Radio stocks

[TheBigA]

Re: Fun and Entertaining

Times get tougher, and instead of reacting with "maybe we need to put our money where it has the most chance of success - programming"

They ARE pouring money into programming. They're putting the money where the people are, which is not the air signal. They're putting the majority of their money in new media. That's the real story going on now. While they're firing on air staff, they're hiring new media people. Lots of them.

Just making a horse faster or cleaner won't make people give up their cars. Hiring more DJs or playing a wider variety of music won't cause listeners to throw away their cell phones, turn off their computers or ipods. So yes, the radio you once knew is dying. But only because the audience for it is heading towards the same fate.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Fun and Entertaining

If music is the only thing that people tune in for, why isn't radio more wildly popular than ever? The beancounters have the best tools to slice and dice research in history.

Accountants don't look at the research. Programmers do.

If their research is right, why is morning the most listened to time of the day?

It's not. Afternoons is, followed by mid-days. several weekend dayparts and then mornings.

Why has talk radio grown to such stature in the market?

In most markets, talk has between a 3 and a 10 share, aggregate. 90% of those listening aren't listening to talk, and most of the talk listeners are over 55.

[/quote]The opportunity to add entertainment value to the "show" is limited to say the least. [/quote]

If you actually talked with listeners of all ages and tastes, you would find that a very large percentage do not want anything but music, sometimes all day, sometimes outside of very limited schedules.

You'd think that the success of CBS-FM in NYC, with a return of personality and a huge audience response, would have opened some eyes. Instead, it's seen by some as more like a betrayal of corporate policy.

It's one station with a 4 share, meaning that at any given time, only one New York radio listener out of 25 is listening to that format and style.

corporate cuts come in the trenches, not at headquarters.

Most corporate offices have minimal staff, those who work on SEC, Sarbanes Oxley, FCC licencing and compliance, and accounting consolidation and things like purchasing where huge economies can be made.

Radio is dying. Corporate is turning the seed corn into grits and serving it up without butter.

Everything, including you and I, are dying from the time we are born. Books went from hand lettered manuscripts to letterpress to offset to digital... at every step an old technology died. But usually, the technology is just a convenience. People still write books, and people still will do "radio" even if the format or distribution channel changes.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: The Radio to save Radio

In radio, what is being overlooked? What is the ingredient that matters TODAY?

There is nothing being overlooked. That's part of the problem. Too much content, too many devices, splintering an already splintered audience. Radio is in the people aggregation business. The main problem now is there's little radio can do that will aggregate enough audience to make it profitable. A handful of music formats. One political opinion. That's it.

The ingredient that matters in a world where there is an overabundance of free content is providing what people want, when they want it, on devices they already own, for free.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Fun and Entertaining

I'd like to thank Lauren, Fred, and others who chimed in with their observation that today's radio just doesn't attract or hold listeners like it used to.

That's ok and quite understandable because: NOTHING DOES!

Network TV doesn't. Recorded music doesn't. Newspapers don't. Schools don't. Heck, even the Pope is hiring consultants because the priesthood doesn't attract or hold people like it used to.

I believe that people are turning to other technologies because radio no longer gives them a reason to listen.

Are you kidding? There are five stations in my town telling me they're giving away lots of money tomorrow morning at 7:10! That's a good reason to listen, don't you think? My iPod can't do that, can it?

You call me an apologist, but I'm not blaming other technologies. The technologies didn't do anything right or wrong. The new technologies certainly aren't providing local programming. Are they giving me a reason to listen? Well, if my mom calls me on my cell phone, that's a good reason to answer. If I want to text my friend from a ball game, that's a good reason. If I want to listen to my favorite song on my iPod, that's a good reason. I don't know what any of this has to do with radio. The key factor is it revolves around direct response to me. Individual attention. Radio is a mass medium. It doesn't speak the same language. These are not similar devices. So no, I wouldn't blame technology. My goal is to try and find a way to make radio work within these new technologies. If you're not spending some time thinking about that, you're going to be working in a museum soon. The one with victrolas and telegraph. There was nothing wrong with either of those devices either. And the content wasn't why they became obsolete. In fact, some people still like vinyl records and manual typewriters. Good for them. But that's not the business I'm in. If you're in the content business, you go where the people are. If they're not listening to radios, then you have to find them.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Deeper and Deeper

If music is the only thing that people tune in for, why isn't radio more wildly popular than ever? The beancounters have the best tools to slice and dice research in history.

Accountants don't look at the research. Programmers do.

Nice. Avoid the question. "Beancounters" are people who make decisions based on numbers, and nothing but numbers. Many of today's programmers fit that description.

If their research is right, why is morning the most listened to time of the day?

It's not. Afternoons is, followed by mid-days. several weekend dayparts and then mornings.

Perhaps you'd better check Arbitron. According to their Persons Using Radio Report, when you look at 12+ AQH ratings - the only fair way to evaluate listening as a proportion of the population - morning radio has the highest percentage of listeners most of the time, over the last ten years. There are a few summer books where mid-days has beaten mornings. Afternoon drive has NEVER beaten mornings. They don't show individual dayparts for weekends, and Saturday 10a-3p is a big daypart, but rarely if ever beats weekday morning drive.

Why has talk radio grown to such stature in the market?

In most markets, talk has between a 3 and a 10 share, aggregate. 90% of those listening aren't listening to talk, and most of the talk listeners are over 55.

Once again, you'd better check Arbitron, because YOU ARE WRONG. According to Arbitron's Format Trends, News/Talk is the #1 format base on AQH Share, and has been for the last 10 years (at least).

You also fail to take into account different listening paterns in different parts of the country. In NYC, country doesn't exist. In many markets, it's #1. In most markets, Latin Pop doesn't exist. In LA, it's #1. That's just an indication that you have to program for a specific market, not just stamp out cookie-cutter formats at corporate and feed them to radio stations by decree.

The opportunity to add entertainment value to the "show" is limited to say the least.

If you actually talked with listeners of all ages and tastes, you would find that a very large percentage do not want anything but music, sometimes all day, sometimes outside of very limited schedules.

Talked with WHAT listeners? P1s of background music stations? The number of listeners - or former listeners - that say that radio is "stale" and "boring" and "not interesting" far exceeds those who "do not want anything but music". In the top 15 markets, a 6 share makes you a hero. Look at markets where stations are racking up 10 shares. You'll find that those stations have (or had until recently) the biggest contingent of live and local talent.

You'd think that the success of CBS-FM in NYC, with a return of personality and a huge audience response, would have opened some eyes. Instead, it's seen by some as more like a betrayal of corporate policy.

It's one station with a 4 share, meaning that at any given time, only one New York radio listener out of 25 is listening to that format and style.

See above. LOOK AT THE STATIONS POSTING 10+ SHARES. Most of them aren't juke boxes.

corporate cuts come in the trenches, not at headquarters.

Most corporate offices have minimal staff, those who work on SEC, Sarbanes Oxley, FCC licencing and compliance, and accounting consolidation and things like purchasing where huge economies can be made.

That's also where corporate decisions are made to overspend on radio stations, and buy properties at prices that are so inflated that the interest alone makes it unlikely that they'll make money. Are we seeing cuts in corporate compensation for the people who made those decisions? How many CEOs and CFOs who got their companies into this mess have come out with a statement like "I messed up, and I'll forego my salary until I fix the problem." Anybody returned an bonuses? These are mostly people for whom money is a way a keeping score, not a way of keeping food on the table, or keeping kids in school. Every million that they pocket means 15 people who contribute to their product will be out of work.

How many VPs - a layer of management added by corporate that doesn't bring a DIME into the company - have gotten whacked? The number of dollars taken out of "management" is a fraction of the money taken out of programming in the last few months. Let local managers manage. Give them the money doled out to VPs and let them spend it where they see fit. Then maybe they'll be able to benefit from your vaunted "economies".

Radio is dying. Corporate is turning the seed corn into grits and serving it up without butter.

Everything, including you and I, are dying from the time we are born. Books went from hand lettered manuscripts to letterpress to offset to digital... at every step an old technology died. But usually, the technology is just a convenience. People still write books, and people still will do "radio" even if the format or distribution channel changes.

Radio is being strangled by short-sighted management. It's not a problem with the technology - unless we bring HD radio into the conversation. It's a problem with programming and management by decree from people who have no connection to the listeners that they're supposed to attract.

Continue on. Don't change a thing. The collapse has begun. A lot of people will suffer through the carnage, but ultimately corporate will walk away from radio outside the top 20 markets for the same reason that Clear Channel sold off their smaller stations. Corporate has no clue on how to run an enterprise which is essentially local in nature. You can't take a cookie cutter and stamp out radio stations and expect audiences from different markets to accept what you feed them. The sooner that corporate dumps those stations, the sooner we may get meaningful, entertaining programming in the majority of the country.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Deeper and Deeper

Nice. Avoid the question. "Beancounters" are people who make decisions based on numbers, and nothing but numbers. Many of today's programmers fit that description.

I thing 99% of people would believe a "beancounter" is an accountant or related finance-side person. You are reinventing the language to try to make your point about DJs that talk a lot being needed by radio today.

It's not. Afternoons is, followed by mid-days. several weekend dayparts and then mornings.

Perhaps you'd better check Arbitron. According to their Persons Using Radio Report, when you look at 12+ AQH ratings - the only fair way to evaluate listening as a proportion of the population - morning radio has the highest percentage of listeners most of the time, over the last ten years. There are a few summer books where mid-days has beaten mornings. Afternoon drive has NEVER beaten mornings. They don't show individual dayparts for weekends, and Saturday 10a-3p is a big daypart, but rarely if ever beats weekday morning drive.

In case you have not noticed, we now have PPM in the top 10 markets, and top 15 (except PR) by Q1 of next year. That's closing in on 40% of the metro population of the US already. And in those markets, the order is PM Drive, Middays, some weekend dayparts and mornings.

Once again, you'd better check Arbitron, because YOU ARE WRONG. According to Arbitron's Format Trends[/url], News/Talk is the #1 format base on AQH Share, and has been for the last 10 years (at least).

When there are dozens of formats, it does not take a big share to be a leading format. As I said, most people are not listening to talk, and a slight majority of the ones who do are over 55. The format, consolidating all participants, may go from below 5 shares in some markets to around 10 in others, but is still a niche, as are all formats today.

You also fail to take into account different listening paterns in different parts of the country. In NYC, country doesn't exist. In many markets, it's #1. In most markets, Latin Pop doesn't exist. In LA, it's #1.

Oh, my gosh. Latin Pop has never had more than a 2.6 12+ share in LA, and currently is in the mid-1 share range. It's never been #1, ever, ever, in LA.

Who writes your stuff? This one is a rib-splitter.

If you actually talked with listeners of all ages and tastes, you would find that a very large percentage do not want anything but music, sometimes all day, sometimes outside of very limited schedules

Talked with WHAT listeners? P1s of background music stations? The number of listeners - or former listeners - that say that radio is "stale" and "boring" and "not interesting" far exceeds those who "do not want anything but music".

Actually, format searches show listener opinions on the whole panorama, and cover a broad range of people. And you find a spectrum from those wanting lots of spoken word in any form to those who just seek music. In music formats, there is no burning desire for more talk however entertaining it is... there is vastly more interest in "my favorite songs" whatever they may be.

In the top 15 markets, a 6 share makes you a hero. Look at markets where stations are racking up 10 shares. You'll find that those stations have (or had until recently) the biggest contingent of live and local talent.

When you go to smaller markets, there are less stations. So shares are less fragmented. Not a valid point.

i'm not even going to address the multimillion dollar CEO rant since you are tar and feathering many, many people who have to work for a living when, in fact, there are only a couple of such highly paid top managers, while, on the other hand, there are many such highly paid talents in the business.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Deeper and Deeper

Nice. Avoid the question. "Beancounters" are people who make decisions based on numbers, and nothing but numbers. Many of today's programmers fit that description.

I thing 99% of people would believe a "beancounter" is an accountant or related finance-side person. You are reinventing the language to try to make your point about DJs that talk a lot being needed by radio today.

Your definition is the ONLY definition? Source that, please. More importantly, YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

If music is the only thing that people tune in for, why isn't radio more wildly popular than ever? The (programmers? computer jockeys? spreadsheet mavens?) have the best tools to slice and dice research in history.

It's not. Afternoons is, followed by mid-days. several weekend dayparts and then mornings.

Perhaps you'd better check Arbitron. According to their Persons Using Radio Report, when you look at 12+ AQH ratings - the only fair way to evaluate listening as a proportion of the population - morning radio has the highest percentage of listeners most of the time, over the last ten years. There are a few summer books where mid-days has beaten mornings. Afternoon drive has NEVER beaten mornings. They don't show individual dayparts for weekends, and Saturday 10a-3p is a big daypart, but rarely if ever beats weekday morning drive.

In case you have not noticed, we now have PPM in the top 10 markets, and top 15 (except PR) by Q1 of next year. That's closing in on 40% of the metro population of the US already. And in those markets, the order is PM Drive, Middays, some weekend dayparts and mornings.

In case you haven't noticed, you've left out 60% of the population. Believe it or not, there are people living out here in the "flyover" states. Once again, the source for your contentions, which fly in the face of Arbitron's published information?

Once again, you'd better check Arbitron, because YOU ARE WRONG. According to Arbitron's Format Trends[/url], News/Talk is the #1 format base on AQH Share, and has been for the last 10 years (at least).

When there are dozens of formats, it does not take a big share to be a leading format. As I said, most people are not listening to talk, and a slight majority of the ones who do are over 55. The format, consolidating all participants, may go from below 5 shares in some markets to around 10 in others, but is still a niche, as are all formats today.

MOST people aren't listening to RADIO. DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE LINK? Or, post your source, please.

You also fail to take into account different listening paterns in different parts of the country. In NYC, country doesn't exist. In many markets, it's #1. In most markets, Latin Pop doesn't exist. In LA, it's #1.

Oh, my gosh. Latin Pop has never had more than a 2.6 12+ share in LA, and currently is in the mid-1 share range. It's never been #1, ever, ever, in LA.

Who writes your stuff? This one is a rib-splitter.

REALLY? Then you'd better take a look at Arbitron's 12+ for Summer '07, Fall '07, and Spring '08. KLVE, owned by Univision and listed as Latin Pop is #1.

Ribs? I'll take mine dry-rubbed, with a side of corn on the cob, please.

If you actually talked with listeners of all ages and tastes, you would find that a very large percentage do not want anything but music, sometimes all day, sometimes outside of very limited schedules

Talked with WHAT listeners? P1s of background music stations? The number of listeners - or former listeners - that say that radio is "stale" and "boring" and "not interesting" far exceeds those who "do not want anything but music".

Actually, format searches show listener opinions on the whole panorama, and cover a broad range of people. And you find a spectrum from those wanting lots of spoken word in any form to those who just seek music. In music formats, there is no burning desire for more talk however entertaining it is... there is vastly more interest in "my favorite songs" whatever they may be.

Your source, please, so we can take a look at the research ourselves and not have it filtered through your POV? What you're really saying is that the research is so poorly concocted that it yields such fragmented results that it's practically useless.

In the top 15 markets, a 6 share makes you a hero. Look at markets where stations are racking up 10 shares. You'll find that those stations have (or had until recently) the biggest contingent of live and local talent.

When you go to smaller markets, there are less stations. So shares are less fragmented. Not a valid point.

Not valid? Why, because it disagrees with you? Because it only applies to 60% of the industry? Because the examples where someone has "broken the mold" in a major market are few and far between? When you get such an example, like CBS-FM, you immediately discount it anyway.

i'm not even going to address the multimillion dollar CEO rant since you are tar and feathering many, many people who have to work for a living when, in fact, there are only a couple of such highly paid top managers, while, on the other hand, there are many such highly paid talents in the business.

Who PAID those talents? Who gave a cadaverous Imus $6-million to come back and infest the airwaves - with very limited success? Who's discounted talent to the point where when someone breaks out of the mold and manages to establish a following, they line up to syndicate them?

Rant? You REALLY don't want to get me started.

 

[gr8oldies]

People only got iPods, computers and cellphones that do everything but start my car because they were dissatisfied with not enough DJs on the radio? Find that a little hard to believe. What an iPod does is make it so I don't have to carrry 3 CD cases around and wade through the 7 cuts I don't like to hear the 3 I do. Even in "the good old days" any number of people considered DJs obnoxious and boring. We had a station that carried TM Stereo Rock and when I was in high school..and lots of folks listened to them, precisely because they thought the jocks on the AM stations were obnoxious and got in the way. At the LPFM I volunteer for, a 57-year-old listener took us to task for talking over intros, stating that he hated that from the time he was 8.

People listen to talk shows because they want to, or to background music stations because they want to. There really is room for both. I can remember being in an office with the dominant, heritage CHR station playing all day, and no one but NO ONE noticed things like the regular jock being gone and a sub being brought in, let alone laugh to a line or say "stop everything, I want to hear the DJ".

There are entertaining shows in dayparts other than mornings. However, lots are syndicated which I know Rox doesn't like. Delilah has stories from all over the country..not my thing but she has thousands if not millions of listeners. Why would you want the same 10 people calling everyday in Charleston SC?

 

[SirRoxalot]

And Still Deeper

You guys really need to get out of corporate headquarters.

You can go to a market at lot smaller than Charleston, SC, and still not get the "same 10 people calling everyday".

Radio CANNOT compete with iPods, cell phones, and other media that deliver "music on demand". Radio NEVER could compete as a "juke box". THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT.

As the reliance on flawed research, consultants, and corporate consolidation have systematically reduced the "value added" part of radio - what goes on besides the music - listeners have responded by leaving radio. You can't base your programming decisions on somebody you know who doesn't like talkovers, or somebody who doesn't like DJs. You can base programming decisions on numbers that indicate that reducing the impact of radio personalities has reduced the impact of radio.

Delilah isn't my cup of tea, but at least she entertains. Give a good local jock the same opportunity, and Delilah will lose. Instead, jocks are hamstrung by over-formatted cookie-cutter decrees from corporate. How do you expect a listener to respond to a jock who's trying to sell them something every time they open the mic? That's exactly what most radio formats require a jock to do at this point. The pre-produced liners have more chance to be entertaining in some formats.

Yes, there is room for passive listening stations. There is also room for active listening stations, and those stations will bring in more money if the air staff and sales force are properly trained and motivated.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Deeper and Deeper

I thing 99% of people would believe a "beancounter" is an accountant or related finance-side person. You are reinventing the language to try to make your point about DJs that talk a lot being needed by radio today.
Your definition is the ONLY definition?

I've never even come across the term "beancounter" associated with anyone else than financial / accounting folks. I just asked a random 5 people at work, and they all said, "an accountant" instantly.

Source that, please. More importantly, YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

If music is the only thing that people tune in for, why isn't radio more wildly popular than ever? The (programmers? computer jockeys? spreadsheet mavens?) have the best tools to slice and dice research in history.

Music is not the only thing people tune in for. But the person who likes a morning show at 7 AM may want AC music at 10 AM at work and CHR at 5 PM driving home. The reason the average (PPM) listener uses 6 to 7 stations a week is mood and situation driven... we, as listeners, want different things at different times and for different moods.

In case you have not noticed, we now have PPM in the top 10 markets, and top 15 (except PR) by Q1 of next year. That's closing in on 40% of the metro population of the US already. And in those markets, the order is PM Drive, Middays, some weekend dayparts and mornings.

In case you haven't noticed, you've left out 60% of the population. Believe it or not, there are people living out here in the "flyover" states. Once again, the source for your contentions, which fly in the face of Arbitron's published information?

In case you have not noticed, the PPM is the measurement system that will be in metros with over two-thirds of the total US metro (rated) market population in another 24 months, and is now in use or pre-currency stages in markets that represent half the US metro population. Using diary only data (the basis for the tables you are reading) now leaves out the largest metros in the US...

When there are dozens of formats, it does not take a big share to be a leading format. As I said, most people are not listening to talk, and a slight majority of the ones who do are over 55. The format, consolidating all participants, may go from below 5 shares in some markets to around 10 in others, but is still a niche, as are all formats today.

MOST people aren't listening to RADIO. DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE LINK? Or, post your source, please.

My source is Arbitron. The fact is, that at no time in history was everyone listening to the radio at the same time. In fact, most people at any given time, are not listening to the radio. At no time since Arbitron began in '65 has any daypart scored above about a quarter of the 12+ population listening in any given standard daypart.

Saying "most people are not listening" is absurd. Of course they are not, and never have been. However, during the measurment period, an average of around 96% (PPM) or 93% (diary) use radio.

The reason why in some demos people listen fewer hours has been spelled out for you before, and it has nothing to do with live DJs. In fact, too many live DJs may be part of the problem in this iPod era.

Oh, my gosh. Latin Pop has never had more than a 2.6 12+ share in LA, and currently is in the mid-1 share range. It's never been #1, ever, ever, in LA.

Who writes your stuff? This one is a rib-splitter.

REALLY? Then you'd better take a look at Arbitron's 12+ for Summer '07, Fall '07, and Spring '08 (meaningless URL deleted). KLVE, owned by Univision and listed as Latin Pop is #1.

KLVE is AC. It's been AC each of the three times I have been (interim) PD and it is AC today. It is not pop, and never has been for the last 14 years. I really don't care what kind of mistakes trade magazines make in assigning format descriptors to stations.

Actually, format searches show listener opinions on the whole panorama, and cover a broad range of people. And you find a spectrum from those wanting lots of spoken word in any form to those who just seek music. In music formats, there is no burning desire for more talk however entertaining it is... there is vastly more interest in "my favorite songs" whatever they may be.

Your source, please, so we can take a look at the research ourselves and not have it filtered through your POV? What you're really saying is that the research is so poorly concocted that it yields such fragmented results that it's practically useless.

Market research is proprietary. A format search essentially starts at ground zero, and finds out what openings or weaknesses there are in a market. Nobody is going to share their $80,000 format search data with the readers of a web forum any more than P&G is going to share its research on toothpaste flavors and textures. It's confidential strategic data in both cases...

My point is that any station with a declining or unviable format will do a search, and they will look at every attitudinal situation as well as every possible format option (within sales demos, of course... nobody researches 55+, for example).

The end result is generally a variety of format opportunities and the owners select the one that combines salability with cost analysis... just like P&G does with its tootpaste.

Not valid? Why, because it disagrees with you? Because it only applies to 60% of the industry? Because the examples where someone has "broken the mold" in a major market are few and far between? When you get such an example, like CBS-FM, you immediately discount it anyway.

CBS FM has not broken the mold. They simply copied the PPM success of WOGL in Philly. A decent classic hits station is no more "mold breaking" than a decent Alternative Rock station.

Who PAID those talents? Who gave a cadaverous Imus $6-million to come back and infest the airwaves - with very limited success? Who's discounted talent to the point where when someone breaks out of the mold and manages to establish a following, they line up to syndicate them?

My impression is that Imus is making money for his employer; it's no coincidence that leaving WFAN cost that station, in one market, abo0ut $10 million if you believe the billings data... and that is about 10 times the total billings of the average US radio station.

Rant? You REALLY don't want to get me started.

Started? I was thinking you were about done.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: The Radio to save Radio

In radio, what is being overlooked? What is the ingredient that matters TODAY?

There is nothing being overlooked. That's part of the problem. Too much content, too many devices, splintering an already splintered audience. Radio is in the people aggregation business. The main problem now is there's little radio can do that will aggregate enough audience to make it profitable. A handful of music formats. One political opinion. That's it.

Anybody have a paper towel handy? I need to wipe the powder-burns off my wing-tips. :-\

After I posted that, I pulled it back up to read and was ready to argue with myself! I shot right through my own foot.

I have this inherited trait, reinforced by hands-on-training that when you buy, BUY QUALITY. (see optional comments below.)

Every time I go into town (a significant undertaking from where I live) to shop for something like a coffee pot, a bathroom scale, tools for soldering, an XLR plug or other plug to string something new in my recording studio, I am reminded of a very in-your-face truth: based on what merchants are offering for sale - - - NOBODY BUYS QUALITY ANYMORE! Try to buy nail clippers at the drug store that will CUT fingernails rather than bludgeon them off.

Apparently everybody wants bling. Two cheap toys are better than one toy that lasts until you get tired of it.

So, in this chaos, I am so insane as to think that if broadcasters would present QUALITY programming... (what ever that is????) that people would drop everything and lock their dials in. I guess God invented NPR for people like me. ;D

* * * P U R E N O S T A L G I A * * *​

[optional reading for extra course credit.]​

Fred from up around Toledo chimed in on this or a similar topic so I pulled up Fred's profile and read back a ways to remind myself "who is he?". Fred had posted some time back a link to a company that sells a kit to make a recent Ford Ranger pick-up into a 1936 Replica.... and that would be what I learned to drive in. So, last night I forwarded the link to my brother. "Do you remember our old green truck?"

In a few minutes I had a reply. He had some new bling. Just bought a new scanner-printer-copier-can opener and had been scanning some old family photos and he sent me one. It was his sixth birthday party and in one corner of the photo about a third of the old 36 Ford was in the background.

Dad had lived through 'The Depression' and when times got a bit better, he bought something that would last for awhile just in case another one of those came along. Something came along alright.... World War II... and he had the good fortune to have a good quality truck to last and last and last until times got better.

About a decade ago, the day after his funeral, we all went out to the farm to see what we had to deal with. Should we have an auction? What is here that any one would like to keep for their very own. My hand went up in a hurry. I want the old black tool-box. I've never known a day when that box was not there. He worked his way through the end of the depression fixing tractors for old farmers who only knew how to fix horses. That set of tools got him through World War II when tools were all needed in the war zone. As you can imagine, some of that old Craftsman set is pretty worn. I am tempted sometimes to take a couple of tools back to Sears and ask for a new one under their life-time guarantee... but I am afraid all they would have to offer as replacement is some of today's BLING.

I'm hopelessly lost in that past. I want to listen to a station that I would be happy listening to every day right on through the next depression (which may be here for all we know) and through World War III. I guess I need to break down and go to town and find a good quality iPod.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Bottom Line

David throws around numbers that conflict with Arbitron's own published reports. Links, please?

One major corporate blind spot is that what works in the top 15 markets doesn't necessarily work in markets that are smaller than that - and doesn't even work in all of those markets. What more indication do you need that programming needs to be target LOCALLY, not force-fed by corporate?

You say that "CBS FM has not broken the mold. They simply copied the PPM success of WOGL in Philly. A decent classic hits station is no more "mold breaking" than a decent Alternative Rock station." What makes WOGL a "decent classic hits station"? What makes a station a "decent Alternative Rock station"? Could it be the fact that WOGL has a stellar lineup of PERSONALITIES? As does CBS-FM? Could it be that they give listeners something more than a cookie-cutter jukebox repeating the same 300 records endlessly?

The bottom line remains that the current programming practices have consistently lost listeners since the 1980s. The problem predates the iPod, streaming, file sharing, and every other technology blamed by corporate apologists. Wall Street has finally noticed, and you guys are getting your heads handed to you on a vinyl platter.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: The Bottom Line

What more indication do you need that programming needs to be target LOCALLY, not force-fed by corporate?

It's not force-fed by corporate at stations not corporately owned. Yet those stations are experiencing the exact same decline. How do you explain that?

It may come as a shock to you, but a lot of these big radio companies don't have corporate programming departments, or people telling them what to do. Some who do have local GMs telling corporate that they make more money by keeping things the way they are, and are willing to risk their own necks on it. The bottom line is what makes money, not following corporate. If a local GM can make money with live & local, he's able to do it, and no one tells him he can't.

The bottom line remains that the current programming practices have consistently lost listeners since the 1980s.

You're connecting two things that aren't related. Lots of other factors contributed to audience loss in radio as a whole. Lots of stations have seen listenership rise during this time. Some of them have used national formats or syndicated hosts to do this. You first tell us that radio is local, then throw national numbers as proof of something. Make up your mind.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Logos, Ethos, Pathos

I wonder how "TheBigA" got his name?

Gentlemen, you're not the only ones who have taken college statistics, or understand the concepts of rhetoric.

A, you have penchant for attacking the messenger instead of the message. Have YOU shown us any statistics at all? You come on here and talk like you're an authority, but I've yet to see a link to any valid numbers that support your ideas. The appeal to ethos is the rhetorical device used when logos doesn't fit your arguement. You tend to add a little pathos to bolster your contentions, but it doesn't make them any more valid.

Most stations that are not "corporately owned" are in smaller markets. They're the very ones touted as a "bright spot" in a bleak radio landscape.

Local GMs are being told DAILY to cut live and local because corporate is in money trouble. The STUPID part is that cuts are being made despite the fact that some of those shows will lose revenue without those jocks. Next, corporate will insist on even more cuts because "revenue is down".

Most radio revenue - over 70% in 2007 - is local. That makes targeting local audiences a prime consideration. Yet we have corporate edicts that whack entire staffs, or kill successful local shows in favor of syndicated shows. Is it because the syndicated shows perform so well? Not necessarily. In a number of cases, it's because corporate gets a discount if they run the syndication in more markets. The syndication may indeed be successful in some markets. I've also seen it tank in other markets, ultimately hurting both the station and the bottom line for the company.

 

[gr8oldies]

"Local communities"..whatever they are anymore, aren't isolated enclaves with completely different tastes than the rest of the country anymore. With the technology that exists, people can e-mail and text distant friends and relatives, pick up the cellphone and call them several times a day, not to mention share files on the computer. I don't know where the top 10 TV shows and movies are drastically different from the rest of the country. Why would radio be any different, except for radio geeks? (By the way, I'm geeky enough to have old radio station sounders and jingles as my cellphone ringtones).

Even what people used radio for in small towns has changed. I worked for a station that got the idea of being "farm radio". In talking with someone who controlled a big share of ag advertising dollars, and he told me that "farmers don't need farm reports on the radio anymore. They get their farm prices on their laptops". Was it that farmers had to get laptops and mobile internet access because there weren't enough farm reports on the radio? There were plenty of farm reports on the radio, but if someone didn't want to waith until 10:06 to hear the opening livestock summary, they didn't have to.

Why would you even need to listen at 6:47am every morning for the school lunch menus when theyre on the school's website 24/7?. My cellphone has even affected how much I view the local TV news. I can read about the latest drug murder or accident that tied up the interstate for three hours any time, any place.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Logos, Ethos, Pathos

A, you have penchant for attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Au contrare...I haven't attacked you at all. I have dealt very specifically with the message, which is that corporate radio is to blame for everything, including the Iraq war. You as a messanger are probably a very nice guy. I have no prejudice about you. Just your information.

Have YOU shown us any statistics at all?

My experience in this discussion is that posting statistics leads to an attack on the methodology. I've observed that between you and Eduardo. So I'm not going to waste my time. But there are lots of very specific statistics showing radio stations exhibiting large increases in audience during the past 25 years, and even during the past 5 years.

Local GMs are being told DAILY to cut live and local because corporate is in money trouble.

I've already given you my experience that disproves this generalization. It's up to the GMs to come up with ways to increase revenue, not just cut expenses. If a GM can create new sources of revenue, he is given lattitude to do what he wants.

Yet we have corporate edicts that whack entire staffs, or kill successful local shows in favor of syndicated shows. Is it because the syndicated shows perform so well? Not necessarily. In a number of cases, it's because corporate gets a discount if they run the syndication in more markets.

Give me an example of a "successful local show" killed in favor of syndication.

Syndication costs money, either in spots or cash. It is not free programming. There is a cost related to it. And in most cases, the cost of the spot loss is greater than the cost of a salary.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

"Local communities"..whatever they are anymore, aren't isolated enclaves with completely different tastes than the rest of the country anymore. With the technology that exists, people can e-mail and text distant friends and relatives, pick up the cellphone and call them several times a day, not to mention share files on the computer. I don't know where the top 10 TV shows and movies are drastically different from the rest of the country. Why would radio be any different, except for radio geeks?

You ask the very questions I have been trying to wrap my brain around for the last five years. I didn't want old radio jingles on my cell phone.... I just wanted my own little radio station somewhere in the backwaters being an experiment station (hopefully self funding) trying to re-invent radio for the 21st century.

You are both right and wrong at the same time. It is almost impossible to get far enough from the city but what your neighbor doesen't have fast Internet. But there are still differences out here. I live near the crossroads where Junior Samples of Hee-Haw fame grew up. I have neighbors who commute to Atlanta and are 21st Century software and finance tycoons. I have neighbors who bale hay for a living.

For a couple of years I managed a federally subsidized apartment community for low-income elderly and disabled. I was doing that in the area where moonshine stock-car racing began and I am dealing with the rural based families of these elderly disabled people. And I was in an out of the court-house and the sheriff's department in the land of moonshine. My observation: don't oversell yourself on that idea that the U.S. is one big, homogenized glob where every one has the same tastes in movies, the same access to the Internet, etc.

Then last Spring following the tornadoes in downtown Atlanta I went with a volunteer team to a neighborhood about two good rock-throws from downtown Atlanta. We remodeled a house back to liveability that lost a battle with a giant oak tree. That neighborhood was not living in the same universe you and I live in either.

Back to the topic: For five years I have been making a list of all those things radio used to do, particularly in the small towns, the rural areas. Farm reports. School lunch menus. Hospital admittances (now killed by medical privacy). I have been making a longer and longer list of all those things that USED TO work. Now and then I pull the list out and review it. I ask myself what was the concept here... is there a 21st century equivalent. Is there a comparable replacement for today's listener? P.S. There are some things that can and should be worked into broadcasting today in "sparse America."

If I were a bit younger I might be making a list and writing in modern day equivalents for city and suburban listeners. That is a task for somebody else. I was never a "city boy".... I just lived there for awhile.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Logos, Ethos, Pathos

A, you have penchant for attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Au contrare...I haven't attacked you at all. I have dealt very specifically with the message, which is that corporate radio is to blame for everything, including the Iraq war. You as a messanger are probably a very nice guy. I have no prejudice about you. Just your information.

Actually, I was referring to your hatchet job on FredRichards. You still haven't produced any facts to back up your opinions. You dispute the information offered, yet you provide no information to the contrary that has a credible source.

Have YOU shown us any statistics at all?

My experience in this discussion is that posting statistics leads to an attack on the methodology. I've observed that between you and Eduardo. So I'm not going to waste my time. But there are lots of very specific statistics showing radio stations exhibiting large increases in audience during the past 25 years, and even during the past 5 years.

There are also lots of very specific statistics showing radio stations exhibiting large decreases in audience during the past 25 years, and even during the past 5 years. Once again, show me the source of your contention. In the meantime, the Arbitron numbers show that radio as a whole has been steadily losing ratings points since the '80s, and that the trend has accelerated of late.

Local GMs are being told DAILY to cut live and local because corporate is in money trouble.

I've already given you my experience that disproves this generalization. It's up to the GMs to come up with ways to increase revenue, not just cut expenses. If a GM can create new sources of revenue, he is given lattitude to do what he wants.

You obviously haven't been reading the trades lately. R&R's four pages of "Pros on the Loose" disputes your contention. I've seen it happen at several groups in my home market, and read about it in many other markets.

Yet we have corporate edicts that whack entire staffs, or kill successful local shows in favor of syndicated shows. Is it because the syndicated shows perform so well? Not necessarily. In a number of cases, it's because corporate gets a discount if they run the syndication in more markets.

Give me an example of a "successful local show" killed in favor of syndication.

Check out a number of stations that were force-fed Opie and Anthony by corporate - a move that's since be rescinded because of poor performance by the syndicated show. Check out what's happening with mid-days and 7p-Midnight at corporately-owned stations across America.

Syndication costs money, either in spots or cash. It is not free programming. There is a cost related to it. And in most cases, the cost of the spot loss is greater than the cost of a salary.

We have a point of agreement. Syndication does cost money. In some markets, syndication forced on local stations by corporate agreements has cost them significant revenue. The latest round of cuts in live, local programming is likely to provide us with more examples.

 

[TheBigA]

In the meantime, the Arbitron numbers show that radio as a whole has been steadily losing ratings points since the '80s, and that the trend has accelerated of late.

Does Arbitron attribute those losses to programming? Or is that simply your interpretation? Were there similar losses before any changes in programming? If so, then how can one attribute losses exclusively to programming, when it's documented in the same chart that there were losses before any changes in programming? I'm trying to find out exactly how you make this connection when there is no statistical reason for it.

Check out a number of stations that were force-fed Opie and Anthony by corporate - a move that's since be rescinded because of poor performance by the syndicated show.

Those stations went to a live and local show that did even worse, and so they decided to go back to Opie & Anthony. What does that prove?

In some markets, syndication forced on local stations by corporate agreements has cost them significant revenue. The latest round of cuts in live, local programming is likely to provide us with more examples.

I'm still waiting for examples of successful local programming that was replaced by syndication. First you say people aren't listening, then you say there is successful local programming. I'm getting very confused here. It's either one or the other. It can't be both. If radio has been in a downward slide for over 20 years, then the local programming is where it began. It sounds like selective reasoning to me...where you bring up stuff when it proves your point, and attack it when it doesn't.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: The Bottom Line

David throws around numbers that conflict with Arbitron's own published reports. Links, please?

No conflict. I am telling you what the PPM data shows. I have 8 market's worth. If you want very specific ratings data, you have to be a subscriber.

One major corporate blind spot is that what works in the top 15 markets doesn't necessarily work in markets that are smaller than that - and doesn't even work in all of those markets. What more indication do you need that programming needs to be target LOCALLY, not force-fed by corporate?

I have seen and been involved with the concept that the listener does not care where the studio is, but does care if what they listen to is personally entertaining, satisfying or informative. In most cases, being in the same city has little to do with this, or there would be dozens of Delialah clones that beat her, dozens of Rush clones that beat him, dozens of Piolín clones that beat him.

You say that "CBS FM has not broken the mold. They simply copied the PPM success of WOGL in Philly. A decent classic hits station is no more "mold breaking" than a decent Alternative Rock station." What makes WOGL a "decent classic hits station"? What makes a station a "decent Alternative Rock station"? Could it be the fact that WOGL has a stellar lineup of PERSONALITIES? As does CBS-FM? Could it be that they give listeners something more than a cookie-cutter jukebox repeating the same 300 records endlessly?

Both stations have exclusive formats that did only fairly in the diary, but that benefitted from the PPM... likely due to "forced" listening or non-P1 status issues. Neither are better than Lite or B 100 in the two markets, and Lite and B 100 have far less "personality" yet win much more significantly in the sales demos and even 12+.

I am still giggling occasionally at your telling me that KLVE is a pop station!!!!! As has been pointed out, you have not proven that lots more DJs is either the cause of declining PUR numbers, nor have you shown how having more local talents that talk more will increase numbers. The fact is, there is proof for neither.