritage Classic Rock station? A heritage Urban station? Two CHR's banging at each other? One news-talks station? All, using voicetracks or satellite programming (including morning drive) in one daypart or another. Each, with a certain detachment, like that voice you hear going through the automated scanner checkout at Home Depot, "Thank you, please scan next item..."

"Is anybody out there?" Or maybe Peggy Lee sang it a bit more sweetly, "Is That All There Is?"

 

[NeedsMoreCowbell]

Yet another post displaying this board's common themes. Let's see if I get them all:

"Radio is sure not like it used to be" - check
"Why can't radio go back to the way it was back in the 70s?" - check
"Buffalo radio sure does suck" - check
"Radio is a dying medium" - check
"Young people just don't need and/or like radio" - check

And yet, every study says just the opposite. People are still listening just as avidly to radio as they did 10 years ago - 95% of the entire population listens regularly! No other medium except TV can claim that. Media Audit says Buffalo, in particular, has much higher radio listenership than any city of comparable size. Buffalo is #2 in the COUNTRY in how many people visit its radio station's websites. PPM data shows much higher listenership than anyone could have predicted - quadruple the number of million-cume stations in Philly and Houston. So much for radio's impending death.

And for the record, when has Springsteen ever been happy? He wrote "57 channels and nothing's on" a few years ago, but cable TV is certainly not dead 10 years and 100 more cable channels later. A prophet he is not.

There will always be a place for live and local radio - a year removed from the October Storm and we're still debating radio's relevance? Give me a break.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

Well, I want to recognize Radnowski for an extremely thoughtful post. I think he's on target. "Cowbell," you bring up some valid points. Obviously, radio is not dead. And on this first anniversary of the October Surprise, WBEN needs to be credited with the way it connected with the community for ten days after the storm hit. But for the most part, I don't see a strong connection between radio stations and the listening audience these days. How do you connect with someone saying, "And now another commercial-free set of 10 in a row on your station for light country oldies, WKRP." How do you connect with a voice track? The morning shows might have personality. But none of them are connecting the way Clint, Danny and Stan did in their prime. Whereas some of the morning zoo shows border on tastelessness, Danny had to work at being funny. I remember laughing out loud at some of his bits. His "adverntures" with Jim McLaughlin were classic. I rarely laugh at something I hear on the radio anymore. I'm not living in the past. It's just that radio was better when we were growing up. Radio still does well because it's a habit. It is a place where we can go for a quick newscast, sports score, weather forecast and perhaps a song we like. But I wouldn't dismiss concerns about our future. Today's teens and 20-year-olds are not listening to the radio. If we can't convince them to start tuning in, then our future is troubled. Finally, Bruce is right on. Today, there are 200 channels on the cable, and more often than not, I find nothing I want to spend time with. And I hate to say it, but I find the same thing can be true on the radio.

 

[NeedsMoreCowbell]

I guess what I object to are the opinions expressed here as FACT, when the truth is nowhere near said opinions. Your argument basically confirms this: you miss how radio used to be when you listened to the old pros, you surmise that young people aren't listening to radio - but in FACT, they are. And in Buffalo, there is a whole lot less voicetracking on the music stations than you all think. People, young and old alike, are constantly lighting up the studio lines, at my station(s) anyway, and are very much involved in what we do on-air.

All I'm suggesting is that we get away from the constant doom and gloom and recognize that radio is not going anywhere - and talk more about what's actually happening NOW, on-air, here in this very city. There's got to be more to talk about than old airchecks from 30 years ago, right?

 

[Radknowski]

The original post asks questions based on the written and spoken word as well as observations of those who are on record as having or having had a serious relationship with "radio."

I'm not seeking argument, nor to assail.

Nowhere in my initial post to I proclaim radio to be dead. Yes, I do put forth the proposition that radio may not be making the emotional connection as well, especially given the opinions and observations of the musicians who were cited. Changed? Yes. Disconnected? Perhaps. "Dead?" No.

I was asking questions. Do "young people" (perhaps "younger" people is more appropriate, since I don't consider myself anywhere near "old," ahem) have a similarly strong relationship with radio. Does radio no longer connect, emotionally.

Cowbell answers that radio is very much alive and reaching listeners, citing statistical information, some of which I was unaware, some of which was known to me. Certainly, WBEN made the connection a year ago when much of Buffalo was powerless. Equally, WGR makes the connection with Sabres hockey and WGRF connects with listeners offereing Buffalo Bills play by play. Perhaps, it's TALK radio that maintains the greater power to make that connection, moreso in times of community need.

But I was asking about music radio, especially as to what it has become.

Website hits are impressive. Cume is impressive. TSL is impressive. These are quantifiable statistics. Tangibles. I'm asking about INtangibles, an emotional attachment, the kind Phil relates to in his "Clint, Danny and Stan" memories. Website hits, even with streaming audio, don't necessarily equate to being an emotional connection. What does it say when Jack places in the top five, in certain dayparts, Persons 25-54, as I just saw in numbers supplied by a Buffalo sales rep. Astounding!

I'm certainly not saying the emotional attachments are no longer possible. But to what degree? Does it matter? It seems more difficult for radio stations (especially outside of morning drive) to establish an emotional attachment to "ten in a row" and/or nameless-faceless voicetracked radio which is more inclined to promote positioning statements than to establishing a personal relationship. An exception, immediately noted, would be "JP" who hosts 97 Rock's midday show.

I'll offer that a person who is live, local and trying to "get a message to you," whether that's a funny line, a wry observation, a live public service advocacy or a mention of a lost dog on Lincoln Avenue, has a greater chance of developing a relationship than a snazzy bumper, a voice-tracked liner or even a live jock liner over the intro of a song. Please note that I don't equate "personality radio" with long-winded bits that may or may not have a payoff or a point. I've heard dunamic, entertaining perosalities express themselves in 22 seconds, and I'll immediately credit the very talented people in Buffalo radio who can deliver that live liner in the span of 12 seconds. However, the truth is, outside of these boards, a majority of listeners can't identify who that person is, other than "the guy (or "girl") on the radio."

It just now occured to me that "that guy on the radio" might be a very effective moniker, just as Warren Miller's "The Janitor" moniker would be good for somebody doing Alternative or Active Rock these day. Warren may have been way ahead of his time. Often demeaned as "the guy who followed Jack Armstrong" at KB, he seemed to be a decent fellow and a better jock than his short stint in an untenable position might suggest. The fact that he's remembered gives him good standing as "a personality."

Opinions? Hell, I have a bucket full. Not all correct. Not all scientifically based. In most cases, I try to base my opinions on observations... the men and women with whom I work, the cousins, neices and nephews who "use" radio and the people who post here, including astute posters like 'Cowbell, who bring a different and equally arguable perspective.

Let me say that I prefer to "live in the now" than re-hash 1968, a fine year, BTW. I'm equally fond of the latest Springsteen CD (which could be one of the reasons I ventured into this territory), the Police tour and the new Kenny Chesney or Mark Knopfler CD's than I am recalling Bob Seger at The Aud, good as it may have been.

I only know what I see and observe. It may not be scientific, but it is reality... and that is an undeniable fact.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Cowbell needs a reality check.

Fact my kids (girls 19 and 26) get most of their music from the internet. They tend to like Electronica, Disco and Acid Jazz. It's also amusing to see how many of Dad's oldies wind up in their iTunes list.

Me? I listen to XM Radio a lot. They play songs I haven't heard in years. There are so many 70's songs that AC and oldies stations have forgotten. The XM personalities seem to balance having fun with playing plenty of music. When I get tired of XM (which is very hard to get tired of with the variety of channels) I also have a large iTunes list.

I just read an article about radio's missing 18-24's.

 

[SirRoxalot]

It's hard to make a "connection" when jocks have fewer opportunities to talk during the course of an hour than the "voice guy" and/or jingle singers. It baffles me that most program directors think that pre-produced positioning statements deliver listeners better than a live and local jock.

 

[Element9]

Here's the numbers for Buffalo-Niagara Falls: The Spring 2007 Cume, Persons 12+ is 1.373% lower than Spring 2006. However, the Spring 2007 TSL, Persons 12+ is 30 minutes longer than Spring 2006. Cume down, TSL up.

So what does this say? Fewer bodies listening longer, but not much either way. So, Radknowski has a point and apparently so does NeedsMoreCowbell.

At random, I asked seven people between the ages of 22-38 what they thought of radio. Most answered they didn't listen a lot. Damn mp3 players, damn iPods, damn Internet. Who did they know on the radio? Shredd & Ragan, Rick Jenerret (probably because the Sabres played last night), "Bob" Lederman and Janet & Nick ("the fat guy at the Sabres games.") Admittedly, unscientific. Draw from it what you will. For what it's worth, Tom Petty is seething but makes a lot of sense, SirRoxalot made a point that I hadn't considered and I'd put more faith in what Bruce Springsteen says than any radio GM, Regional VP or consultant.

That's all. Let's squabble.

tonight I think I'll be

-Caller #9-

 

[Mike Sheridan]

It's hard to make a "connection" when jocks have fewer opportunities to talk during the course of an hour than the "voice guy" and/or jingle singers. It baffles me that most program directors think that pre-produced positioning statements deliver listeners better than a live and local jock.

Thank you! In my last on air position I added up the talk we jocks were allowed and it was 90 seconds tops each hour. The sweeper people got far more than that.

I don't blame the PD we didn't have one. There was an Operations Manager but the real blame goes to the consultant who also consults WJYE. His initials are GB.