CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio stocks
- Thread starter cm454
- Start date
Huh? If more people stop listening, that means fewer listeners, which should mean lower spot rates because fewer people hear each spot.
You DARE to question the logic of Mr. Eduardo? Apparently he doesn't know that 5 minutes of listening in a quarter hour gets you credit for an entire quarter hour. BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU.
PTBoardOp94 said:
Actually, the population growth over the last 20 years (1988 to 2008) has been greater than the decline in AQH persons. In addition, normal rate increases more than make up for any stagnation in population... unless we are in a recession.
SirRoxalot said:
But you made a statement about measurement based on 5 minute segments; Arbitron releases average quarter hour ratings, not "average Five-Minute ratings."
This is particularly important since the credit and edit rules for "getting" a quarter hour are very different in the PPM when compared to the diary method.
Semantics
The original statement was:
You are correct. My statement was based on the fact that the diary method - which is still in effect in the vast majority of markets - requires only 5 minutes of listening to get credit for the entire quarter hour. In fact, if you can get people to listen to the first five minutes, tune out for the second five minutes, then tune back in for the 3rd five minutes, you can get credit for TWO quarter hours. Hence, the practice of "sweeping the quarter hours".
In reality, the number of people listening during a given 5 minute period would actually be less than the number listening during a quarter hour period, which means that even fewer people will hear my spot than quarter hours would indicate. That doesn't make the peak PUR number in this chart any less accurate now than it was in the 1980s.
But, it doesn't matter. You've convinced me.
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE FROM CORPORATE, AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WHEN WE SUCCEED, WE'LL ALL BENEFIT TOGETHER.
DavidEduardo said:
The original statement was:
You are correct. My statement was based on the fact that the diary method - which is still in effect in the vast majority of markets - requires only 5 minutes of listening to get credit for the entire quarter hour. In fact, if you can get people to listen to the first five minutes, tune out for the second five minutes, then tune back in for the 3rd five minutes, you can get credit for TWO quarter hours. Hence, the practice of "sweeping the quarter hours".
In reality, the number of people listening during a given 5 minute period would actually be less than the number listening during a quarter hour period, which means that even fewer people will hear my spot than quarter hours would indicate. That doesn't make the peak PUR number in this chart any less accurate now than it was in the 1980s.
But, it doesn't matter. You've convinced me.
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE FROM CORPORATE, AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WHEN WE SUCCEED, WE'LL ALL BENEFIT TOGETHER.
Re: Semantics
That's not true. Totally untrue.
(Never done a diary review, have you?)
And hundreds of Beautiful Music stations in the 70's and 80's as well as news / talk to this day have put their stops on the quarters, and prospered by it.
All of this is a near moot point in the diary method, as the vast majority of diary entries are rounded to the hour, the half and the quarter hour. Few put down "8:17 to 9:33" or similar; they put down "9 AM" and draw a line to noon where they put "12" and that's that. Or, with under-25's, they line out a daypart and put in three or 4 stations they use and Arbitron divides the quarter hours via ascription.
In the PPM (and the diary to the greater extent) the number of people leaving inside a determined quarter hour is similar if not identical to the number coming in, so the average during the quarter hour is quite constant.
SirRoxalot said:
That's not true. Totally untrue.
(Never done a diary review, have you?)
And hundreds of Beautiful Music stations in the 70's and 80's as well as news / talk to this day have put their stops on the quarters, and prospered by it.
All of this is a near moot point in the diary method, as the vast majority of diary entries are rounded to the hour, the half and the quarter hour. Few put down "8:17 to 9:33" or similar; they put down "9 AM" and draw a line to noon where they put "12" and that's that. Or, with under-25's, they line out a daypart and put in three or 4 stations they use and Arbitron divides the quarter hours via ascription.
In the PPM (and the diary to the greater extent) the number of people leaving inside a determined quarter hour is similar if not identical to the number coming in, so the average during the quarter hour is quite constant.
The discussion over methodologies notwithstanding...
The part that still makes no sense to me is the assumption that a change in radio programming, perhaps back to what it was in the 70s, will somehow reverse the current trends, and cause people to throw away their computers, cell phones, ipods, video games, and other devices, and also watch less TV. I have no reason to believe this will happen. People have demonstrated very clearly for the past five years that their habits are not being driven by quality, they're not being driven by value, they're not being driven by non-interactive human voices coming at them from centralized sources. That is not the motivation, and that is not the trend. There is no way a radio can provide the kind of content a person can get from these other devices. Radio cannot be as personalized, as directed, or as interactive as either the internet or the cell phone. Once the cell phone became as portable as the radio, the future of radio was clear. It has nothing to do with programming. The only choice radio has is to go where the people are, and provide their content on these other devices. Because they're not going to throw away their other devices. Regardless of who owns radio, regardless of how many people work in radio, regardless of the programming on radio.
The other thing that hasn't been pointed out with regards to the chart showing falling PUR is it also corresponds to the FCC's policy of geometrically increasing the number of radio stations in this country. There are two economic laws: Supply and demand, and diminishing returns. Clearly, when you have 6 radio stations serving the same audience as one did in the 60s, those six stations will be worth less than the one. Adding more and more radio stations won't improve the quality of programming, just as adding more sports teams didn't improve the quality of play on the field. Adding more and more choices doesn't improve quality, and doesn't improve value. It hurts both, and leaves people looking for alternatives, which is what they did.
The part that still makes no sense to me is the assumption that a change in radio programming, perhaps back to what it was in the 70s, will somehow reverse the current trends, and cause people to throw away their computers, cell phones, ipods, video games, and other devices, and also watch less TV. I have no reason to believe this will happen. People have demonstrated very clearly for the past five years that their habits are not being driven by quality, they're not being driven by value, they're not being driven by non-interactive human voices coming at them from centralized sources. That is not the motivation, and that is not the trend. There is no way a radio can provide the kind of content a person can get from these other devices. Radio cannot be as personalized, as directed, or as interactive as either the internet or the cell phone. Once the cell phone became as portable as the radio, the future of radio was clear. It has nothing to do with programming. The only choice radio has is to go where the people are, and provide their content on these other devices. Because they're not going to throw away their other devices. Regardless of who owns radio, regardless of how many people work in radio, regardless of the programming on radio.
The other thing that hasn't been pointed out with regards to the chart showing falling PUR is it also corresponds to the FCC's policy of geometrically increasing the number of radio stations in this country. There are two economic laws: Supply and demand, and diminishing returns. Clearly, when you have 6 radio stations serving the same audience as one did in the 60s, those six stations will be worth less than the one. Adding more and more radio stations won't improve the quality of programming, just as adding more sports teams didn't improve the quality of play on the field. Adding more and more choices doesn't improve quality, and doesn't improve value. It hurts both, and leaves people looking for alternatives, which is what they did.
A? As in Apologist?
All those who advocated reverting to the '70s - raise your hands! Anybody?
All those of you who prefer to get their information from a live human being, raise your hands.
If radio programming was ONLY about music, radio would have died when the cassette came out. Cassette players were very portable, and very cheap by the 1980s. The quality was as good as most MP3s.
The trend seems obvious to me. The more radio has emphasized the music, and de-emphasized the rest of the programming (i.e. information, companionship, shared experience) that goes with it, the fewer people listen for more than a few minutes a day.
But, what do I know? Obviously, nothing. You're all correct. You've won me over. I'm on the ride to the bitter end.
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE FROM CORPORATE, AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WHEN WE SUCCEED, WE'LL ALL BENEFIT TOGETHER. WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE'RE DOING WHAT'S GOOD FOR RADIO AS AN INDUSTRY.
All those who advocated reverting to the '70s - raise your hands! Anybody?
All those of you who prefer to get their information from a live human being, raise your hands.
If radio programming was ONLY about music, radio would have died when the cassette came out. Cassette players were very portable, and very cheap by the 1980s. The quality was as good as most MP3s.
The trend seems obvious to me. The more radio has emphasized the music, and de-emphasized the rest of the programming (i.e. information, companionship, shared experience) that goes with it, the fewer people listen for more than a few minutes a day.
But, what do I know? Obviously, nothing. You're all correct. You've won me over. I'm on the ride to the bitter end.
CORPORATE IS GOOD. CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. WE'RE FROM CORPORATE, AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WHEN WE SUCCEED, WE'LL ALL BENEFIT TOGETHER. WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE'RE DOING WHAT'S GOOD FOR RADIO AS AN INDUSTRY.
This discussion has come to the point where I see Snoopy fantasizing once again about Red Baron and WW I fighter planes. All the planes involved have gone into tail spins, and on the way down to certain death for all the participants, keep shooting at each other, confidant the opponent will be "more dead" when all hit the dirt.
There can be no intelligent resolution of this discussion as currently staged.
When I went to vote, they gave me two choices for President. I could vote for one or the other. There was no lever that said "I wish I could vote for Choice #229." (I know... I could have done a write in, but it would be ignored for all practical purposes.) There was no place to write in: Next time I would like to have this candidate added to my choices.
The recent election does not mean that the best human being in America to do the job was on the ballot. We will never know who could have been best for the job. We only know who got the most votes, and we will allow him to do the job.
When they do audience studies, there is no place to vote: "What I really wanted to hear was ..... "
Audience studies tell advertiser what is RIGHT NOW. For largest audience, but this RIGHT NOW.
Audience studies are optimized to make sure the data is not flawed by answering other questions. The advertiser is not primarily interest in what he should have been buying in 1970, or what he should buy next year. What is the audience... for buying purposes.... NOW.
Automobile manufacturers can not year after year plan future production ONLY on what is selling now. They have to send some research people out in the field and ask some other questions other than: What are you driving RIGHT NOW.
Radio management can look at audience studies and make some good judgements on what is likely to do well in the next audience survey, and put on the air what will survey well and sell well in the next survey.
In this thread or another one that is very similar, some one wrote that when we who are radio enthusiasts and participants are asked what is meant when we talk about radio being better "back in the day" our answer is usually what we were doing in radio when WE were in our prime. :
If we could come up with a comparable equation on how listeners judge and select their listening diet, we would have a magic formula. We can assume older listeners may like the sounds they enjoyed "when they were in their prime" in many cases. But what do young listeners (who KNOW they haven't reached their prime yet) use to anchor their choices?
Oh, excuse me. I got carried away contemplating the fuzz in my navel. I forgot that radio people are not allowed to do that.
There can be no intelligent resolution of this discussion as currently staged.
When I went to vote, they gave me two choices for President. I could vote for one or the other. There was no lever that said "I wish I could vote for Choice #229." (I know... I could have done a write in, but it would be ignored for all practical purposes.) There was no place to write in: Next time I would like to have this candidate added to my choices.
The recent election does not mean that the best human being in America to do the job was on the ballot. We will never know who could have been best for the job. We only know who got the most votes, and we will allow him to do the job.
When they do audience studies, there is no place to vote: "What I really wanted to hear was ..... "
Audience studies tell advertiser what is RIGHT NOW. For largest audience, but this RIGHT NOW.
Audience studies are optimized to make sure the data is not flawed by answering other questions. The advertiser is not primarily interest in what he should have been buying in 1970, or what he should buy next year. What is the audience... for buying purposes.... NOW.
Automobile manufacturers can not year after year plan future production ONLY on what is selling now. They have to send some research people out in the field and ask some other questions other than: What are you driving RIGHT NOW.
Radio management can look at audience studies and make some good judgements on what is likely to do well in the next audience survey, and put on the air what will survey well and sell well in the next survey.
In this thread or another one that is very similar, some one wrote that when we who are radio enthusiasts and participants are asked what is meant when we talk about radio being better "back in the day" our answer is usually what we were doing in radio when WE were in our prime. :
If we could come up with a comparable equation on how listeners judge and select their listening diet, we would have a magic formula. We can assume older listeners may like the sounds they enjoyed "when they were in their prime" in many cases. But what do young listeners (who KNOW they haven't reached their prime yet) use to anchor their choices?
Oh, excuse me. I got carried away contemplating the fuzz in my navel. I forgot that radio people are not allowed to do that.
Re: A? As in Apologist?
Yet for some reason, the most popular stations, particularly in major markets, are those that emphasize the music. How could that be?
And radio hasn't done that at the expense of other forms of programming, such as news, talk, information, etc. Lots of that programming available in all markets, competing head-to-head with the music stations.
The point is that when it comes to companionship, there is no better companion than someone you actually know. And let's face it, radio personalities don't typically hang out with their listeners. I don't run into my local morning man at the mall. He doesn't text me or send me emails. He COULD, but that would involve media other than the radio, which is probably not covered under his contract. Now, people have more choices and more accessibility to people they know than at any time in history.
Based on the graph you keep citing, it's clear that radio took a hit as more portable personalized music devices became popular in the 80s. That's exactly when radio's decline began. It didn't happen overnight, but it began then. Coupled with the geometric increase in number of stations.
Using your technique, all those advocating corporate ownership, raise your hands. Anyone?
All those saying corporate knows what's best, raise your hands. Anybody?
No one is saying this. So why do you keep bringing it up as though someone is?
SirRoxalot said:
Yet for some reason, the most popular stations, particularly in major markets, are those that emphasize the music. How could that be?
And radio hasn't done that at the expense of other forms of programming, such as news, talk, information, etc. Lots of that programming available in all markets, competing head-to-head with the music stations.
The point is that when it comes to companionship, there is no better companion than someone you actually know. And let's face it, radio personalities don't typically hang out with their listeners. I don't run into my local morning man at the mall. He doesn't text me or send me emails. He COULD, but that would involve media other than the radio, which is probably not covered under his contract. Now, people have more choices and more accessibility to people they know than at any time in history.
SirRoxalot said:
Based on the graph you keep citing, it's clear that radio took a hit as more portable personalized music devices became popular in the 80s. That's exactly when radio's decline began. It didn't happen overnight, but it began then. Coupled with the geometric increase in number of stations.
SirRoxalot said:
Using your technique, all those advocating corporate ownership, raise your hands. Anyone?
All those saying corporate knows what's best, raise your hands. Anybody?
No one is saying this. So why do you keep bringing it up as though someone is?
The Radio to save Radio
SirRoxalot,
Let me jump in here with great passion and enthusiasm, as a 19 year old lover of terrestrial radio, and proudly be the first to raise their hand.
It's the qualities and characteristics of radio back in the 70's that should be re-discovered and incorporated into today's world. You know, the 70's aren't referred to as one of the best decades of radio for nothing. There are plenty of REASONS.
There should come a time again, when radio is widely fun and entertaining to listen to, even after the morning show has left for the day. The characteristics of 70's radio needs to be recreated and intertwined into today's technological world-- and depending on the format and demographics, special podcasts available, clips, and such other things to hook my generation and have the content they are looking for right here on their FREE radio.
Too many extremely talented PERSONALITIES have lost their jobs, and have been replaced by mediocre DJs. Nothing is new. The connection with the listeners and the community are extremely lacking.
If it is all about just music today, why NOT just go to the iPods, satellite, or Pandora (which actually happened to come up as the number one result in my Google search of "listen to music", because I forgot the name). Only terrestrial radio can provide the right content, suitable for the format, suitable for the demographics, AND suitable for the specific market.
When or how can budgets be decent again without totally killing-off enjoyment from the listeners and everyone in the business, without being done so in the easy-way-out attempt to be okay budget-wise once again? It's tough to get this started, even if the corporations wanted to, in this economy. I don't know if corporations are to blame, because everybody's hurting right now, but a boost (Bailout?) could get things up and going, and things can meticulously be done the right way with little mistakes.
I'd love to be in Dan Mason's shoes, even with today's set-backs.
Lauren
SirRoxalot said:
SirRoxalot,
Let me jump in here with great passion and enthusiasm, as a 19 year old lover of terrestrial radio, and proudly be the first to raise their hand.
It's the qualities and characteristics of radio back in the 70's that should be re-discovered and incorporated into today's world. You know, the 70's aren't referred to as one of the best decades of radio for nothing. There are plenty of REASONS.
There should come a time again, when radio is widely fun and entertaining to listen to, even after the morning show has left for the day. The characteristics of 70's radio needs to be recreated and intertwined into today's technological world-- and depending on the format and demographics, special podcasts available, clips, and such other things to hook my generation and have the content they are looking for right here on their FREE radio.
Too many extremely talented PERSONALITIES have lost their jobs, and have been replaced by mediocre DJs. Nothing is new. The connection with the listeners and the community are extremely lacking.
If it is all about just music today, why NOT just go to the iPods, satellite, or Pandora (which actually happened to come up as the number one result in my Google search of "listen to music", because I forgot the name). Only terrestrial radio can provide the right content, suitable for the format, suitable for the demographics, AND suitable for the specific market.
When or how can budgets be decent again without totally killing-off enjoyment from the listeners and everyone in the business, without being done so in the easy-way-out attempt to be okay budget-wise once again? It's tough to get this started, even if the corporations wanted to, in this economy. I don't know if corporations are to blame, because everybody's hurting right now, but a boost (Bailout?) could get things up and going, and things can meticulously be done the right way with little mistakes.
I'd love to be in Dan Mason's shoes, even with today's set-backs.
Lauren
Re: The Radio to save Radio
Lauren, this is interesting. You are wild about a time in radio 15 years before you were born. By looking back at it and doing research on it, you may be able to view the 70's in a way that those of us who lived through it didn't recognize at the time, or have let that view slip from out memory.
I am a supporter of the idea of looking at every phase in the history of radio, figuring out what made radio great in any time period, and then taking that "great feature" and finding a way to re-invent or repackage that feature to fit today's climate. Expand on what you would capture from the 70's and how would you implement it today?
KOOL Listener Lauren said:
Lauren, this is interesting. You are wild about a time in radio 15 years before you were born. By looking back at it and doing research on it, you may be able to view the 70's in a way that those of us who lived through it didn't recognize at the time, or have let that view slip from out memory.
I am a supporter of the idea of looking at every phase in the history of radio, figuring out what made radio great in any time period, and then taking that "great feature" and finding a way to re-invent or repackage that feature to fit today's climate. Expand on what you would capture from the 70's and how would you implement it today?
A
adma
Guest
Re: The Radio to save Radio
Funny, because that "one of the best decades of radio" status is a bit of a double edged sword when it comes to the Me Decade, the Have A Nice Day Decade, the Polyester Leisure Suit Decade, the Yacht Rock Decade. In a way, radio embodied that ethos so much and so purely, it's smothered the medium ever since--and heck, by birthing the banalities of AC and AOR (and fleeing from the early stirrings of punk/alternative/etc), it probably helped spawn the seeds of "radio sucks" in and of itself.
And as a community/companionship builder: remember that this age marked a nadir for various forms of galloping white flight and urban decline--so perhaps the "greatness" of radio marked a crutch and varnishing-over of uglier reality out there...
KOOL Listener Lauren said:
Funny, because that "one of the best decades of radio" status is a bit of a double edged sword when it comes to the Me Decade, the Have A Nice Day Decade, the Polyester Leisure Suit Decade, the Yacht Rock Decade. In a way, radio embodied that ethos so much and so purely, it's smothered the medium ever since--and heck, by birthing the banalities of AC and AOR (and fleeing from the early stirrings of punk/alternative/etc), it probably helped spawn the seeds of "radio sucks" in and of itself.
And as a community/companionship builder: remember that this age marked a nadir for various forms of galloping white flight and urban decline--so perhaps the "greatness" of radio marked a crutch and varnishing-over of uglier reality out there...
Re: The Radio to save Radio
KOOL Listener Lauren said:
Re: The Radio to save Radio
And yet in most places, there ARE lots of local radio staffers, making local decisions, and even local management who are very involved with community groups. I can name names of people I know who run stations, and are very involved in their communities. They don't have MBAs, but they have a passion for radio and music. Some run highly rated stations, and some are at the bottom. And the stations with a full local staff or local ownership aren't necessarily winning the ratings war. Because that's not how listeners make their decisions.
I think we need to accept the fact that people are going elsewhere because they can. People are being bombarded with choices and content and technology, some good and some bad. People are making decisions for lots of reasons, not necessarily based on quality, localism, diversity, or ownership. They just go with what they want when they want it. If radio does that, fine. If not, that's OK too. There's not a whole lot that radio stations can do to change that. And that reality is part of why radio stocks are hurting.
FredRichards said:
And yet in most places, there ARE lots of local radio staffers, making local decisions, and even local management who are very involved with community groups. I can name names of people I know who run stations, and are very involved in their communities. They don't have MBAs, but they have a passion for radio and music. Some run highly rated stations, and some are at the bottom. And the stations with a full local staff or local ownership aren't necessarily winning the ratings war. Because that's not how listeners make their decisions.
I think we need to accept the fact that people are going elsewhere because they can. People are being bombarded with choices and content and technology, some good and some bad. People are making decisions for lots of reasons, not necessarily based on quality, localism, diversity, or ownership. They just go with what they want when they want it. If radio does that, fine. If not, that's OK too. There's not a whole lot that radio stations can do to change that. And that reality is part of why radio stocks are hurting.
Re: The Radio to save Radio
I keep thinking, wishing, hoping we are missing an ingredient here somewhere. There must some budding genius out there who can or will identify the quality ingredients that do make a difference. (You can put what appears to be quality ingredients into any product or service that do not make a difference. Other ingredients do matter. The secret is learning and knowing: Which is which!)
I don't care what the industry: if the public will buy crappy product even though quality product is available, how does any industry manage for success?
In radio, what is being overlooked? What is the ingredient that matters TODAY?
TheBigA said:
I keep thinking, wishing, hoping we are missing an ingredient here somewhere. There must some budding genius out there who can or will identify the quality ingredients that do make a difference. (You can put what appears to be quality ingredients into any product or service that do not make a difference. Other ingredients do matter. The secret is learning and knowing: Which is which!)
I don't care what the industry: if the public will buy crappy product even though quality product is available, how does any industry manage for success?
In radio, what is being overlooked? What is the ingredient that matters TODAY?
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.
The corporate apologists blame it on other technologies. I believe that people are turning to other technologies because radio no longer gives them a reason to listen.
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. If their research is well designed and accurate, why has radio gone from an AQH rating of 18.2% to 13.2% during the time that "research" has become king? Why has radio become entertainment of last resort instead of a primary choice for the "next" generation of listeners? Why does TSL continue to decline?
All of these things have happened since corporate decided to de-emphasize personality, and take the "show" out of radio. What has evolved is largely a souless, formulaic, repetitive, predictable music machine that took radio out of the foreground and put it into the background.
If their research is right, why is morning the most listened to time of the day? Morning shows generally offer the most personality, information, and entertainment during the broadcast day. If all people want is a juke box, why don't "more music" shows fare well in morning drive?
Why has talk radio grown to such stature in the market? Could it be that people actually want to hear a live person talking to them about topics that interest them?
I'm not advocating a 5 hour gab fest on a music station in mid-days. I do know that a voice track repeating station positioners ad nauseum, or that pre-produced promos replacing live jocks are not the answer. We're to the point where a live talent in the studio only gets to talk 4 or 5 times an hour - and each of those breaks requires a pre-formatted liner. The opportunity to add entertainment value to the "show" is limited to say the least.
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.
Times get tougher, and instead of reacting with "maybe we need to put our money where it has the most chance of success - programming", corporate cuts come in the trenches, not at headquarters. Radio is treated like a manufacturing plant waiting to be automated instead of as an entertainment medium.
Radio is dying. Corporate is turning the seed corn into grits and serving it up without butter.
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.
The corporate apologists blame it on other technologies. I believe that people are turning to other technologies because radio no longer gives them a reason to listen.
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. If their research is well designed and accurate, why has radio gone from an AQH rating of 18.2% to 13.2% during the time that "research" has become king? Why has radio become entertainment of last resort instead of a primary choice for the "next" generation of listeners? Why does TSL continue to decline?
All of these things have happened since corporate decided to de-emphasize personality, and take the "show" out of radio. What has evolved is largely a souless, formulaic, repetitive, predictable music machine that took radio out of the foreground and put it into the background.
If their research is right, why is morning the most listened to time of the day? Morning shows generally offer the most personality, information, and entertainment during the broadcast day. If all people want is a juke box, why don't "more music" shows fare well in morning drive?
Why has talk radio grown to such stature in the market? Could it be that people actually want to hear a live person talking to them about topics that interest them?
I'm not advocating a 5 hour gab fest on a music station in mid-days. I do know that a voice track repeating station positioners ad nauseum, or that pre-produced promos replacing live jocks are not the answer. We're to the point where a live talent in the studio only gets to talk 4 or 5 times an hour - and each of those breaks requires a pre-formatted liner. The opportunity to add entertainment value to the "show" is limited to say the least.
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.
Times get tougher, and instead of reacting with "maybe we need to put our money where it has the most chance of success - programming", corporate cuts come in the trenches, not at headquarters. Radio is treated like a manufacturing plant waiting to be automated instead of as an entertainment medium.
Radio is dying. Corporate is turning the seed corn into grits and serving it up without butter.
Some people think the corporations are to blame for radio. But lets look at the devices people are using in place of radio. Who owns them? Locally run companies, or huge conglomerates, even bigger than radio companies? Listening to their fans, you'd think XM was owned by a local business. Nope, a huge corporation, with lots of bean counters and MBAs. How about the internet? Locally owned? Nope. How about all the music streamers? All big corporations. How about Apple? Big corporation. Cable company? Let's talk about Comcast for a minute. The ISPs? That's where all the money is.
The reality is that as big as you may think radio corporations are, they're being replaced by corporations far bigger. If you think Clear Channel is hard to deal with, wait til you have to fight with Verizon. I just did. It took hours, and during that time, I was shuttled to "customer service" people all around the world. I ended up with someone in India, who finally solved my problem.
Let's talk about public radio. Locally owned? Depends on who you call local. Most of them are owned by state universities. Ever have a problem with a university? Complain about rising tuition. Tell me what you get as an answer. Who owns NPR? Some mom & pop? Nope. NPR is a huge multi-million dollar company, with a CEO and a board of directors. Sure, it's non-profit, but it ain't small.
It's not about corporations, folks. Because the alternatives aren't smaller, but bigger. You need to get over your hatred of corporations, because they will still be here when radio is gone. Only they'll be even bigger, more impersonal, and even less local. Take a look at all the alternatives. The things that people are listening to instead of radio. How many of them are small or local? How many of them have local DJs? If that's where the people are going, maybe corporations aren't really the problem.
The reality is that as big as you may think radio corporations are, they're being replaced by corporations far bigger. If you think Clear Channel is hard to deal with, wait til you have to fight with Verizon. I just did. It took hours, and during that time, I was shuttled to "customer service" people all around the world. I ended up with someone in India, who finally solved my problem.
Let's talk about public radio. Locally owned? Depends on who you call local. Most of them are owned by state universities. Ever have a problem with a university? Complain about rising tuition. Tell me what you get as an answer. Who owns NPR? Some mom & pop? Nope. NPR is a huge multi-million dollar company, with a CEO and a board of directors. Sure, it's non-profit, but it ain't small.
It's not about corporations, folks. Because the alternatives aren't smaller, but bigger. You need to get over your hatred of corporations, because they will still be here when radio is gone. Only they'll be even bigger, more impersonal, and even less local. Take a look at all the alternatives. The things that people are listening to instead of radio. How many of them are small or local? How many of them have local DJs? If that's where the people are going, maybe corporations aren't really the problem.
- Status