REAL dangerous thinking: “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.”

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: 4Q2

If Talk radio simply remains business-as-usual, and, in, for instance, 6 months, or a year, everything...just...suddenly....gets better, I'll REALLY look like a dope, eh?

"If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less."
General Eric Shinseki

Despite asking for it 5 times, I have yet to see a concrete list of shows and stations successfully using "caller-centered" talk radio to obtain higher ratings.

Since the invention of TV, a lot of people have wrongly bet that radio will become irrelevance.

But for HC's sake, let's assume, talk radio - no different than radio more generally - may be headed to irrelevance.

Again, you have provided no evidence that "caller-centered" talk radio is the answer (i.e. the change you are recommending).

For something to be "the answer" - there needs to be examples of it working somewhere - and you have yet to provide a list.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Honest: I'm not TRYING to rope-a-dope.

What we-INSIDE-the-box find comfortable/familiar is inconsequential to the business model.
"Those-in-the-industry" are the only ones INELIGIBLE to be Arbitron diarykeepers or PPM panelists.

Which-is-not-to-say that self-amused broadcast content won't continue. Just don't be surprised by diminishing returns already measurable, WHILE time-pressed, tech-enabled, uber-consumers demonstrate, in-every-way-they-can, a preference to interact-with-each-other, rather-than sitting-still-while-WE-vent.

Happy with the status quo?
DON'T change.
Maybe we'll see YOUR name in the trades soon.

Here is the key difference between what you and I are saying:

In this case the "new" medicine is more dangerous - than the disease it is intended to treat.

Someone is proposing "new" medicine - without any evidence to back it up.

In the real world, this would be proposing a "new" medicine that hasn't gone through prior FDA testing.

Without the "new" medicine undergoing testing, I'll stick with the current medicine used to treat it.

there is absolutely no evidence for your hypothesis

Technically, that's an oxymoron.
Something hypothetical is inherently without-evidence in-the-status-quo.

Absolutely wrong! Nothing I wrote was an oxymoron.

I wrote "hypothesis" (not "hypothetical" as you contend) - words have meaning, and those words have different meanings.

"Hypothesis" (the word I used) has a clear demonstrable relationship to evidence - hypotheses are constructed based upon evidence and tested via evidence:

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

The only (oxy-)moron here is someone who can't tell the difference between "hypothesis" and "hypothetical."

Turning to the camera...
Thus the premise which began this thread, and apparently continues to elude SOMEONE here:

Type ANYTIME what you would tell me in a phone call.

Grab the arm rest.

Citing easily-observable societal trends, I am recommending a change in course from Talk radio business-as-usual.
Repeat: I am urging CHANGE from same-old-same-old, the "concrete list."
Change.

Turning to the camera...apparently this continues to elude SOMEONE here...

Grab the arm rest.

Everyone on here completely gets the "easily-observable societal trends" & "change of course" advocated by HC.

But anyone can make an argument (i.e. hypothesis) recommending anything, the sky being purple, the seas being yellow, the ground being blue, etc.

Obviously, some arguments have merit, others don't.

How then do we separate the wheat from the chaff?

An argument gains credence when:
* The assumptions it is based upon stand up to scrutiny (i.e. peer review by those in the industry).
* There is evidence that backups/supports the argument.

Therefore, posters on here like myself do our due diligence - and begin to ask questions like:

* If HC's "caller-centered" hypothesis is true - why is he unable to provide any concrete examples of it occurring in the real world?

You would think if his hypothesis is as strong as he says it is - there would be concrete examples of it occurring somewhere.

* If HC's hypothesis that listeners won't take the time to listen to "host-centered" shows is true - why does the current industry data fail to show this, and rather instead demonstrate that listeners tune in to hear what entertainers/opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.

* If HC's hypothesis about the increasing use of smart phones leading to a change in the model of talk radio is true - why haven't we seen other "new media" (including radio on cell phones) leading to a change in the model of talk radio.

* HC cites this thread as evidence of support for his hypothesis - but in actuality it demonstrates the opposite is true - that the "host-centered-push" model of talk radio is working quite well. This thread wouldn't have started, and been continued on each day, without HC - a well-known and unabashed industry opinion-leader - starting the thread and keeping it going with his "push"ing this train of thought. Without HC's "push" of "caller-centered" talk radio - there's little to no debate in this thread. HC is doing on here, exactly what he says, people don't want anymore.

* Etc, etc, etc.

Therefore, in order for your hypothesis to gain credence - you have to:
* Answer questions that challenge the assumptions of the hypothesis, and
* Provide evidence to support your hypothesis.

An argument gains credence when: The assumptions it is based upon stand up to scrutiny (i.e. peer review by those in the industry).

You're right about arguments, but that's not my goal here, and misses my point.
I'm talking about the business model.

HC,

You are the one that is about 2 steps behind me here - throughout this you are missing my point.

Obviously, we both are interested in business models in radio.

But before you can have a "new" business model - you need to start with, you guessed it - a hypothesis.

Business models
Models are constructed based upon a hypothesis (or group of hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing.

A business model is the method of doing business by which a company can sustain itself -- that is, generate revenue.

Therefore, a "new" business model is based off:
* A hypothesis (or group of hypotheses) which have been confirmed through repeated testing.
* This model is able to generate revenue to sustain itself.

To give a radio example, prior to widespread sports talk, a station had a "hypothesis" that listeners were interested in a sports talk 24/7. It did a test-pilot - found that it generated profits and listeners. Which prompted additional testing - and eventually we see sports talk as a common talk radio format.

All you have at this point is a hypothesis (not a business model) that:
* The "caller-centered" hypothesis has not been confirmed through repeated testing.
* There is no evidence that the "caller-centered" hypothesis is able to generate revenue to sustain itself.

When you have actual evidence to back up your hypothesis...come back and talk to me...

At this point, I think we should "agree to disagree" - while we wait to see all of HC's N/T stations flip to "caller-centered" talk radio, and then we'll have actual evidence and be able to see if these stations reap the abundant profits and ratings that HC contends.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Was it ONLY 5 times? At-the-risk-of making-it-6...

...you'll have to agree on one thing:

There's at-least-a-SLIGHT-resemblance between YOUR state capitol building (Madison, for you non-Cheeseheads: http://www.greatrealtyusa.com/content/photo/7764-7.jpg) and OURS in Providence (http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/state-capitol-providence-ri038.jpg), which you see aplenty, inside and out, on Showtime's "The Brotherhood."

As Rev. Jackson would say, "Common ground, common ground."

And you'll do a double-take next time you're in Little Rock: http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/capitol_grounds/capitol/lg/pix15.jpg

Brace for snow up thar, eh?

 

[Holland Cooke]

"Althooooogh it's been said, many times, many waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays..."

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The holidays are always a reflective time.
We think-back, we squint-ahead.
Certainly there's concern, about what-the-HECK-happens-next, as radio piggybacks an economy in free-fall.

Objectively, approaching 2009 as "when-things-improve" is naive.
Sure, things WILL improve...possibly sooner-than-we-might-think, if the economy is near-bottom now.

But it's more useful to understand that things will be different.

Radio is losing lots of good people lately; and it's radio's loss.
Many will now do-something-other-than-radio, and having-been-in-radio will benefit them.
The radio skill set has value in lots of other occupations.
ESPECIALLY the Internet.

Those of us who soldier-on will continue to benefit from being observant and curious and nimble and opportunistic.

Notwithstanding how quickly those first million iPhones flew-out-the-door, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans each own a half-dozen AM/FM receivers, and will continue to spend dozens of hours per week using 'em...if we continue to be relevant and helpful and engaging and entertaining.

In olden times, when radio conventions were big and buzzing, we'd gather to talk shop, swap ideas, and compare notes. Now, this, right here, radio-info.com, is tantamount to the new, ongoing, virtual convention. Even with all the zingers and stimulus-response BS that'll clog any anonymous chat environment, this platform can continue to be a valuable dialogue.

Best wishes for warm, happy holidays, and good health in the New Year,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com

PS: A couple pages ago, I promised notes from Arbitron's recent Consultant Fly-In conference.
Here ya go: http://getonthenet.com/radio-info.pdf

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Thanks Holland for the info.

Another reason, not to promo the next callers coming up, besides telling other potential callers theres' a long line in front of them, but as with many local talk shows there are the "regular" callers, some good and some you hate to have to endure for whatever reason. So if one of those names you'd rather not hear is promo'd before the spotbreak, that tells me that it's time to station surf which usually means I stop at some other station where I might not remember to go back to the original station after a few minutes. If you only lost one listener, it might not be so bad, but these partiuclar irritating "regular" callers tend to "tick off" a fairly large segment of the audience which could mean a large exodus from your station.

Thanks again Holland for freely sharing your newsletter with all of us. Merry Christmas !

 

[Jimme]

I visit a blog because I want to see what the owner of the blog has to say, not what each comment following below is.
The only exception is newspaper web sites. There I do read each comment after the article because any one may be a good one to reply to in agreement or disagreement.

The trouble is people responding to a blogger's article, or calling in to a station (with tehexception fo Limbaugh who screens his callers) is they often don't have a deep and firm grasp fo the whole subject matter. Lack of any knowledge ruins the talk radio experience. (Don't confuse lack of knowledge with taking a stance or a slant to the show you disagree with.)
For example, Ed Schultz wants to discuss raising taxes. His callers don't offer specifics from economics, historic precedent, or the news. We get silly opinions like, "I think t's hard out there," or "those guys get to ride in private airplanes," both of which don't really center in on the merits of raising or lowering the capital gains tax or what represents a fair income tax rate.

My favorite example was, a while back when Kitty Carliele Hart died, one newspaper let people attach their thoughts in a blog. As a big game show fan, I wanted to see what people had to see. Here's an example of the thread:
1.) she was great on The Honeymooners
2.) no dummy - she was on Bewitched.
3.) ""hey Ralphie Boy""
4.) wrong - she was on What's My Line" I remember What's My Line. I liked What's My Line.
5.) I remember What's My Line - I always liked it when they drove the car out from door #1
6.) "" Norton""

Would inviting these people to call in one after the other make for engrossing radio? Only if you didn't want intelligent discussion, but just some place to shoot the bull for a minute or two. I should have just stuck to the main article (e.g., the host). The bloggers (callers) were just a distraction.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Norton

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I visit a blog because I want to see what the owner of the blog has to say, not what each comment following below is.
The only exception is newspaper web sites. There I do read each comment after the article because any one may be a good one to reply to in agreement or disagreement.

The trouble is people responding to a blogger's article, or calling in to a station (with tehexception fo Limbaugh who screens his callers) is they often don't have a deep and firm grasp fo the whole subject matter.

If I read you correctly, you read a blog because you want to intake the pronouncement of THE BLOGGER. Then I think you are also saying that when you listen to Talk Radio, you want to hear the pronouncement of THE TALKER. And I think I hear you saying you have little or no interest in any contrasting views from the listeners who call in.

My observation is that the loyal audience of Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz may share your view.

Back in the dark ages of Talk Radio I did a show in which I took the position that it was NOT MY JOB to make the pronouncements. It was my job to recruit in-studio guest who would make pronouncements. When we took calls, it was my job to play the caller like reeling in a fish on lightweight tackle and make the caller interface with the guest. Then in the guest tried to blow off the caller with a non-responsive reply, it was time to reel in the guest until guest-and-caller had a valid exchange. (It was the era of the Fairness Doctrine, early version, and we felt that was the appropriate task of the "host".)

Somewhere between what we did then and what is done today may be a valid use of the airways. Today's abrupt, in-your-face kick-butt Talk Radio is very macho and draws a male audience that would like to see a little blood drip now and then. I would propose that today's style if allowed to continue to get meaner and rougher will do two things: it will kill Talk Radio and it will eventually contribute to the American society adopting the old Irish posture where the Catholics and Protestants were actually setting off bombs in each others community.

Drug dealers cannot go to court and argue successfully that selling drugs is capitalist free enterprise at work and it is un-American to send me to jail for doing it. And yet we are very comfortable defending politicians and Talk Radio people who argue they should be allowed to say the most absurd claims about how society works without having to put up with callers who might offer an opposing view. After all, it is free enterprise at work and "it is un-American to restrict my multi-million dollar annual income."

If the people who own the radio stations aren't smart enough to know when they are crossing the line from free speech into demogogery, even our government which at times seems to have lost it's way will eventually help them define that line. And it will not be a pretty day.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Another Auld Lang Syne

If the people who own the radio stations aren't smart enough to know when they are crossing the line from free speech into demogogery, even our government which at times seems to have lost it's way will eventually help them define that line. And it will not be a pretty day.

It ALREADY ain't-pretty what's happening; and listeners are telling so with eroding TSL...even as cume is UP slightly.
And THERE'S a red flag.

As-a-practical-matter, the prospects of a new Fairness Doctrine seem slim. Heck, as-of-yesterday, there are only 4 FCC commissioners, thus no guarantee of a majority. And the Commission won't meet again for a while, and we don't even know who the Chairman will be then. Meanwhile, public scrutiny of what-Congress-and-a-new-administration-will-do-about-REAL-problems should keep any interest in content regulation of this sort wayyy on-the-back-burner.

But -- to-the-extent-that station owners can still afford to offer content that is as engaging/relevant/useful as possible -- they simply MUST. Certainly diminished resources are an issue. But what-the-useful-conversation-in-this-thread-is-about is our approach, and that's free.

At-the-risk-of triggering another copy-and-paste retort from our pal in Wisconsin, I want to loop-back on-topic: the importance of engaging the audience.

Reading each day's radio trade headlines, it's tough NOT-to-conclude that we-who-push-audio-out-the-transmitter have to get REAL good-at pulling-stuff-in from listeners, via every inbound path we can offer; and offering listeners our transmitter as their voice.

Although I started this lively conversation, I've enjoyed reading-what's-here even more that writing-what-I've-contributed.
I suggested earlier that, with convention attendance now so sparse, this-here dialogue has become the new shoptalk.
Minus the stimulus-response snipes-and-flames, this sort of exchange has real value.
And in 2009, it may be our most meaningful forum.

Here's to new ideas and resourcefulness in The New Year,
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
http://getonthenet.com/radio-info.pdf

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Reading blogs, letters to the editor, callers to talk shows, online threads like this one has the ability to give both good and useful information with interesting insight, but it can also give un-informed, sometimes idiotic comments. That however, is part of having a society where free speech is allowed where everyone - from the best educated to the least educated can and may offer their thoughts and opinions on a given subject. People are allowed to show their ignorance by opening their mouth, typing on a computer, writing a letter, etc (some would say that I do that on a regular basis). That is what freedom of speech is all about.

The assumption that the radio talk show host / newspaper editor/ Host Blogger, etc actually know what they are talking about is faulty. Some are very well informed, well read, well educated, who do offer solid facts to back their opinions; others are just full of themselves and whatever their agenda might be (political/ratings/ego/money/whatever).

When I read the paper, blogs, onling threads, or listen to radio talk shows, I enjoy hearing both the host and the respondants. Sometimes, the best insight didn't come from the host/editor, etc, but from the caller/letter to the editor/blogger response, etc. Quite often the host/editor, etc is the catalyst that starts the discussion, but the respondants offer some new twist that opens a new avenue of thought. We as a society would miss out on these ideas if only the big shot (editor/talkshow host, host blogger, etc) had their say without the benefit of the little guy offering his two cents worth.

I find it interesting in the 12+ numbers for the Wilmington Del, and Baltimore markets where there are two commercial talk stations in each market (one carrying Rush/Hannity/etc WILM/WCBM, and the other doing live and local talk in daytime hours WDEL/WBAL) that in both markets the live and local talker has a higher rating. So it would appear, if done well, the local yokel talkers can beat out elRushbo and Hannity. This, at least gives the appearance that just maybe what Holland has been saying is correct. Obviously, I don't have access to the more specific numbers, etc, but those who do might be able to shed more light on this.

 

[Don62]

Would inviting these people to call in one after the other make for engrossing radio? Only if you didn't want intelligent discussion, but just some place to shoot the bull for a minute or two. I should have just stuck to the main article (e.g., the host). The bloggers (callers) were just a distraction.

Open phone America was pretty good on Larry King's call-in show. Sure, some uninformed got through, and often stirred up Larry and made him mad. Was interesting to hear him react to such callers.

I don't think the host is always the one in the know. Larry King was corrected many times, like when he couldn't answer (from a caller) why no major talk radio show like Larry's had a Christian host. Seemed at the time like most hosts were atheists or agnostics.

CSPAN is probably the closest thing to unscreened talk. Of course, the hosts aren't allowed to argue or disagree with the callers, but those callers can get riled up or say some pretty provacative things...

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Just a side point of info about callers-turned-hosts...two that haven't been mentioned.

* Right here in my backyard, Clear Channel talk WTAM/1100 Cleveland afternoon drive host Mike Trivisonno was first heard on the radio here as a caller to that very station (then 3WE) and its evening "Sportsline" show with legendary sports talker Pete Franklin. His caller nickname was "Mr. Know-It-All", which as I recall wasn't complimentary on Franklin's part.

The caller-to-host transition happened when WNCX/98.5 hired him to riff on sports on its last, local morning show before they started carrying Howard Stern.

Triv eventually ended up at 1100, first doing what was basically a successor to Pete Franklin's old "Sportsline" in evenings, before moving into PM drive. "Sportsline" in some form lived on until just this past year, and Triv's PM drive show has long since ceased being a "sports talk only" show.

He'll never be confused with a Yale graduate with an advanced degree. Ever.

* His drivers' license says John Tournour, but the radio world knows him as FOX Sports Radio nighttime host "JT The Brick". JT got his fame as a caller to the aforementioned Jim Rome Show, and I believe he was the first winner of Jim's "Smack-off" caller contest.

He parlayed that into a gig doing a late night talk show at a small Los Angeles-area FM station (I believe he brokered the time at first), then worked his way up from there.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"Feelings...nothing more than feelings..."

people responding to a blogger's article, or calling in to a station (with tehexception fo Limbaugh who screens his callers) is they often don't have a deep and firm grasp fo the whole subject matter. Lack of any knowledge ruins the talk radio experience. (Don't confuse lack of knowledge with taking a stance or a slant to the show you disagree with.)

EXACTLY.

Callers-not-sounding "knowledgeable" is a red flag about topic.
Great call-in topics don't ask for expertise. That's what guests are for.
Great call-in topics ask listeners' feelings on the-matter-at-hand.
The best topics force listeners to tell stories. Open-ended, vs. yes/no.

Skeptical? Try this on YOUR show:
When you pose the topic, instead of saying "I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK," say "TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL."
Watch the phones ring faster.
You're talking to the-way-people-are-wired.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Hey Holland:

Just curious...what is your take on the Muslim/Airtran thing? Sounds like a great potential topic, but I wouldn't want to fall back on the old left vs. right thing...

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE "what is your take on the Muslim/Airtran thing?”

Sounds like a great potential topic

I wished I was doing a show that day!

These stories will always come-and-go, so it's important to somehow-make-it-special/local/whatever.

I'd've been tempted to ask listeners, "HOW WOULD *YOU* FEEL IF YOU WERE STOPPED-AND-FRISKED AT [name of local airport] BECAUSE OF SOMETHING-SOMEONE-OVERHEARD-YOU-SAY?"

This was how various deft USA talkers spun the London Subway bombing, i.e., "IS IT WORTH GIVING-UP 'A LITTLE FREEDOM' TO FEEL SAFER?"

Callers told stories and made speeches.
It was great radio.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: Another Auld Lang Syne

At this point, I'm beginning to feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather III:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099674/quotes

Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

======================================================================================

At-the-risk-of triggering another copy-and-paste retort from our pal in Wisconsin, I want to loop-back on-topic: the importance of engaging the audience.

Don't be putting words in my mouth - lest we have ourselves another go-around in this thread...

I think it is vitally important that all talk show hosts "engage their audience." And I have never said anything to the contrary.

We just differ on what I label "Level #1" below - the role of the host in this process.

As I noted several times on here (starting on page 2 of this thread):

My re-formulation of HC's ideas:

I think HC would be on more solid ground if he made a two-level assertion...

Level #1 - “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling hosts.” As I noted below, listeners still tune in to hear what entertainers and opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.

Level #2 - But then after hearing what Rush/Sean/Cowherd/Rome have to say on a topic - then "Listeners want to blog, text on cell phones, go on internet message boards, and write comments in facebook" about what the compelling hosts had to say - did they agree, where was the host right or wrong, what they would have said, what did they fail to mention, etc, etc, etc.

On this point, I get the point HC is making about interactivity and new social media - but I think he's stretching the point a little too far.

Listeners still tune in to hear what entertainers and opinion-leaders have to say on a topic.

I don't believe “Listeners tune-in to hear compelling callers.”

When it is called the "Callers to the Rush Limbaugh" show or the "Callers to the Sean Hannity/Dave Ramsey/Dr. Laura/Colin Cowherd/Jim Rome" show - then I'll believe HC.

Lest we forget, here are your replies to my "re-formulation" of your "caller-centered" idea:

I should clarify.
You don't need to believe me if it's not comfortable to.

Just make a note on your calendar: May 26, 2009, six months from now.

The notion others cling-to here that people will FIRST stop-what-they're-doing-so-we-can-tell-them-how-WE-feel...THEN interact-with-each-other-about-it is as antique as it is arrogant.

More-gently: You're still bouncing-around the inside-the-box echo chamber.

NOTHING PERSONAL. This is an industry-wide myopia.

======================================================================================

It ALREADY ain't-pretty what's happening; and listeners are telling so with eroding TSL...even as cume is UP slightly.
And THERE'S a red flag.

We all know the problems facing talk radio - but the medicine you are recommending hasn't even been tested yet:

Here is the key difference between what you and I are saying:

In this case the "new" medicine is more dangerous - than the disease it is intended to treat.

Someone is proposing "new" medicine - without any evidence to back it up.

In the real world, this would be proposing a "new" medicine that hasn't gone through prior FDA testing.

Without the "new" medicine undergoing testing, I'll stick with the current medicine used to treat it.

Despite asking for it 5 times, I have yet to see a concrete list of shows and stations successfully using "caller-centered" talk radio to obtain higher ratings.

Since the invention of TV, a lot of people have wrongly bet that radio will become irrelevance.

But for HC's sake, let's assume, talk radio - no different than radio more generally - may be headed to irrelevance.

Again, you have provided no evidence that "caller-centered" talk radio is the answer (i.e. the change you are recommending).

For something to be "the answer" - there needs to be examples of it working somewhere - and you have yet to provide a list.

======================================================================================

Great call-in topics ask listeners' feelings on the-matter-at-hand.

When you pose the topic, instead of saying "I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK," say "TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL."
Watch the phones ring faster.
You're talking to the-way-people-are-wired.

Already asked & answered - see my early post to you below.

Women are wired that way - but most talk radio listeners are men.

Asking them for feelings can be lively talk radio.

05-00 (inviting callers to weigh-in on the-topic-at-hand, often something reported 00-05) is about feelings.
Let's hear what you have to say.

Letting them vent, hash-it-out, arm-wrestle, gives the show value.

This is a recipe for disaster! Sorry HC.

Most N/T stations have a male-dominated listenership.

Men like nothing better than to sit around and listen to talk about "feelings" and "venting."

Note - Sarcasm, tongue firmly planted in cheek.

======================================================================================

When you have actual evidence to back up your hypothesis...come back and talk to me...

At this point, I think we should "agree to disagree" - while we wait to see all of HC's N/T stations flip to "caller-centered" talk radio, and then we'll have actual evidence and be able to see if these stations reap the abundant profits and ratings that HC contends.

Again, I think we should "agree to disagree" and move on.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"I think we should 'agree to disagree' and move on."

I doubt that many readers here are even skimming-through these long anonymous copy-and-paste tantrums you're posting.

The point I'M so-utterly-failing-to-make is that it's not up to us.
What we agree-or-disagree-on here doesn't matter.
Neither you (self-described "fan" of the medium) or I (actually-making-a-living-in-it) are in-control of listeners' choices any more.
We're not allowed to get diaries or PPMs.
Our inside-the-box aesthetic and business-as-usual comfort zone is irrelevant to Homer & Marge listener.

Right now, "out there," people are living-their-lives...or attempting to.
Coping, in time poverty.
Talking-AT them ensures diminishing returns.

Although copious notes will follow, I can-only-begin-to-convey what I will witness beginning tomorrow at the massive, mind-boggling Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas. Dang-near everything on display for 130,000 attendees there in the THIRTY FIVE football-field-size Exhibit Hall seeks to obsolete everything-that-was-on-display-there a-year-ago. In a still-falling economy this industry's continued growth is conspicuous...BECAUSE these devices allow users to control their information/entertainment content. We have lost control of that sifting process, and our monopoly on distibution.

Radio was the original electronic gadget. Those-who-remain-employed-as radio talent -- a shrinking fraternity -- will do well to resist typecasting.

Aces and 8s,
HC
http://getonthenet.com/radio-info.pdf

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: "I think we should 'agree to disagree' and move on."

Right now, "out there," people are living-their-lives...or attempting to.
Coping, in time poverty.
Talking-AT them ensures diminishing returns.

Time Poverty!

It was worth dragging myself out of the bed and struggling up to my little work-dungeon in the attic and waiting on the computer to ever so slowly boot-up just to discover this little semantic jewel.

Time Poverty.

Thank you, Holland

That one tops my first semantic discovery of the day. You used the term "outside the box". That is one that have to be careful to not over work. In the Atlanta paper this morning there was prolific coverage about Griffin Bell who died yesterday. In describing Bell's influence on the life of our nation someone said:

"He was thinking outside the box before the rest of us knew there was a box."

 

[Mookie]

AM 590 KLBJ is on the cutting edge of what Mr. Cooke is talking about. That station is testing a new show at 10am weekdays. One Hour!

So far it's a hit. The first hourlys are up. Call screening is key! To success...

www.590klbj.com

The Todd & Don Show

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Re: "I think we should 'agree to disagree' and move on."

I doubt that many readers here are even skimming-through these long anonymous copy-and-paste tantrums you're posting.

Calling the opposing view a "tantrum" - implies that the facts aren't on your side - for if you had them, you'd use them instead.

Switching the topic from the finer points of my critiques of "caller-centered" talk radio - to my posting style - yet another technique used if you don't have the facts on your side...very clever technique to avoid having to answer a criticism.

I've been very careful to keep the discussion focused on "caller-centered" talk radio - and have not gotten into personal attacks and things like that.

I think you should extend the same courtesy to me - you wouldn't want me calling your arguments "tantrums."

If you have the facts on your side use them.

But if you don't have the facts on your side...then by all means...continue calling an opposing view a "tantrum."

The point I'M so-utterly-failing-to-make is that it's not up to us.

True, it is up to profitability and ratings.

Again, for the 6th time, I formally request from you a list of shows and stations that have successfully used the "caller-centered" model of talk radio to obtain higher profits and ratings?

For something to be "the answer" - there needs to be examples where it worked - and you have yet to provide a list (despite my 6 requests for it).

If the appeal of "caller-centered" model of talk radio is as strong as you say it is - there should be plenty of concrete examples of where it successfully occurred that you can provide for us.

For the 6th time - List please.

Although copious notes will follow, I can-only-begin-to-convey what I will witness beginning tomorrow at the massive, mind-boggling Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas. Dang-near everything on display for 130,000 attendees there in the THIRTY FIVE football-field-size Exhibit Hall seeks to obsolete everything-that-was-on-display-there a-year-ago. In a still-falling economy this industry's continued growth is conspicuous...BECAUSE these devices allow users to control their information/entertainment content. We have lost control of that sifting process, and our monopoly on distibution.

Smart phones are a different medium, talk radio will capitalize on them, but it doesn't invalidate the current "host centered push" model

For example:

* DVR's are increasing in popularity too - does that mean the "host-push-centered" model of talk radio is wrong? Answer - No.

* Twitter is increasing in popularity too - does that mean the "host-push-centered" model of talk radio is wrong? Answer - No.

Smart talk radio hosts/shows have capitalized on: websites, podcasts, blogs, myspace, etc. Talk radio will learn to utilize and capitalize on the increasing use of smart phones as well. But that doesn't mean that the current talk radio format is wrong - it is a different medium.

Smart phones are a different medium. What works for TV, is different than what works for newspapers, which is different than what works for radio, which is different for what works for the internet, websites, blogs, etc.

Talk radio will learn to utilize and capitalize on the increasing use of smart phones - but doesn't mean that the current talk radio format is wrong - it is a different medium.