Radio Silence event (Laquidara, Santoro, Kramer etc)

[raccoonradio]

PR I got by email passing along

--Ford Hall Forum at Suffolk University presents “Radio Silence” Charles Laquidara [live via Skype], Billy Costa, Julie Kramer, and Henry Santoro; moderated by John Laurenti. Thursday, September 13, 6:30-8 pm. Admission is free and open to all. C. Walsh Theatre at Suffolk University, 55 Temple Street, Boston, MA. For more information, call the Ford Hall Forum at 617-557-2007 or visit www.fordhallforum.org.

WBCN was the original, superstar-establishing, DJ-controlled rock station that showed how excellent rock radio could be when you let the DJs curate the offerings. As independent radio station WFNX is sold to Clear Channel this year, Bostonians wonder how rock radio has become a corporation-controlled industry and whether internet and digital radio can avoid the same fate. DJs Charles Laquidara (WBCN), Billy Costa (KISS 108), Julie Kramer (WFNX, Radio BDC), and Henry Santoro (WFNX, Radio BDC) tell moderator John Laurenti, a New England radio mainstay for over 25 years, about the changes they are adapting to in the new world of music business. We’ll hear how WBCN’s rise and fall foretold industry changes, the story behind the end of WFNX, and what the rebirth of independent rock radio might look like.

 

[rockcaptain]

PR I got by email passing along

--Ford Hall Forum at Suffolk University presents “Radio Silence” Charles Laquidara [live via Skype], Billy Costa, Julie Kramer, and Henry Santoro; moderated by John Laurenti. Thursday, September 13, 6:30-8 pm. Admission is free and open to all. C. Walsh Theatre at Suffolk University, 55 Temple Street, Boston, MA. For more information, call the Ford Hall Forum at 617-557-2007 or visit www.fordhallforum.org.

WBCN was the original, superstar-establishing, DJ-controlled rock station that showed how excellent rock radio could be when you let the DJs curate the offerings. As independent radio station WFNX is sold to Clear Channel this year, Bostonians wonder how rock radio has become a corporation-controlled industry and whether internet and digital radio can avoid the same fate. DJs Charles Laquidara (WBCN), Billy Costa (KISS 108), Julie Kramer (WFNX, Radio BDC), and Henry Santoro (WFNX, Radio BDC) tell moderator John Laurenti, a New England radio mainstay for over 25 years, about the changes they are adapting to in the new world of music business. We’ll hear how WBCN’s rise and fall foretold industry changes, the story behind the end of WFNX, and what the rebirth of independent rock radio might look like.

This seems a bit sad to me. Let's cling to the past a little more. Radio as they knew it is not coming back. Evolve and move forward or get out of the way.

 

[Schuyler]

Yessir, radio's moving forward all right. It's barreling downhill at breakneck speed.

 

[reelyreal]

Yessir, radio's moving forward all right. It's barreling downhill at breakneck speed.

Wah, wah. Yep, that's why 92% of Americans still listen to the radio every week.

Media consumption is changing, just like it has since the advent of media. As needs and tastes change, the industry is changing. I'm not ready to say that it's in decline until station prices start plummeting.

This event sounds like it'll be a lot of "back in my day...." stories.

 

[CTListener]

Yessir, radio's moving forward all right. It's barreling downhill at breakneck speed.

Wah, wah. Yep, that's why 92% of Americans still listen to the radio every week.

Media consumption is changing, just like it has since the advent of media. As needs and tastes change, the industry is changing. I'm not ready to say that it's in decline until station prices start plummeting.

This event sounds like it'll be a lot of "back in my day...." stories.

And even if the kids and teens aren't listening to radio in the numbers they used to, bringing back rambling rock jocks like Charles Laquidara isn't going to bring them back. Making radio more like an iPod is, and it has the advantage of playing to the PPM metric -- familiar music, tight rotation, few interruptions for gab -- and thereby standing a better chance of attracting advertising. It may not sound much like the radio we baby boomers or even Gen X'ers remember from our youths, but as the Monkees said, that was then, this is now.

 

[rockcaptain]

This event sounds like it'll be a lot of "back in my day...." stories.

Exactly. A lot of "BCN was where it was at maaaaaan"....and "FNX was where it was at maaaaan"...and "the suits today don't get it maaaaaan".

Sure back in the olden days what they did worked...not so much today. That is why BCN is gone and that is why FNX is gone. If that formula worked today, they would still be here today.

 

[KB1OKL]

Yessir, radio's moving forward all right. It's barreling downhill at breakneck speed.

Wah, wah. Yep, that's why 92% of Americans still listen to the radio every week.

Media consumption is changing, just like it has since the advent of media. As needs and tastes change, the industry is changing. I'm not ready to say that it's in decline until station prices start plummeting.

This event sounds like it'll be a lot of "back in my day...." stories.

And even if the kids and teens aren't listening to radio in the numbers they used to, bringing back rambling rock jocks like Charles Laquidara isn't going to bring them back. Making radio more like an iPod is, and it has the advantage of playing to the PPM metric -- familiar music, tight rotation, few interruptions for gab -- and thereby standing a better chance of attracting advertising. It may not sound much like the radio we baby boomers or even Gen X'ers remember from our youths, but as the Monkees said, that was then, this is now.

Rambling jocks? Radio was interesting and engaging then, I couldn't wait to turn on WBCN and listen to the personalities. Now I turn on my CD player or Satellite which is vastly more interesting than computer programs playing music.

 

[Schuyler]

Change is not necessarily improvement. Today's radio suffers from a lack of real competion and diversity, local identity and involvement, and in no way engages, informs or involves listeners as it did in the pre-consolidation era. The conditions that exist were made by the corporations that profit from them. And there isn't a single format that exists now that also existed 20 or 30 years ago that is presented with the same level of quality.

If you like things the way they are, that's your problem. And if you think finding new and better ways of showcasing good programing without going broke is impossible, then it's not surprising that you make petty, snarky comments in trying defend the indefensible. Go see a proctologist and have your head examined.

 

[reelyreal]

That's a nice opinion. Any facts, numbers, research, or any other evidence that isn't just your personal observation to offer?

I'm in the business, full time in programming. We're trying the hardest we can, and I can say that for my coworkers as well. Yes, we wish things were different. This is a difficult and unrewarding industry to work in, and it's been that way for at least 2 decades. We do it because we LOVE it. I'm sure the people involved in this event love radio too, but there are two ways to look at it: You can stomp your feet and scream real loud about how awful things are and how YOU know how to fix things, or you can play with the cards we've been dealt and do the best job we can.

Don't forget, within these massive "evil" corporations are thousands of regular radio employees, the same people who were in radio decades ago, trying the best we can.

Lowering the bar to suggest we have our heads up our asses makes you part of the problem.

 

[WNTIRadio]

Media consumption is changing, just like it has since the advent of media. As needs and tastes change, the industry is changing. I'm not ready to say that it's in decline until station prices start plummeting.

Where have you been? Have you looked at recent sale prices lately? WOR in NYC for $30 million. That would have been a LOT more only 10 years ago. WQBU 92.7 in Garden City NY, a class A just outside of NYC sold for $60 million. WFNX for $14.5 million??? 10 years ago that would have been $44.5 million.

Part of it is the overall economic slump and business unfriendlyness of the US right now, but the other part is that radio has some other viable options for content delivery that didn't exist 10 years ago. Are the options perfect and work as well on the economy of scale as radio? No, but that could change in another 10 years.

I agree, being now on the engineering side of the business (did programming, on-air, production, imaging, you name it) I see programmers working their asses off to gain and retain audiences. Sure, some stations are taking the easy way out, but that's always been the case. What makes an automated station now any different from one that used reel to reels full of music 30 years ago? Well, for one thing, voice tracking, if done well, isn't even noticed by the general public. In fact, when done very well, it can even fool the station staff. At least when most things are canned now, there is still some "feel" of someone actually sitting there. Is it as good? Almost.

Of course, there are still some stations that still use the 3 racks full of reels and cart carousels method, only with a computer. Such as "The Harbor" and Radio 92.9.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Where have you been? Have you looked at recent sale prices lately? WOR in NYC for $30 million. That would have been a LOT more only 10 years ago. WQBU 92.7 in Garden City NY, a class A just outside of NYC sold for $60 million. WFNX for $14.5 million??? 10 years ago that would have been $44.5 million.

I doubt it. I think you have inflated the 10-years-ago value of WFNX by almost a factor of two. Back when station prices were very close to their peak, Entercom paid $30 million for what today is WKAF. Although both WKAF and WHBA are Class A's licensed to the Boston metro (WKAF licensed to Brockton; WHBA to Lynn), WKAF has the better signal, albeit from atop Great Blue Hill in Milton vs WHBA, which transmits (I believe) a directional signal from One Financial Center near South Station. So WHBA may have a small edge in the downtown area, but WKAF, with better coverage of the South Shore, has the better signal over all. Even if you say that WHBA and WKAF should be assigned equal values, you have overstated the value of WFNX by almost 50%.

If I'm not mistaken, the highest price for any Boston-area FM was the almost $100 million that Greater Media paid Charles River Broadcasting for Waltham-licensed Class B WCRB-FM (now WKLB-FM) at the very height of the FM price boom. Though WKLB-FM is a full B, it cannot relocate to downtown Boston because of third-adjacent problems with WUMB. I can't say whether a 4:1 ratio for the value of a Class B to a Class A in the same market is fair, but, for Boston, where you could define the core market as the area within Route 128--an area that a well-positioned Class A can cover--it seems pretty fair to me.

 

[WNTIRadio]

You're thinking of IF spacing issues on WKLB. 102.5 is not 3rd adjacent to 91.9. It is, however, 10.6MHz higher than 91.9, most FM radios first IF frequency is 10.7MHz.

 

[DanStrassberg]

You're thinking of IF spacing issues on WKLB. 102.5 is not 3rd adjacent to 91.9. It is, however, 10.6MHz higher than 91.9, most FM radios first IF frequency is 10.7MHz.

Indeed, as you pointed out, there could be no third-adjacent problem between WKLB-FM and WUMB. I know I was thinking IF. I find it hard to believe that I wrote third-adjacent. I sure didn't believe I had done so until I went back and re-read my post. I'm embarrassed and puzzled that I could have typed something so different from what I meant without even realizing what I wrote. When I wrote the original post, I had subtracted 10.7 from 102.5 to get 91.8, which is how I identified WUMB as the station with which WKLB-FM has a problem.

 

[Uncle Kaimbridge]

I never mentioned a third-adjacent problem between WKLB-FM and WUMB, and, indeed, as you pointed out, there could be none. I was, however, referring to the IF problem, though I did not name it as such.

Er, didn’t you? : : ;D

Though WKLB-FM is a full B, it cannot relocate to downtown Boston because of third-adjacent problems with WUMB.

 

[DanStrassberg]

I never mentioned a third-adjacent problem between WKLB-FM and WUMB, and, indeed, as you pointed out, there could be none. I was, however, referring to the IF problem, though I did not name it as such.

In fact, I was so sure that I had not written third adjacent that I wrote the version of my response to which you responded (that is, my second post--above) before I checked my original post. When I checked that first post, I found--to my horror--my original error and rewrote (edited) my second post. The edited version of my second post it the one that remains in the thread. This just goes to show how complicated things can get when one makes a mistake. It's enough to make me consider never posting again. I haven't yet reached that point, but I certainly am embarrassed.

 

[mdovell]

Can it be argue that companies have more of a say with radio? Sure. But there's still the community range of 88-92 or so. The problem I see is a few different things

1) If actual content is totally the same on multiple stations. Sometimes I can get 5 NPR's playing the same at the same time

2) If there's just no live hosts at all. Not so much for music but basic communication. Years ago there was a bad snowstorm and frankly everything I found on the radio was so programmed I had to wait a good hour or so before anything addressed the snow and power outages.

Music is fine but if there is no real connection to a location then it actually brings it closer to a streamed station or podcast rather than something more local.

 

[WNTIRadio]

It can also be argued that a lot of people now get the information about that snowstorm from some form of the internet. Even if the power is out, your smartphone still works. Text updates also work, as do push notifications from different apps and news sources. These didn't exist 20 years ago and will continue to improve as time goes on.

Radio still can be the "go to", but even on the all news stations, I can get the traffic quicker and more accurately from Google instead of waiting for traffic and weather on the 3's. Especially since WBZ shuts off traffic at 8pm, even though there are how many people still on the road then? Especially on a Friday night in the summer?

It goes both ways. Radio does need to step it back up, but for some things, the internet delivery platform is far more efficient for information.

 

[TSBench]

2) If there's just no live hosts at all. Not so much for music but basic communication. Years ago there was a bad snowstorm and frankly everything I found on the radio was so programmed I had to wait a good hour or so before anything addressed the snow and power outages.

In the late seventies, Carl Desuze did AMD six days for BZ (saturday was considered part of the AMD rotation for ad scheduling purposes.) In order to get two days off in a row, Carl would tape his saturday show in advance.

Well, a major snowstorm was predicted for Friday night/Saturday morning and all day Saturday. Carl taped his program Friday based on the weather report. The storm blew out to sea, but Carl's tape ran as scheduled, with befuddled listeners wondering in what part of the state was all the snow and howling winds that Carl was talking about in such vivid detail.

Regards,
TSB

 

[RickStarr]

This seems a bit sad to me. Let's cling to the past a little more. Radio as they knew it is not coming back. Evolve and move forward or get out of the way.

The birth, the very birth of radio was individuals talking into a microphone and perhaps playing a Victrola record to people eagerly tuned in on their crystal sets. Then the networks rolled in and it was corporatized for the next 49 years.

Television came along and destroyed the network radio model, and it was reborn as individual guys talking into a microphone and playing the records they liked to an audience eagerly tuning in on their transistor radios for that "rock and roll".

Radio is in the process of becoming irrelevant again, thanks to the explosion of other choices and distractions, from YouTube to Facebook, from Pandora to iTunes. While a few formats will survive (just as NBC Monitor did for another two decades) many will not. It remains to be seen what might replace the amplitude and frequency modulating corporatized boringness that passes for radio today, but I suspect it will be people like Charles Laquidera or Ed & Wendy King (Pittsburgh) or John Gambling (New York) or others who, as individuals, do what they do and make a personal connection with their listeners day after day. Anybody can be a jukebox. Only a few can convince listeners that they're being talked to one by one, and entertained and informed in a way that separates that "performance" from mere performance.

 

[CTListener]

This seems a bit sad to me. Let's cling to the past a little more. Radio as they knew it is not coming back. Evolve and move forward or get out of the way.

The birth, the very birth of radio was individuals talking into a microphone and perhaps playing a Victrola record to people eagerly tuned in on their crystal sets. Then the networks rolled in and it was corporatized for the next 49 years.

Television came along and destroyed the network radio model, and it was reborn as individual guys talking into a microphone and playing the records they liked to an audience eagerly tuning in on their transistor radios for that "rock and roll".

Radio is in the process of becoming irrelevant again, thanks to the explosion of other choices and distractions, from YouTube to Facebook, from Pandora to iTunes. While a few formats will survive (just as NBC Monitor did for another two decades) many will not. It remains to be seen what might replace the amplitude and frequency modulating corporatized boringness that passes for radio today, but I suspect it will be people like Charles Laquidera or Ed & Wendy King (Pittsburgh) or John Gambling (New York) or others who, as individuals, do what they do and make a personal connection with their listeners day after day. Anybody can be a jukebox. Only a few can convince listeners that they're being talked to one by one, and entertained and informed in a way that separates that "performance" from mere performance.

So it's the banal nature of the talk on modern-day corporate music radio that's pushing younger listeners to Pandora and iTunes, not the talk itself? That's certainly encouraging, if true, but I have a hard time buying it. If you've been listening to your favorite kind of music on radio and settling for 12 songs an hour between the DJ patter, the commercials, the weather and the traffic reports, and you find you now have the ability to hear 20 songs an hour, uninterrupted, why on earth would you ever go back to radio, even if the DJs suddenly became as entertaining as they were back in our day? At this point, anything the air talent says is just clutter to listeners of a certain age.
Rick, I remember you from your WCAS days. What a great station, and all the DJs there had distinct personalities. Those personalities showed in their presentation and in the music they played. I'd love to hear radio like that again. But I'm 57. I grew up with that kind of radio. I didn't care how many songs an hour I heard on WMEX or WBZ or WRKO as a kid, and WBCN, WCOZ and WCAS later on, the jocks made listening fun. If a new generation of Ron Landrys or Arnie Ginsburgs or even Frank Dudgeons can somehow convince kkids, teens and college students that there's more to listening to music than ... umm ... listening to music, I'd be overjoyed. But I'm not convinced it can happen. That's not defending corporate radio; I'm not in the business and I have no dog in this fight (pardon the now-politically-incorrect metaphor). I'm strictly a listener and I'm just trying to look at the whole picture objectively.