Radio stocks

[TheBigA]

One of the problems of discussing "the good old days" of radio is coming to an agreement on when they were.

That's true. I've learned that "the good old days" were any time when the person talking about it was in his prime. Usually any time just before the latest generation entered the work force.

I got to know some people who were in radio during the 30s and 40s. Their view was that radio went downhill when DJs came in. The real talent and content creation happened when radio made original programming, like radio drama and variety shows with live bands. DJs allowed radio companies to fire all the true talent, the musicians, actors, and comedians who knew how to entertain. DJs just played OTHER people's work, not their own. It's an interesting point of view.

 

[TheBigA]

Anyone with an ounce of common can look back at history. See how many local people were involved discussing local issues, real time. Then look at today. Not only is there no voice for listeners locally, there is no COMPETITION.

You make that statement as though we were all born yesterday. There is more discussion of local issues today than at any time in history.That's part of the propblem. More people talking and fewer people doing. Unfortunately, not a lot of people want to listen to other people's opinions, nor are they all that interested in local issues, except when they involve them. If you build a dump, no one cares until they find out the dump is in their backyard. THEN they get mad.

This whole debate is not about corporations or what's right for radio. It's about individuals wanting radio to be done their way. So we have a country with 330 million people each of which want their own personal radio station. They want to be able to hear their favorite songs on demand, with no commercials, and get the news slanted their way with everyone agreeing, and they want the weather to always be great, and the announcer to always be funny. That's the thing that's really changed in this country from the "old days." People used to be more tolerant of others, more willing to sit through music they didn't like in order to get to their favorites, and more willing to allow others to give their opinions. Not any more.

And there is a general frustration with the fact that we live in a corporate world. Not just in radio. Go to the mall and count how many locally owned stores there are. Look at the products you own and see how many were made here. So when talking about radio, it's easy to attack the big companies, but they're simply representative of the rest of the country. Even local school boards are consolidating into regional districts in order to save money. Local mayors are being replaced by township councils in small communities. And it's easy to say education is suffering because of the lack of money. But no one wants to pay more in taxes.

Same with radio. Critics want new regulations to return radio ownership to the way it used to be. But it doesn't change the fact that radio still has to compete with lots of other media, none of it local, and no one wants commercials or subscription fees. There is no solution to this situation. You can't regulate companies to lose money. So that puts radio ownership into government hands. If you think Clear Channel is a huge bureaucracy, wait til radio is owned by the federal government. Try and get things done there. And will you be willing to pay increased fees in order to get local radio? These are the real questions you need to ask.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I've learned that "the good old days" were any time when the person talking about it was in his prime. Usually any time just before the latest generation entered the work force.

I share that observation.

The era I described (1948 - 1958) is not when I was in my prime... but I was mentored by, and my expectations were set by people who were in their prime during that era.

I would expect that maybe some younger folks would chime in and recall the expansion era when the 80/90 rules too effect as being a 'window of opportunity' time. There seems to be a consensus today that what looked like a good move by the FCC at the time has turned out to be the curse of our generation.

I got to know some people who were in radio during the 30s and 40s. Their view was that radio went downhill when DJs came in. The real talent and content creation happened when radio made original programming, like radio drama and variety shows with live bands. DJs allowed radio companies to fire all the true talent, the musicians, actors, and comedians who knew how to entertain. DJs just played OTHER people's work, not their own. It's an interesting point of view.

It is very understandable that the people who were in the business in the 1930s and 40s would feel that way. But relating that to the conversation of this thread, I don't see the change to DJs being so much of a conscious decision by management (or make that corporate management) to implement the change. The musicians union lost some of their clout over the industry. Improved equipment stability allowed the relaxation of the scene where a mandatory engineer sat in one room and an announcer (with or without live musicians) sat in another room. But the big change was seedbed in which radio was planted and transplanted. The 1930s found America very much a rural nation, and rural was somewhat poor. After WWII when all the GIs came marching home, the baby room began, and new prosperity flowed into all kinds of communities. Radio with non DJ announcers and live bands, etc. was located in CITIES. Cities of 40 to 50 thousand and more. There were some heritage stations in Midwestern farming areas in smaller towns but even when I got in the business and the growth of number of stations was booming, it was argued that you really can't hope to operate in a town of 10,000 people or less.

What was the station count in the early 1940s.... 900 to a 1000 stations? And what do we have today... A.M., F.M., educational, LPFM... maybe 16,000 or so?

It has been said that if the phone company had to do away with dial phones and return to manual operators, there are not enough people to staff the job. If we tried to run radio today the way they did in 1937.... There wouldn't be enough people to staff the announcers, the board operators, the transmitter engineers, the studio musicians, the actors and comedians.

When we talk about the benefits of corporate ownership and the curse of corporate ownership, you really have to be creative to come up with ways to realistically compare today to the "good old days"..... whenever they were. As the little girl said to her dog: "We're not in Kansas any more."

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Tick, Tick, Tick

First of all, how has corporate done SINCE consolidation? What's happened to the industry?

1. TSL is dropping.

As Big A accurately noted, it began dropping under Arbitron methodology in the mid to late 80's. It's miraculous it did not drop more: the period has seen affordable CDs and players... mass reach of PCs and the related video gaming explosion... MP3 players... satellite radio... iPods... satellite TV... the explosion of cable offerings, including interactive and on demand services... NetFlix and other ways to get content right in the home. And more and more and more.

2. 12-34 - the next generation of listeners - don't find radio interesting, let alone compelling.

And that whould be why 95% of that age group listens weekly as shown by the PPM? Take into account that radio can not specifically serve 12-17, still studies show that adults over 18 use more and more radio as their life responsibilites increase, limiting time that can be spent on downloading, exploring for new music, etx.

3. Syndication and voice tracking have grown. The local, relatable talent pool has shrunk. BTW, see 1 and 2 above.

Untrue. Syndication and voicetracking were at their peak in the 70's, when waaaaay over half of all US FMs used SRP, Drake-Chennault, TM Century, IGM, RPM, Churchill, Bonneville, Música en Flor, Peters Productions, KalaMusic, FM 100 Plan and others to run automated, voice tracked and with few or no emplyees.

In the late 80's, more and more stations went "on the bird" when Docket 80 90 allowed upgrades, move ins and several thousand new FMs in markets that could not support them. The result? Cutting costs. This had zero to do with consolidation.

4. The revenue growth predicted by consolidators due to the creation of "synergies" and being able to force rates up are a myth. Once again, lack of compelling content means that both listeners and advertisers use radio as a background medium. That, and long commercial clusters, lead them to the conclusion that radio is not as effective as it once was as an advertising medium.

Radio advertising is priced, and has been since the first ratings around 1930, on delivery of people. All advertising is first judged on delivery. Effective use of a medium depends on the message, the selection of the proper media for it, fullfillment of promises, share of voice and so on. Radio is very effective if properly used.

How many times have you seen a billboard with too much text, the wrong colors, too much clutter? The message does not get through because it is wroing for the medium. Is that the outdoor company's fault? Of course not. They are just a medium.

The advantages of consolidation are cost effectivenes. Generally, unless an operator has a majority share of audience, they can't drive rates up, but they can keep rate integrity. But each cluster can save on goods and services and shared resources (1 genny instead of 6). As mentioned, I built a 4 AM and 5 FM cluster several decades ago, and found that the savings were limited to facilities and buying power. As to programming, there were no savings.... the change was that my revenue potential grew, allowing hiring better management, often from outside radio, and better support staff (a real accountant instead of a bookeeper) etc.

Who are real broadcasters? How about managers who understand that radio is a local medium, and realize that relationships are more important to selling airtime than numbers. Numbers don't demonstrate the effectiveness of a radio station.

There are two kinds of selling.. relationship sales (mostly direct accounts with no ad manager) and transactional (mostly agency sales, both local and out of market shops). The agencies may be able to tip the scales in your favor all other things being equal, but if your rates and delivery don't measure up, you are gone.

In all but the smallest markets, there is lots of transactional business and if you want it, you deliver audience at the right CPP. Serving the customer (relationships) is part of selling any radio, or any other goods or services. To assume that there are not relationships in transactional sales indicates a lack of knowledge of the business (just as you did assuming national sales were handled at the coroporate office insteady of by the rep firm).

A background station may have better numbers, but poorer results than a station that is a front-of-mind listening experience, where people tune in to hear what a talent who is allowed to entertain has to say. Why do you think that talk radio works? Why do several syndicated shows work? They're front-of-mind.

You can't even measure or conclude these things. The customer's message, pricing, location, service, friendliness, reputation, etc. are 90% of the sale. I have seen a bad business go to a new station and get good results, only because the listeners of that station did not already know by experience that the business was bad. Once they were disappointed, the station quit working.

Is John Tesh - who does well in many markets - a great talent? Hell, no. He's a smart broadcaster. Give a decent local jock the same opportunity to entertain (i.e. unrestricted airtime) and he'll crush Tesh like a grape because he or she can focus on what's important to that local audience. As it is now, if a local jock did a 60 second bit on ANYTHING, they'd be on the carpet in the PD's office the next day. Tesh does :60 without really saying anything. And let's not even begin to talk about Delilah.

Were local talent so available, how come local TV staitons have not come up with live and local talents to beat Oprah or Leno? Maybe it's that local is a worthless value unless there is high entertainment value too. That seldom happens.

Hire sales managers who know how to train sales people instead of rotating "sales fodder" through the cubicle farm.

Most stations do this. But, on the other hand, if you are going to sell in LA or Miami or Phoenix or Tulsa for a major station, you will need experience and some kind of record before getting on board. Radio is not a school, and some background is expected.

While we're at it, how about letting programmers program? Not only that, but stop making them "program" (i.e. run Selector, Music Master, etc.) for multiple radio stations and let them concentrate on building one good radio station. That means not only programming music, wading through research, doing LOCAL research, and DEVELOPING LOCAL TALENT.

What is wrong with great non-local talent if they talk about things that local people in each market care about? this whole localism thing is hogwash... entertainment can be local, national or from mars... it has to be good and competitive.

Oh, when I ran those 9 stations in a single market, I was PD of all of them... as well as GM and GSM. I had great support staffers, so I didn't do most production or such myself, so doing more than one station is not necessary.

There's virtually no local talent development going on these days.

How amusing. And how generalized and how untrue. A guy I hired for overnights 15 years ago and trained is now doing mornings on over 50 stations and has a cume of around 6 million.

Don't paint everyone with the same brush... that's stereotyping. Not all radio staitons or companies are the same.

I wish that I could say that I only see this at one company, but I see it at every major corporate group in town. Now, the cuts are coming down by edict from corporate, without regard to what it will do to the bottom line locally.

Don't confuse a recession with a radio issue. There are cutbacks everywhere due to the economy, and to blame are the regulators who pushed Freddy Mac and such to grant unqualified loans... not radio. Not even Farid.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Voting With Their Feet

You make these statements as though ALL of radio is owned by corporate radio, and it's not true. The majority of radio stations are NOT owned by big corporations. Perhaps THEY are the reason for things you list.

The majority of radio stations with full-market signals in the top 100 markets are owned by "big corporate". The top 100 markets serve the majority of the available audience. Do you seriously believe that a radio station in East Podunk, IA is equal to a 100KW FM in NYC? Puh-lease.

The fact is that TSL has been dropping since BEFORE consolidation. The fact is that radio listenership has been dropping since 1988. The fact is that the next generation (according to Arbitron) listens to radio, but integrates it with other forms of media. Nothing wrong with that. Back in the 50s, people started watching TV rather than listen to the radio. Was it because radio wasn't compelling?

1988, huh? You mean about the time that management was seduced by consultants who convinced them that the "music is the product, and jocks just get in the way of music" ? About the time that talent became a "cost", not an "asset"? About the time that those "big corporations who have always owned radio" (your statement) started working out LMAs, and other attempts at de facto consolidation? About they time that they started lobbying Congress to make consolidation legal? Yup. Your time line is right on time.

You're applying broad general national statistics to a medium you say is local. There are lots of exceptions to what you're talking about, and you'd be shocked at who owns the exceptions and how they're achieving their results.

Of course there are exceptions. That's the problem - they're EXCEPTIONS - not the norm. Without exceptions, the picture would be even darker.

So then you don't know any. Certainly you're not going to invest any of your own personal money in radio. You just want to tell those who do how to spend their money. Which makes you no better than a consultant.

First of all, you have no idea of my investment level in radio. Secondly, you have no idea who I know in radio. My posts indicate that I DO know what goes on in a radio station - probably better than many people in corporate headquarters, and better than anybody who looks in from the outside without being on the front lines of the industry. My POV doesn't come from my own personal likes, dislikes, gripes, or situation. I'm very comfortably situated, thank you. I'm also surrounded by, and discuss the current situation with a number of broadcasting professionals who are in the business, and committed to it IN SPITE OF what's happening to the industry. Call us ****-eyed optimists, but we all hope that it will eventually get better, and we all expect that it will get A LOT WORSE before that happens.

You're speaking in generalities. Let me speak in specifics. Steve Harvey is a syndicated radio host for the urban format. Washington DC is dominated by urban radio. One of the biggest and best known names in Washington urban radio is Donnie Simpson. And yet when Steve Harvey came in, he crushed Donnie, even though Donnie talks about local things, goes to the local church, and even personally knows the people who now tune in to his competition. And the most amazing part of the story is that Steve Harvey's show is NOT on the corporate-owned station. But rather a commercial radio station owned by Howard University, WHUR. So here we have non-corporate radio using syndication to make it #1. How does that fit in with your generalizations and assumptions?

You pick ONE specific instance in ONE market that most people would judge is not representative of a "normal" market (DC is very transient, and the disparity between rich and poor is cheek-by-jowl). This time, you're the one taking the experience in a single market and trying to create a "broad generality" out of it.

OK. I have a friend who does things the old fashioned way. He is the Program Director of a single radio station owned by a guy (not a corporation) who owns 3 radio stations. All three are run indepdently, exactly the way you suggest. Full staffs for each. No consolidation. They have a great signal, which can be heard everywhere. They do lots of local promotion. No syndication. And they get a 1.8 share. So much for your winning strategy.

And how long have they been at it? What's the competition? Are they making money with their 1.8 share? Are they GOOD at what they do? Once again, you take a single example and try to apply it as a general rule.

You want radio to stop ignoring listeners, but you don't like research?

I don't like BAD research, and there's plenty of it. Research that's poorly designed, using a miniscule sample that's skewed to start with, is a big part of the problem. The excuse is that really good research would cost too much, which is likely true. What's worse, relying on BAD research, or ignoring the growing mountain of evidence that the programming that relies on that research is killing the industry?

Most listeners don't find it compelling, yet 230 million people listen.

No, 230 million people HEAR radio. That doesn't mean that they listen.

The programming that IS the most compelling is not always the programming that gets the biggest audience.

Correct. There are lots of "background stations" that have lots of people hearing them without actually listening. How much attention does a commercial get in the middle of a six unit cluster when its on in the background of a busy office, piped in at low level by the office manager? The office manager (store manager, etc.) uses a background music station to create a more pleasing environment, but it's never run at a level that would distract workers or customers. Do you call that listening? Arbitron does.

On the other hand, stations that people tune into because it has compelling content are effective for their audience. Have you noticed how NPR is growing lately? Why? Because they DO offer compelling content. Even in the office with background music, there are worker who stream their own choices in music and entertainment, or bring in their own radio because they want something better.

People say they want one thing, and then listen to something else. That's human nature. It's like a friend of mine who owns a restaurant. She used her own personal money, cooks the food herself, spends time with the customers, and yet the McDonalds across the street gets more bsuiness. What is she doing wrong?

How do her prices compete with McDonalds? How's her selection? How's the "ambience" of her place? Is it really about the number of customers, or the amount of money that they spend when they get there?

Yet you accuse me of talking about "generalities"? You may be the General of Generalities.

What this discussion is all about is gutting the real product that radio produces - programming. The inescapable conclusion to programming today is that it is not as effective as it once was. It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between the growth of corporate control and the loss of interest in the medium. You can apply that statement to management, sales, and programming.

The promise of corporate radio was that there would be shared resources available to HELP local management create good programming, which would lead to more revenue and greater profits. The reality of corporate radio is that they assumed a huge burden of debt by overpaying for the stations that they accumulated in bidding wars with other corporations. Corporate is sucking the life out of too many radio stations by forcing them to cut management, sales, and programming costs, and reducing the value of programming TO THE LISTENERS - leading to even lower revenue, forcing even more cuts -- wash, rinse, repeat.

Here's one inescapable fact:

Both listeners and investors are voting with their feet.

 

[oldiesstation]

Radio is in the crapper.Corporations have KILLED radio.The memorial and funeral services were YESYERDAY.

 

[gr8oldies]

I guess I imagined how many of my friends in the 70s preferred to listen to the TM Stereo Rock station instead of stations with DJs. This didn't start in 1988.

Don't know what to tell you, Rox. Nothing would please you but your own personal radio station conncted to a 50000 watt transmitter, with you being the DJ talking for as long as you wanted.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Voting With Their Feet

Here's one inescapable fact:

Both listeners and investors are voting with their feet.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that you have an opinion, and you're not interested in anyone else's. So that's fine. I don't have the time to talk to a brick.

But you might illuminate all of us dummies what it is YOU are doing to fix things, other than ranting on computer message boards. You obviously hate consultants, yet you're simply doing what you accuse them of, namely looking at someone else's watch and telling them what time it is.

Unless you personally are investing your own time and money in taking action, your posts are simply a lot of empty and angry words, and truthfully, your opinion isn't worth any more than the anyone else's. So excuse me while I pay attention to someone who actually listens.

 

[adma]

Re: Tick, Tick, Tick

A background station may have better numbers, but poorer results than a station that is a front-of-mind listening experience, where people tune in to hear what a talent who is allowed to entertain has to say. Why do you think that talk radio works? Why do several syndicated shows work? They're front-of-mind.

Ah, but when you consider the nature of the last two decades of talk radio as a "front-of-mind entertainment and listening experience", you might consider why a lot of people (especially educated and creative-minded people) are veering away from radio, i.e. they identify the medium with redneck bigots and all-around knuckledragging ignoramuses. It isn't just "background programming" that's led to radio's present all-around audience and cultural woes, you know...

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Voting With Their Feet

The majority of radio stations with full-market signals in the top 100 markets are owned by "big corporate". The top 100 markets serve the majority of the available audience. Do you seriously believe that a radio station in East Podunk, IA is equal to a 100KW FM in NYC? Puh-lease.

And that was the same with viable stations in the 60's and 70's for the most part (remember, nearly no FM was viable in the 60's). Look at the Broadcasting Yearbooks for those decades at www.americanradiohistory.com and you will see that group owners had the major stations... the difference was in the names... Doubleday, Crowell Collier, Metromedia, Storer, the networks, etc.

1988, huh? You mean about the time that management was seduced by consultants who convinced them that the "music is the product, and jocks just get in the way of music" ?

Huh? Your history is off by decades. Lee Abrams started consulting when he created the successful Superstars AOR format... in about 1972. Superstars blew away the freeform, locally mangled progressive and freeform rockers in dozens and dozens of markets, by the way. So the listeners voted in favor of a better format.

There were consultants going back to the 50's and 60's, too, mostly in Top 40... they brought a wide range of experience into sometimes provincial local markets.

About the time that talent became a "cost", not an "asset"? About the time that those "big corporations who have always owned radio" (your statement) started working out LMAs, and other attempts at de facto consolidation?

An LMA is considered part as if it were ownership. Before the ownership restrictions were lifted, groups could not create duopolies by purchase or LMA, and had not been able to since the late 40's when the last of the AM duopolies like KFI and KECA were broken up.

Of course there are exceptions. That's the problem - they're EXCEPTIONS - not the norm. Without exceptions, the picture would be even darker.

There are around 15 thousand stations in the US. Clear and CBS don't even own a thousand... add up all the top 10 owners (where you are down to companies with 50 stations, give or take, and it's not even 20% of all stations. Most are in smaller groups and even individual owners.

First of all, you have no idea of my investment level in radio. Secondly, you have no idea who I know in radio. My posts indicate that I DO know what goes on in a radio station

Disagree!!!!

You said national sales was handled from corporate HQ. In nearly no case is that true... it's done by the station's rep firm with an in-station contact, who may be the GM, DOS, GSM or NSM depending on market size and revenue level.

You said that there is more voice tracking and syndication now, when, as a percentage of stations, it was vastly higher in the 70's. Of course, go back to the 30's and it was even higher... they called them "networks" then.

I could go on and on, but these significant errors of fact disprove your allegation.

You pick ONE specific instance in ONE market that most people would judge is not representative of a "normal" market (DC is very transient, and the disparity between rich and poor is cheek-by-jowl). This time, you're the one taking the experience in a single market and trying to create a "broad generality" out of it.

Every market has some transient characteristics, but just because the cabinet changes every 4 to 8 years, that does not mean that the other roughly 4 million folks there move any more than the people in Denver.

And I can give you similar syndicated morning show experiences... one is the Piolín por la Mañana show out of KSCA in LA; now it's on 50 stations and has beaten every local morning show in every one of the markets, usually beating or top 2 or 3 in the general market, too... from Denver to LA to Dallas to Chicago to Walla Walla. Why? It's entertaining, more so than the local shows it competed with.

I don't like BAD research, and there's plenty of it. Research that's poorly designed, using a miniscule sample that's skewed to start with, is a big part of the problem.

Small samples are the only ones that are affordable. What I find is that most proprietary radio research uses too large a sample... you only need to have enough sample so that repeating a project will yield the same results, called replication. On one on one perceptual research, sometimes 15 to 20 people will yield all the data you need!

Unless you have a strong background in statistics, polling, questionnaire design, recruiting and such, hearing about "small samples" is the first sign of a person who has no clue about research.

The excuse is that really good research would cost too much, which is likely true. What's worse, relying on BAD research, or ignoring the growing mountain of evidence that the programming that relies on that research is killing the industry?

Small samples that are economically affordable are more than adequate for very very good research. A 100 person music test is no worse than a 200 person or 1000 person test because, if proper sample design is done, 100 persons is even more than you need.

No, 230 million people HEAR radio. That doesn't mean that they listen.

Having looked at hundreds of thousands of diaries since I started visiting Arbitron in 1970, there are 230 million 12+ listeners... about 95% of the population finds some reason to listen... backup studies have shown this.

In any case, revenue comes from advertisers, who really don't care about the distinction between listening and hearing.

The programming that IS the most compelling is not always the programming that gets the biggest audience.

How much attention does a commercial get in the middle of a six unit cluster when its on in the background of a busy office, piped in at low level by the office manager? The office manager (store manager, etc.) uses a background music station to create a more pleasing environment, but it's never run at a level that would distract workers or customers. Do you call that listening? Arbitron does.

And advertisers count exposure, not intent. It does not matter to the business model... and there is, thus, a service and a purpose to stations on the soft side.

What this discussion is all about is gutting the real product that radio produces - programming. The inescapable conclusion to programming today is that it is not as effective as it once was.

So far, it's your opinion vs. literally tons of research and empirical evidence to the contrary. Why do you have such hatred and resentment against radio?

Corporate is sucking the life out of too many radio stations by forcing them to cut management, sales, and programming costs, and reducing the value of programming TO THE LISTENERS - leading to even lower revenue, forcing even more cuts -- wash, rinse, repeat.

Hint: it's not radio at work here... its the economy.

]

 

[SirRoxalot]

Options

Gee, I have a pleasant afternoon, and come back to THREE corporate apologists...

Guys, I get it. You're corporate radio guys, and your livelihood depends on selling your methods (madness?) to the ever-shrinking list of sponsors and shareholders. Thus, the ad hominem attacks, and an attempt to denegrade observations that plenty of other people find valid.

I expect you to defend your actions, and defend your research. If you're right, why is radio in the trouble it's in? "It's the economy." In a sense, you're right. Radio isn't the only industry that's been sold a bill of goods, and pursued a flawed course of consolidation, ignoring consumers, and focusing on short-term gains instead of long term viability.

I don't hate radio. I don't want my own personal 5,000 watt radio station. I've never stated, or even indicated either desire. I am troubled that an industry that I love is unceremoniously dumping people who have invested many years of blood, sweat, tears, and talent by corporate edict - in spite of superior performance based on ratings, revenue, or any other measure that you can concoct. I'm seeing cuts now that are causing serious damage to station programming, and will lead to further declines in revenue that will make the "savings" look like pocket change.

The decline in radio precedes the current economic condition. The ownership of radio by large corporate entities, and the application of "research" has never been greater than the last five years. The correlation between that and the decline in TSL, perceived value of programming (especially among younger listeners), and confidence in the medium by advertisers is inescapable.

If you think that advertisers don't care about the difference between "listening" and "hearing", you've been off the street for way too long. Why do you think that advertisers are growing increasingly wary of radio?

Of course corporate decides who markets national spots. Whether it's a rep group, a corporate NSM, or local management, it's a corporate management decision, and varies by group. No matter how you slice it, national advertising is down much more significantly than local.

The first LMA I saw was in 1989. Was it legal? Perhaps not. Was it real? It certainly appeared that way on the street.

Nit-pick all you want. It doesn't change the fact that YOUR METHODS ARE FAILING. Big Corporate is underperforming. Smaller markets, and smaller groups are outperforming you handily over the last few years. If not for them, some large groups would be in even more trouble than they are.

Some stations get it. Some groups even get it. Look to the SUCCESSFUL stations, owners, and groups. MOST of the time (not all the time) they have the most live and local programming in the market, and the most successful LOCAL management teams. They reinvest in the product, and are rewarded with increased revenue and ratings.

You have a choice. Continue to do the same things over and over and expect different results, or CHANGE. One of those courses is considered by many to be insanity.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: Options

Gee, I have a pleasant afternoon, and come back to THREE corporate apologists...

Guys, I get it. You're corporate radio guys, and your livelihood depends on selling your methods (madness?) to the ever-shrinking list of sponsors and shareholders.

No, Hoss. You don't get it. We are guys you could sit next to on an airplane and we could have delightful conversations. We are people who can sit in the back of a Sunday School class and re-kindle the conversation when the teacher has run out of prepared material and the hour is not up. We are guys who could sit down across the table from Larry King and participate in an hour of conversation on some subject, respond to a few phone calls, and have viewers across America saying to each other at the end of the show: "That was different. I enjoyed that."

I am out of the business. The last time I worked for a CORPORATE radio station was December 1966. Worked for some pitiful little stations after that and finally decided to hang it up so my kids could stay put until they finished school.

I've spent the last five years bustin' my rear end trying to find a station that my meager nest egg could afford to buy, with the requirement that it would be in a community I wanted to be a part of. I can't tell you how many hours I have put into research in the last five years to understand this industry that is so different than the one I left years ago. At last count I have tromped through over 600 radio stations in my life time, asking: What is that over there. I've never seen one of those. Why do you do this different than everyone else? What is your secret for success? etc. etc.

I know you think we are being bull-headed. You think we have an axe to grind. But if I may make an observation: You are so focused on being right, you are neglecting a great opportunity to pick some brains and raise the knowledge level of both the picker and the pickee.

I rather regularly send Private Messages to interesting participants of the Radio-Info forums. It is amazing what information can be shared on a one-to-one basis when we have some confidence the exchange will be treated with dignity and maybe when appropriate, confidentiality.

It's your choice, Hoss. You can come here and have written shouting matches.... or you can come here and walk away wiser than when you turned on the computer for the day.

The Goat Rodeo Cowboy

Who started out in far South Texas and went shooting through the sky like a 15-cent 4th of July sparkler through the Midwest and finally into the hills of North Georgia.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Options

Gee, Goat, I wasn't really including you among the "corporate radio apologists". In fact, according to your treatise, you'd hardly fit that description. Certainly, Mr. Eduardo, The Big A, and gr8oldies are a much closer fit.

I don't doubt that I could have a delightful conversation on a number of topics with many of the posters on this board. I also don't doubt that corporate will continue on its course, and nothing that I say will modify that. Many good people will suffer for the ego of a few.

Good luck in your search, Goat. There's a huge difference between investing in a radio station that you intend to operate, and playing the corporate shell game with Wall Street.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Options

The decline in radio precedes the current economic condition. The ownership of radio by large corporate entities, and the application of "research" has never been greater than the last five years. The correlation between that and the decline in TSL, perceived value of programming (especially among younger listeners), and confidence in the medium by advertisers is inescapable.

First distortion.

The decline in TSL has to do with competition for leisure time (128 million video game consoles sold, hundreds of millions of computers, Cds, DVDs, iPods, 1000 channel cable, HDTV, etc.) and not dissatisfaction with radio. Simply put, there are many more interesting, fun and cool things to do, so we split our leisure time into more pieces. That does not mean radio has gotten worse... it means that we are sharing people's leisure time and even at-work hours with more alternatives.

If you think that advertisers don't care about the difference between "listening" and "hearing", you've been off the street for way too long. Why do you think that advertisers are growing increasingly wary of radio?

Second distortion.

The reason we got PPM is that advertisers and their agencies wanted it. They demanded faster delivery, more condensed survey periods, and the ability to measure "exposure" and not listening. Radio is spending about 60% more for ratings, already a huge expense, to provide advertisers with something most of us had no urgency to have.

Of course corporate decides who markets national spots. Whether it's a rep group, a corporate NSM, or local management, it's a corporate management decision, and varies by group. No matter how you slice it, national advertising is down much more significantly than local.

Third distortion.

Uppps... this one is just not so.

While the highest management of a station or a group decides on a national rep and the terms of the agreement, once that is done it's whoever at each station or cluster is in charge of national who works with the rep. The rep will typically find out the new business or get requests for CPPs or promotions and such, and with the NSM will decide what to offer the agency. By necessity, the person at the station end is at the station, or in a regional cluster (like, perhaps, Fresno, Sacramento and Stockton) and has instant acces to avails, and can talk to the GM (who may themselves be the NSM... I have been that several times) but the day to day back and forth is done between the rep firm (not "rep group") and the local person who is NSM or whose functions include being NSM.

The first LMA I saw was in 1989. Was it legal? Perhaps not. Was it real? It certainly appeared that way on the street.

For a time, an LMA, like a brokerage agreement (which had the elements of an LMA) had to be filed with the FCC.

Nit-pick all you want. It doesn't change the fact that YOUR METHODS ARE FAILING. Big Corporate is underperforming.

Fourth distortion. The revenue issues in the larger markets are due to the fact that they are dependent on agency buisiness because the markets are so huge that small direct accounts can't use a large metro station. The agency accounts are more likely to be affected by the economy first, as they have more exposure.

Some stations get it. Some groups even get it. Look to the SUCCESSFUL stations, owners, and groups. MOST of the time (not all the time) they have the most live and local programming in the market, and the most successful LOCAL management teams. They reinvest in the product, and are rewarded with increased revenue and ratings.

Fifth distortion. There is no proof that live and local have any value of themselves. Entertaining or interesting programming has value, wherever it comes from. For the golden years of
radio from around 1930 into the early 60's, live and local was what you did when you were not a net affiliate and had to resign yourself to being last in the ratings.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Distortion

David, the only "distortion" here is in your decision that your opinion is more valid that everyone elses.

Continue on with your "program". I'm sure that you're well paid, and well insulated from the cuts that are sweeping the radio industry. If you're right, revenue will rebound, and syndication will be the savior of radio. If I'm right, revenue will continue to decline, which will lead to further programming cuts, which will lead to more decline, until radio becomes a quaint memory consumed by the "older generation".

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Distortion

David, the only "distortion" here is in your decision that your opinion is more valid that everyone elses.

Continue on with your "program". I'm sure that you're well paid, and well insulated from the cuts that are sweeping the radio industry. If you're right, revenue will rebound, and syndication will be the savior of radio. If I'm right, revenue will continue to decline, which will lead to further programming cuts, which will lead to more decline, until radio becomes a quaint memory consumed by the "older generation".

Sixth distortion:

You think syndication is either new or has been enhanced by consolidation or chapskate CEOs.

Just thinking of barter syndication, I'm reminded that it goes back to Rounds and Jacobs and Kasem forming a company around 1970 to syndicate American Top 40. So much for the newness of program syndication.

Then I'm reminded of "Hit Parade '69" which was Bill and Gene's first syndicated format... in 1968.

And as I said, the Red and Blue webs were essentially real time syndication, too. But that goes back to when radio was national, and people listened to their radio in Detroit and Duluth and Dubuque and Dayton and Daytona and Dallas to listen to the Green Horrnet or The Lone Ranger. But, of course, those shows musta' sucked 'cause they weren't live and local.

Your entire agenda seems predicated on the premise that non-local programming is bad for the listener and a failure to serve the community of license and on and on. If you realized that the listener, for the largest part, does not care as long as it is good, then you could start thinking of what actually makes listeners react and listen. I talk with scads of listeners all the time, and they don't have any of the same concerns you have.

 

[radiorob2.0]

Re: Corporate Mantra

It's amazing that radio survived - actually thrived - for 80 years before "big corporate" gained control and led us down the current path.

The reason it "thrived" is because "big corporate" INVENTED radio. And INVESTED IN radio.

You really need to spend time learning the history of this medium. If it was not for GE, Westinghouse, AT&T, RCA, and dozens of other huge companies, there never would have been radio in the first place.

And then, the huge corporate advertisers like Gillette and Sears, Procter & Gamble, Lucky Strike cigarettes (remember when cigarette companies could advertise?), and Coke and on and on who paid for the programs people listened to.

Big Corporate America didn't invent radio. Big Corporate used radio to reach a wide audience. Over fifty years ago radio lost audience and revenue to television. While corporate radio chased their tail, independent owners like Todd Storz, Gordon McLendon and others reinvented radio.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Corporate Mantra

Big Corporate America didn't invent radio. Big Corporate used radio to reach a wide audience. Over fifty years ago radio lost audience and revenue to television. While corporate radio chased their tail, independent owners like Todd Storz, Gordon McLendon and others reinvented radio.

Westinghouse and RCA and General Electric and Earle C. Anthony and the like were not "Corporate America?" While the technology may have been invented and developed by experimenters, radio did not exist in any form we would recognize until some of America's major companies saw the image and marketing potential of the new medium. But when Westinghouse assumed operations of KDKA, it would be many years before the business was viable on its own, as opposed to being a "mouthpiece" for the company or brand it represented early on.

And... if you look at the figures on the usage of radio per person prior to the lifting of the TV Freeze, you will see that the levels in that era of very limited TV usage were almost the same as during the next 30 or so years... well into the late 80's.

Just as McDonalds has added salads and such items to its menu in reaction to an interest in healthier fare, radio changed its menu. But radio was still radio, and the changes took nearly a decade to permeate the industry, and McDonalds is still a fast food chain.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Distortion?

Once again, David, an observation or opinion that differs from yours is not "distortion". Labelling it "distortion" is the only distortion here.

The "Giants" of corporate broadcasting, whom the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 were designed to rein in, owned a maximum of 7 AMs, 7 FMs, and 7 TV stations. They built networks, but only the O&Os carried the network 24/7/365 - and even then there were multiple local inserts, large local news staffs, and a variety of local programming mandated by the FCC. Other stations carried popular shows during part of the day, and created their own programming the rest of the day.

Westinghouse, RCA, and General Electric used to radio - the ONLY electronic mass-media of the era - to promote their products, and developed new revenue streams selling broadcast equipment and network programming. Meanwhile, their "real business" dwarfed the income from broadcasting.

When TV came along, entertainment shows went the the newer medium. Radio's "Theatre of the Mind" couldn't compete with the theatre on the tube, especially as TV ownership increased in households. The big boys developed TV networks, and radio because a leftover vestige of its earlier era.

The playing of pre-recorded music replaced entertainment shows. One thing that made the translation was "theatre of the mind", with jocks introducing people to new music, new concepts (like payola), and redefining radio as an industry.

Syndication is not new. It's been around nearly as long as radio has been around. Syndication has a place in radio, especially for specialty shows, or as an adjunct to local programming. When it becomes the ONLY source of programming, with no local input, local audiences see it for what it is - a cheap substitute. How many "computers in a closet" are in the top 5 in one of the top 50 markets? How many are in the top 10?

What's going on now - if you pay attention to these message boards and the trades - is that corporate is dictating severe cuts in programming with no regard to the success or failure of a particular show. They are damaging the programming of local radio stations by corporate dictate, without regard to the eventual outcome of that action. I predict that revenue will decline ever further because of the loss of good content, and the reaction by corporate will be to dictate even further cuts.

Corporate backed itself into a corner with the orgy of acquisition since '96, but the people who made those decisions are not the ones who are paying the price. The people who produce the product that radio sells to its advertisers, not the "financial wizards" who f-ed up, are the ones being fired.

The listeners, who still SAMPLE radio because they hope for something worth hearing, or because their favorite programming is still there, are growing increasingly dissatisfied. THAT'S why they seek out iPods, CDs, satellite, and Internet radio. Cheap, easily available recorded music has been around since lacquer records. Portability has been around since the cassette tape. It ain't the technology that's attractive. It's the alternative to BLAND PROGRAMMING that virtually every disaffected listener cites as the reason that they "don't listen to radio much anymore".

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Distortion?

Once again, David, an observation or opinion that differs from yours is not "distortion". Labelling it "distortion" is the only distortion here.

Opinion refers to viewpoints, not facts. It's not my opinion that stations sell national business via rep firms... it's fact. It's not my opinion that a 75 person music test is not a 2minuscule" sample... it's fact.

And here you have your "facts" wrong again.

The "Giants" of corporate broadcasting, whom the Radio Act of 1927

Most of the Federal Radio Act of '27 had to do with a more orderly usage of frequencies. The US AM band was worse than FM in Italy; stations interferring, too close to each other, etc. Take a look at pre and post Act assignments of AM in the Radex and other journals at www.americanradiohistory.com. There are pre-and post Act listings you can compare, and articles on the changes... which were made not to control ownership but to redistribute the band.

and the Communications Act of 1934 were designed to rein in, owned a maximum of 7 AMs, 7 FMs, and 7 TV stations.

So the 1927 and 1934 acts determined you could only have 7 TV stations? Interesting, since there were no TV stations. 1934 gave further regulation to the operation of stations, but much of the change then was technical, establishing power classes and channels. See the same site for pre and post Act information. And note that it allowed KECA and KFI, among a number of others, to be co-owned in the same market.

They built networks, but only the O&Os carried the network 24/7/365

In the 20's and 30's, nobody ran 24 hours a day with no silent period.

- and even then there were multiple local inserts, large local news staffs, and a variety of local programming mandated by the FCC. Other stations carried popular shows during part of the day, and created their own programming the rest of the day.

You said it. "Mandated by the FCC" means, "unless we have to, we would not do this." And as soon as the enforcement of the rules allowed it, Top 40's of the 50's put most of the PA, News and Other requirements in overnights and early Sunday because they new it was not of proportinate interest to the listener. That's why it was called "fill" at most affiliates. And well into the 40's, there were few independent stations, eithere (but that requires a long discussion of the NFM and Mr. Petrillo and the ASCAP legal proceedings).

When TV came along, entertainment shows went the the newer medium. Radio's "Theatre of the Mind" couldn't compete with the theatre on the tube, especially as TV ownership increased in households. The big boys developed TV networks, and radio because a leftover vestige of its earlier era.

Actually, it took about a decade to transition to TV reach comparable to radio. Remember the freeze? And some radio companies, particularly ABC, transitioned nicely to pop formats at WABC and WLS among others. So it's not as clear cut and black and white as you paint it.

The playing of pre-recorded music replaced entertainment shows. One thing that made the translation was "theatre of the mind", with jocks introducing people to new music, new concepts (like payola), and redefining radio as an industry.

I find it strange that you use the one poiven incident of payola in the early "music and news" era to be a hallmark of the times. To cite something otherwise never proven, and which amounted to a witch hund (Dick Clark case virtually tried in public) by overly publicity seeking congressmen, is far-fetched.

Syndication is not new. It's been around nearly as long as radio has been around. Syndication has a place in radio, especially for specialty shows, or as an adjunct to local programming. When it becomes the ONLY source of programming, with no local input, local audiences see it for what it is - a cheap substitute. How many "computers in a closet" are in the top 5 in one of the top 50 markets? How many are in the top 10?

There are hundreds of stations using syndication, like Tesh and Delilah and Rush that are well in the top 10 in their markets. Local audiences see such as what they are: powerful and entertaining talents that are vastly better than what most local shows offer.

What's going on now - if you pay attention to these message boards and the trades - is that corporate is dictating severe cuts in programming with no regard to the success or failure of a particular show. They are damaging the programming of local radio stations by corporate dictate, without regard to the eventual outcome of that action. I predict that revenue will decline ever further because of the loss of good content, and the reaction by corporate will be to dictate even further cuts.

When the Dow is off 40%, and most peoples 401k's and retirment pension plans are similarly down... when their homes are worth half of what they used to be valued at... folks get scared. When the banking system will not do inventory loans and such... businesspeople get scared. They retrench and downsize. The economy shrinks, and every sector lets people go. Why would radio be any different?

[/quote]The listeners, who still SAMPLE radio because they hope for something worth hearing, or because their favorite programming is still there, are growing increasingly dissatisfied. [/quote]

This is the crux of your fact-devoid arguments. You state opinions, but no facts. There is no proof of what you say, and it contradicts everything published studies show, and every conversation or interview with listeners I have made.