radio----TV programmming

[BigJimmy]

if crap gets good ratings on radio & TV & makes $$$ ---
companies deem it to be good programming & keep it on the air.

Forget about creating higher quality programming.
Just keep the crap on the air & rake in the $$$.
How sad.

 

[TheBigA]

Don't forget there are two halves of the equation there. Not just the content makers, but also the content takers. If the public likes crap, why just blame the makers? It's not like there isn't high brow stuff available. It's just that people prefer crap. And content creators like to eat. I know people who work real jobs by day, and create high brow stuff in their spare time. That's not for me.

 

[BigJimmy]

Don't forget there are two halves of the equation there. Not just the content makers, but also the content takers. If the public likes crap, why just blame the makers? It's not like there isn't high brow stuff available. It's just that people prefer crap. And content creators like to eat. I know people who work real jobs by day, and create high brow stuff in their spare time. That's not for me.

I didn't mean just high brow ---- but more creative, general programming.

but---- the sad fact is---- if crap gets good ratings & makes $$$---
companies willl keep it on the air & not spend
$$$ to produce better programmming. If the ignorant masses want
crap----radio & TV willl gladly provide it. But --- I stilll find it sad.

 

[TheBigA]

If the ignorant masses want
crap----radio & TV willl gladly provide it. But --- I stilll find it sad.

It's not just "ignorant masses." Lots of college educated professionals like crap. Once again, it wouldn't be getting made if there wasn't an audience. The way to stop it is to stop watching it. Then it'll all go away.

But why spend money or time on something people won't watch? What an absolute waste of time.

 

[wadio]

Hey big guys, I think there's a disconnect here. Because people will listen to (and watch) crap doesn't mean they won't watch (or listen to) something worthwhile. But it's difficult to prove a negative. If I play Barbara Streisand recordings in my back yard to keep elephants away, does the absence of elephants in my back yard mean my plan worked?

Radio has reached the point where "crap" doesn't mean simply low brow -- there's a proven audience that will actually sit still and listen to some guy pitching joint supplements and green tea. If I'm part of a corporation or its board of directors I can't disagree that it's a waste of time to spend money on programming when its easy to satisfy and profit from such low hanging fruit. The only problem is that _eventually_ this approach will kill the golden goose. Again, if I'm part of collective ownership I'm thinking I'll be long gone before that happens.

The only way I can see things changing is if stations are once again bought by individuals who have an agenda other than just owning a huge ATM. We'll see what Jeff Bezos does with the Washington Post -- if anything.

 

[TheBigA]

The only way I can see things changing is if stations are once again bought by individuals who have an agenda other than just owning a huge ATM. We'll see what Jeff Bezos does with the Washington Post -- if anything.

The history of broadcasting is about attracting a large audience. WABC didn't play The Beatles because they made good music. Anyone who thinks that has their head in the sand.

The thing about Bezos is this is HIS personal money, not investors or a company. It's a very different thing, but at the end of the day, he still needs to attract mass audiences if he wants to sell advertising. He knows that, and I don't expect them to make any editorial changes.

Keep in mind that people today have many choices for their time. They don't HAVE to watch crap. They WANT to. They could just as easily watch Nova or Great Performances, and they prefer How I Met Your Mother.

 

[wadio]

The history of broadcasting is about attracting a large audience.

Sure, in general terms that's absolutely true. But it's not the only scenario.

... but at the end of the day, he still needs to attract mass audiences if he wants to sell advertising.

Absolutely untrue! The trend today is toward targeted advertising where you do not need to provide a mass audience to sell advertising! That's true for websites, boutique publications and radio.

WBBR is a radio example. It has a tiny audience but a roster of quality advertisers who are attracted to a quality audience that tunes in for quality programs. True, it's an exception, but that's what my post was about: the idea that a wealthy sole owner could create programming not aimed at the masses. It won't happen (as you point out) under corporate ownership.

The Joan Hamburg Show is another example. That show would never have seen the light of day under today's style of corporate management yet it attracts advertisers. A private owner, Rick Buckley, allowed it to flourish among a small group of loyal listeners and advertisers.

 

[TheBigA]

Absolutely untrue! The trend today is toward targeted advertising where you do not need to provide a mass audience to sell advertising! That's true for websites, boutique publications and radio.

Depends on how you define the word "mass." Obviously the days of WABC aiming at everyone are over. It's all about target demographics. But there are key demos that everyone aims at, and they're more interested in reaching pop or country listeners than bluegrass or opera. That's in all forms of media except where listeners themselves pay, like Sirius or certain streaming sites. Certainly WBGO manages to stay afloat with its 1 share because it has a very devoted membership base. But if the station was depending on advertising, it would be very different. At the end of the day, who pays determines what you see or hear.

 

[wadio]

At the end of the day, who pays determines what you see or hear.

Agreed.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure, in general terms that's absolutely true. But it's not the only scenario.
WBBR is a radio example. It has a tiny audience but a roster of quality advertisers who are attracted to a quality audience that tunes in for quality programs.

WBBR reportedly bills $2 million a year. That, quite obviously, does not cover costs. But in NYC, it is an excellent promotional vehicle for the Bloomberg brand. And when it is decided that it does not aid in the marketing of the core product, it will be sold or turned off.

 

[wadio]

WBBR reportedly bills $2 million a year. That, quite obviously, does not cover costs.

And please note that nowhere in my post did I say it covers costs. Sheesh!

The point is that a wealthy individual, company, foundation, whatever, running a radio station for reasons other than to make a profit (this excluded CC, Cumulus, etc. of course) is likely to provide more interesting programming -- in my opinion. That programming can also generate some advertising.

Believe it or not there are people in this world who see something of value in life beyond stats.

 

[BigJimmy]

its just sad to see so much crap ( radio, TV, movies, music) aimed at those with
a low IQ ----- for the purpose of making $$$. Much of radio, TV, movies, music now seems
to be on the level of The National Inquirer & that is sad.

 

[BigJimmy]

its just sad to see so much crap ( radio, TV, movies, music) aimed at those with
a low IQ ----- for the purpose of making $$$. Much of radio, TV, movies, music now seems
to be on the level of The National Inquirer & that is sad.

I meant-----The National Enquirer.

 

[TheBigA]

its just sad to see so much crap ( radio, TV, movies, music) aimed at those with
a low IQ ----- for the purpose of making $$$. Much of radio, TV, movies, music now seems
to be on the level of The National Inquirer & that is sad.

Radio & TV is far more successful and makes more money than the Enquirer.

And as I said, you'd be surprised how high the IQ is of the people who love Duck Dynasty. Nothing wrong with making money. I don't know about you, but I like to eat, and I like to sleep in a warm bed. My job makes it possible for me to enjoy my life, and spend my money on the entertainment I want to watch. What other people do on their own time is their business, not mine. I'm not here to judge anyone's personal taste.

 

[TheBigA]

The point is that a wealthy individual, company, foundation, whatever, running a radio station for reasons other than to make a profit (this excluded CC, Cumulus, etc. of course) is likely to provide more interesting programming -- in my opinion.

Bloomberg makes a profit. The radio station supports that. Just as Radio Disney promotes and supports the Disney Brand. Neither station exists for fun. As for "interesting," do you actually LISTEN to WBBR? It's pretty dull to me. WNYC is far better programming.

 

[wadio]

As for "interesting," do you actually LISTEN to WBBR?

Indeed I do. I'd say that about one third of my radio listening is to WBBR these days.

I started listening on the weekends when weekend Talk Radio in the NY area became extinct and I've found that there are some excellent programs. "Bloomberg Business Week" and "Bloomberg on the Law" are probably my favorites. I find "Bloomberg EDU" interesting too because we have a family member going into teaching and the show discusses some of the trends she tells us about. I listen to WBBR's rebroadcasts of the Sunday TV news shows, again because there's no Talk Radio on Sunday afternoons.

Then I started listening during the week. I happen to be interested in business and technology, topics that WBBR covers extremely well. It's a very nice alternative to non-stop politics and news coverage of every disaster du jour. The shows are fast paced and fun -- they even do a good job of picking relevant bumper songs to introduce topics. It's all a good listen.

It's pretty dull to me.

Really? And you've actually listened to the station for more than a few minutes now and then?

WNYC is far better programming.

Well, to each his own. The only WBBR show that's a total turnoff to me is the effete and NPRish Charlie Rose who I just can't stand. His show originates at Bloomberg studios. To be honest I could do without Tom Keane's squeaky voice -- his show is a TV simulcast and on TV you don't notice his voice so much -- and the weekday overnight TV stuff from Europe isn't great radio.

 

[davideduardo]

And please note that nowhere in my post did I say it covers costs. Sheesh!

You did say that it had a list of important and significant clients. My take-away is that you were indicating that it was advertiser-supported and viable.

As BigA said, "Bloomberg-The-Enterprise" makes a profit. The radio station does not, but it is understood to contribute to the greater whole of the company. In other words, it is treated not as a loss leader, but as a promotional or branding expense.

Very few instances exist where a company will run a media outlet representing a large investment ($13 million for the facility alone) and take an operating loss because there is a side benefit. In Bloomberg's case, it's an outlet in the world's most important (still) financial center, and the operation is probably still defensible.

The point is that a wealthy individual, company, foundation, whatever, running a radio station for reasons other than to make a profit (this excluded CC, Cumulus, etc. of course) is likely to provide more interesting programming -- in my opinion. That programming can also generate some advertising.

But today, any less-than-pure-profit entity is likely to completely skip steel in the sky over the air broadcasting and go for those narrow audiences online.

Believe it or not there are people in this world who see something of value in life beyond stats.

"Stats" in this case are "facts". The idea that anyone would do something such as what you are suggesting is not born out by either technology or reality. Marginal facilities are definitely being narrowcast, but the examples are similar to the case of KVNR in Santa Ana, CA: there is a thriving Vietnamese community in the day and night coverage area and there is both a service and a commensurate profit to be had in serving this community.

 

[TheBigA]

Indeed I do. I'd say that about one third of my radio listening is to WBBR these days.

Good for you. On the other hand, there are those who feel stations like this one are a waste of a 50KW frequency. I'm not one of them, because they are at least creating original programming. There are lots of other stations that don't even do that.

 

[BigJimmy]

Radio & TV is far more successful and makes more money than the Enquirer.

And as I said, you'd be surprised how high the IQ is of the people who love Duck Dynasty. Nothing wrong with making money. I don't know about you, but I like to eat, and I like to sleep in a warm bed. My job makes it possible for me to enjoy my life, and spend my money on the entertainment I want to watch. What other people do on their own time is their business, not mine. I'm not here to judge anyone's personal taste.

Radio & TV are better at sellling crap than the Enquirer.

 

[BigJimmy]

My hope is more Americans willl become better educated and demand better
quality from radio----tv--- films---music---print media, etc.
And , that more Americans willl be able to engage in useful, productive work.