Rock 92.9 To Bloomberg

[boombox4]

So…It’s not 2008..we’re 16 years beyond the Great Recession.

We’re not in a Pandemic, either. What’s your point??

We have 5% nominal GDP Growth, the largest economy in the history of the planet, the most people employed at the highest wages, an all time high stock market with earnings up double digits and prices up 20%….thats the real non radio world. Take a peak outside studio, it’s different out there. So the real world, contrary to your insular observation, has recovered tremendously…

And yet..through it all…the “ad recession” for radio continues in perpetuity partying like it’s 2008 national recession and Pandemic forever…large radio groups go in and out of bankruptcy as often as I go in and out of my bathroom, and TV/Radio operators write down the value of their assets by the $Billions signaling PERMANENT structural decline.
This is what radio station OWNERS are saying in legal terms about what they OWN. Their words.

I don’t get your point, this is structural.

5%. OK. 5% up from what? That has to be considered. And is it uniform across the country? That also has to be considered.

It's easy for statistics like these to be used, when they don't necessarily paint an accurate picture of what's happening in every sector of the economy.

You realize that the greatest GDP growth in the entire history of the United States was around 30% over one or two years? Looks like great numbers, doesn't it. But it was in the middle of the Great Depression -- 1936 or so. And after that surge in GDP growth, we were still in the Great Depression. We still had the bad unemployment numbers, and the same poverty rates. The effects of the 2008 crash remained for years afterwards. When an economy recovers, that recovery isn't always uniform across regions and sectors. Some sectors take a bigger hit than others, and take longer to rebound.

A lot of these stats you have given depend on context. And, you didn't mention inflation. You said wages are up. Yeah, true, but they still haven't kept up with inflation. Credit card debt, nationally, is over a Trillion dollars.

The Pandemic slammed the economy, and many of the effects of that Pandemic economy still linger today. A lot of small businesses went under, or are still close to going under. They were socked severely during the Pandemic and still are trying to get back to where they were before it hit. Large retailers like Walgreens and CVS are shutting down stores, due to a panoply of reasons, including increased online purchasing. There are several brick and mortar chains that are either shutting down, or shutting down stores.

That's also part of the economy. And many of those retailers either are or were advertisers on Radio. Walgreens used to be. I remember mastering their radio barter spots (and those for other national chains) in the 2000's. I don't think they advertise on Radio anymore, or if they do, I haven't heard the spots lately.

If you're in Boston, I'm sure that the economy there, just like here in Seattle, is probably better than much of the rest of the country year to year. But Radio is a national business, and ad revenues are down. They're also down in other, non-legacy media. The advertising industry itself, at least according to a graph on Statista, is stuck at 2012-2016 revenue levels, when accounting for inflation. So yeah, the economy is up in places, especially on Wall Street, but not so up everywhere on Main Street. And Radio is one of the media sectors taking the hit for it.

EDIT to add: in your last post, I do think you make some relevant points. But at the same time, I think the radio companies and experts are still up against a wall, with many factors over which they have no control. Here in Seattle a local-oriented, new type of AAA format was tried on KPNW, with local DJs (some with heritage in the market), with a lot of alt-rock music, something for which Seattle is known -- and even though they were trying something different, it failed. I'm sure that stations try new things all the time. Doesn't mean it will get the desired results.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

Good questions..

5% up…from what WAS last year the highest GDP in history..but to your point..

Totally agree. There are major issues today from inflation to consolidation of retail. Competition from New Media And recovery from Pandemic. Absolutely!

But CONTEXT: There have ALWAYS been major issues!

Radio THRIVED in the 1970s..during..
A.) 2 MAJOR recessions that hit everything. Big retail, small retail, everything.
B.) inflation? We whine about 5% today..it hit 18%!
C.) Mortgage rates hit 17%.
D.) ongoing Vietnam War.
E.) President kicked out of office.

That was a GOLDEN ERA for radio. It was a blast!

The ABOVE economy was a hiccup for radio but stations grew, ad revenue grew, stations became enormously creative.
When you stepped outside the confines of a happy, fun, thriving radio station—you saw an ugly world. You wanted to go back to work. Today…exactly the opposite!

The common denominator, to your point, the world is imperfect and the economy creates winners and losers with major problems EVERY year. Nothing new there. Been that way since the 1780s when something resembling an economy began.

 

[TheBigA]

Your $100,000 Felger comment confirms complete detachment from reality.

Was I wrong? No. You listed lots of salaries by selected national talent. I asked you to name one local talent. You did, and then you got angry when I pointed out his salary didn't fit with all the others you names. I used your argument against you, and you're mad that someone called you out.

Advice: . Learn just a little about economics, radio industry balance sheets, crushing debt loads, and cyclical softness versus secular decline. It’s a little work but it’ll educate you. It’ll answer your questions one by one. It’ll all make perfect sense, I can’t walk you through the whole thing.

You're in no position to offer anyone advice. You don't know me or my background. But since you feel the need to offer advice, mine to you is stick to the subject. Radio is not one thing. There are lots of different companies each doing their own thing. Don't assume that because one does things one way that they all operate the same way.

 

[TheBigA]

Waiting for creative geniuses to emerge. Please. My hunch. And I have no idea—but hyper local seems a direction. Take the Clear Channel one-size-fits-a-country extreme that everyone else has copied go the opposite: become relevant in COMMUNITIES. Maybe?

I read this from boomers a lot. They start out by saying "let's do something new & different," and then they say "let's go local." In other words, the solutions to today's problems is going back to what WE did in the 60s with local DJs. There's a whole thread here from a boomer about "making radio great again" by going local.

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/make-radio-strong-again.772606/

None of it addresses the REAL problem with radio, which is that there was a technological shift that was caused by the internet and new technology. It happened at the same time when radio WAS local, when some of the greatest talent was on the radio, and when WBCN was playing rock music. When people had a choice between great local radio and streaming their own personal playlists, they chose the latter. If those things couldn't keep people tuned to their transistor radios, what makes you think going back to localism will cause them to throw away their smart phones and buy radios again? I'm just asking. I have no solution either, but if you want to fix something, you have to address the root cause, which isn't programming. Boston has had a number of local owners who bought radio stations, staffed them with local people, did everything they thought would be successful, and got terrible ratings and limited local ad support.

The internet destroyed local radio, and it also destroyed local retail. When local retail was destroyed, that killed the financial base for local radio. The lack of local retail meant the lack of local advertising. Lack of local advertising meant a dependence on national chains. That meant advertising went from local to national and radio had to follow in order to make money. Sure, you can be the next Bob Bittner and do hyper-local. Buy an AM station or an LPFM. Who will pay for it? Local people? They're happy listening to national music from Spotify or Sirius. It's free with no commercials. Try doing that hyper-local.

You want a new & different solution for radio? It's simple: Radio needs to diversify. That's how people use media now. In the 70s, people had radio. That's all. Now they have a million ways to get music and information. Sure you can do it better or locally, but the pool of radio users is nowhere near what it was in the 70s. So you have to go where the people are and bring what you do to them. That means doing podcasts, providing streaming options of your unique content, building media sources that aren't dependent on transmitters & towers, and diversifying the revenue stream so you're not overly dependent on selling spots. The users of media don't like commercials. A percentage are willing to pay money to avoid commercials. Radio needs to offer that option, because users are paying other companies for something radio could do. But there aren't enough people in Boston to make it work. So yes, there has to be a revolution in media. The future won't be like the past.

 

[Rosends]

I read this from boomers a lot. They start out by saying "let's do something new & different," and then they say "let's go local." In other words, the solutions to today's problems is going back to what WE did in the 60s with local DJs. There's a whole thread here from a boomer about "making radio great again" by going local.

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/make-radio-strong-again.772606/

None of it addresses the REAL problem with radio, which is that there was a technological shift that was caused by the internet and new technology. It happened at the same time when radio WAS local, when some of the greatest talent was on the radio, and when WBCN was playing rock music. When people had a choice between great local radio and streaming their own personal playlists, they chose the latter. If those things couldn't keep people tuned to their transistor radios, what makes you think going back to localism will cause them to throw away their smart phones and buy radios again? I'm just asking. I have no solution either, but if you want to fix something, you have to address the root cause, which isn't programming. Boston has had a number of local owners who bought radio stations, staffed them with local people, did everything they thought would be successful, and got terrible ratings and limited local ad support.

The internet destroyed local radio, and it also destroyed local retail. When local retail was destroyed, that killed the financial base for local radio. The lack of local retail meant the lack of local advertising. Lack of local advertising meant a dependence on national chains. That meant advertising went from local to national and radio had to follow in order to make money. Sure, you can be the next Bob Bittner and do hyper-local. Buy an AM station or an LPFM. Who will pay for it? Local people? They're happy listening to national music from Spotify or Sirius. It's free with no commercials. Try doing that hyper-local.

You want a new & different solution for radio? It's simple: Radio needs to diversify. That's how people use media now. In the 70s, people had radio. That's all. Now they have a million ways to get music and information. Sure you can do it better or locally, but the pool of radio users is nowhere near what it was in the 70s. So you have to go where the people are and bring what you do to them. That means doing podcasts, providing streaming options of your unique content, building media sources that aren't dependent on transmitters & towers, and diversifying the revenue stream so you're not overly dependent on selling spots. The users of media don't like commercials. A percentage are willing to pay money to avoid commercials. Radio needs to offer that option, because users are paying other companies for something radio could do. But there aren't enough people in Boston to make it work. So yes, there has to be a revolution in media. The future won't be like the past.

I agree with a lot of what you said (but I'm just an old Jew sitting in suburbia waving my cane at the kids on my lawn). I think that there is a fixed ad revenue pool out there and that, as channels explode in numbers and the potential cash flow stays pretty much the same, each channel now has to fight harder for the same piece of that pie. Or. Or. Or each has to find a way to cut costs so as to be satisfied with a new normal, a small stream of money in, not because of the failure of a brand or genre, but because there is the same amount to go around, but the circle got way bigger.

So unless a new tech or delivery system is innovated which is so popular that it takes a huge chunk and then everyone follows that leader, we are just going to be confronted with more and more choices which will lead to fewer and fewer of the mom and pops being able to make ends meet. I think that many industries are running into this same buzz saw of financial reality.

Would automation solve it? A station run without people, using a preprogrammed algorithm and rotational system ( used to intern at one of those. My job was to change the reels, following the log and sign off on it -- and that was a hyper local FM in the same building as a hyper local AM, using the same staff because it doesn't take much to change reels). Would consolidation and the reduction of channels solve it? Fewer choices but each one can make a bit more money. Maybe it would take a radical shift in the economic model. Leased time stations? I worked there too -- I have select words for that approach, but if it makes some cash, then who am I to criticize?

Whatever the solution is or isn't, it isn't "choose a musical genre that will appeal to a slice of the demographic" because that slice can get the same content elsewhere. I mean, I generally don't go elsewhere but, I'm just an old angry Jew who misses the simplicity of the radio, the spontaneity of the whim of a PD or MD or even a DJ (if so empowered), the comfort of my favorite genre, the predictability of a programmed hour that I can anticipate.

The world is changing and while I don't like it, apparently that carries very little weight. Who knew?

 

[CTListener]

I wrote this a couple of hours ago, right after BostonRadioListener had posted his wish list, but decided against posting it. Here it is now.

1970s: No internet. Can you grasp just how much the advent of the internet and everything associated with its spread and development has affected radio and advertising, and how unlikely it is that going back to that '70s "golden age" is in the 2020s and beyond is? First, the idea that a generation twice removed from your listening experience, and by now used to hearing only music they love, virtually uninterrupted, with no inane DJ chatter or commercials, would ever give up that ideal music listening experience in favor of a '70s Top 40 presentation that gives them no way to sift out tunes they don't like is absurd. Second, no amount of "creativity" based on returning radio to its style of 50 years ago is going to bring advertising back. It's not a cyclical slump. Advertisers know where the prime sales demos are headed, and it's not to radio.

 

[TheBigA]

So unless a new tech or delivery system is innovated which is so popular that it takes a huge chunk and then everyone follows that leader, we are just going to be confronted with more and more choices which will lead to fewer and fewer of the mom and pops being able to make ends meet. I think that many industries are running into this same buzz saw of financial reality.

Yep. The big get bigger. Spotify alone is bigger than the entire US radio industry. Same with Sirius. People talk about iHeart as though its some big impersonal behemoth, and no one considers how big these streaming companies have become. Even huge media companies like Paramount or Warner are finding its difficult to compete with Netflix and Apple. No matter how big a company is, it's nowhere near the size of Google/YouTube. They're able to do this because all the local things we used to care about have become national. Sports might be an exception, and that's why The Sports Hub can hang in. But even attaching to a local sports brand isn't enough for WEEI. Boston sports brands have diversified their platforms so that even NESN isn't big enough, because the teams are available in so many places, including Apple and Amazon. The only ones making money are the teams, because they own brands that are available in many diverse ways.

 

[TheBigA]

Funny, listeners actually don’t want depersonalized Pandora with 6 minute ad block interruptions. That doesn’t work so well anymore.

But millions listen to depersonalized Pandora with one or two minutes of commercials. No local hosts. Just an occasional voice identifying the channel or saying meaningless things. I know. I listened to a Pandora channel this past week. I counted the songs, tracked the music patterns, did all the things people do with broadcast radio. What I heard was: Limited playlist, lots of repetition, and no personality other than that of the music. It was very pleasant, and a fine way to fill some time. It could easily be done on broadcast radio. Except it couldn't be done locally because the costs are too high for the revenue made by the few commercials. That's the big problem broadcast radio has. Too many commercials to compete with streaming. So if broadcast radio can cut its costs, do a national feed, and find an additional revenue stream (such as a subscription), then it can cut the commercial load just like Pandora.

 

[CassChopper96]

So WZLX is the only rock station in Boston?

 

[TheBigA]

So WZLX is the only rock station in Boston?

Depends on what you call rock. There's WERS, The River, and Big 103.

 

[davideduardo]

This makes me angry and I apologize for this. Because I was involved with a Boston station 40 years ago when we won the market from an unbeatable WBZ powerhouse— introduced emerging concepts and formats, the integration of news and entertainment & personalities—radio EVOLVED by REINVENTING itself. It became cutting edge, fun, creative, and successful. I know what radio CAN be: THEATER of the mind. Fantastic. It was highly competitive with new ideas. 1950 then—was a thousand years ago,

The issue is that commercial radio is financed by ads and uses a "one to many" program approach. You can not "reinvent" commercial radio when the biggest usage issue involves people going to "one to one" content providers and on-demand podcasts.

An overwhelming portion of the people under 35 don't want personality radio. They get their interaction from social media, not from disk jockeys. The old formula of talent driven radio has been replaced by new media which allows us to have real friends, not "a friend on the radio" who is a DJ chattering over song intros.

Of course, the biggest issue is still the decline in local business, the core for American radio. In nations where radio is doing better than here, there are full national services with many, many transmitters covering the whole nation and top quality services both on the air and online.

I listen to radio today. FOURTY years later. It’s the same thing! It’s the same format construction, the same product we collectively created in the 1970s and 1980s. While the rest of the world advanced more than the previous 300 years in that time—radio just tweaked its old thing. If you went to sleep in 1995 and woke up today…you’d hear the VERY same thing. But With Taylor Swift. And audio tracked DJs. Yawn!

As I said, in many places, from Chile to France to the Philippines, national stations on many frequencies covering the whole nation are doing quite well despite the changes in retail and the like... because they sell only to national accounts and there is just one invoice for total national coverage.

Waiting for creative geniuses to emerge. Please. My hunch. And I have no idea—but hyper local seems a direction.

No, it is proven internationally to be the exact opposite. National service is the only thing that works.

The decline in local revenue sources is mortal for all local traditional media. There is no revenue to support more intense local service.

Take the Clear Channel one-size-fits-a-country extreme that everyone else has copied go the opposite: become relevant in COMMUNITIES. Maybe?

iHeart (it has not been "Clear Channel" for years and years and years) is not a national service. They have different format mixes in different markets, and have no real "national station" doing one thing and covering the whole country..

There’s something very depressing about board ops openly wondering why no one buys ads on their station anymore because the 1970s-on-automation product they’re overseeing isn’t working because of the economy which is the strongest in the history of the world —is to blame. Not their tired sounding radio station in a new media world.

You keep thinking the economy is swell. I work with a local food bank in the Coachella Valley and they are unable to meet the needs of working class families who just can't make it to the end of a pay period with enough money for food, rent, gas and other necessities.

The economy in not "strong" among those people.

And because of that, they don't have discretionary incomes to spend at local stores. And the local stores don't have money to advertise.

The stock market may be near all-time highs. But for the people who buy things and use things in local markets, the economy sucks. And when that condition exists, the first thing local businesses do is cut advertising.

 

[davideduardo]

Good questions..

5% up…from what WAS last year the highest GDP in history..but to your point..

Totally agree. There are major issues today from inflation to consolidation of retail. Competition from New Media And recovery from Pandemic. Absolutely!

But CONTEXT: There have ALWAYS been major issues!

Radio THRIVED in the 1970s..during..
A.) 2 MAJOR recessions that hit everything. Big retail, small retail, everything.
B.) inflation? We whine about 5% today..it hit 18%!
C.) Mortgage rates hit 17%.
D.) ongoing Vietnam War.
E.) President kicked out of office.

No, it did not. I was GM of some major market stations in all of the 70's and business was tough. In one market, ranked 14th back then, we had zero growth from 1970 to 1976; in several years we had a decline in market revenue.

You are naming a bunch of factors that are sociopolitical that have little impact on local radio station revenue, even now.

That was a GOLDEN ERA for radio. It was a blast!

No, it was not. It was very hard work. I did 12 hour days some weeks during that period just to stay ahead. While I managed to have my stations grow nicely in that period, the markets I was in were shrinking in total revenue when adjusted for inflation.

The ABOVE economy was a hiccup for radio but stations grew, ad revenue grew, stations became enormously creative.
When you stepped outside the confines of a happy, fun, thriving radio station—you saw an ugly world. You wanted to go back to work. Today…exactly the opposite!

And radio had no kind of competition for what it did. It found, in the mid-50's, a way out of the collapse in revenue caused by television. That was music radio. But now we have a new way of delivering music that is individualized and radio, with ads and consensus playlists, is at a disadvantage.

The common denominator, to your point, the world is imperfect and the economy creates winners and losers with major problems EVERY year. Nothing new there. Been that way since the 1780s when something resembling an economy began.

There has been an "economy" ever since primitive man started exchanging food for services: "I'll catch you a deer to eat if you make me a bow to shoot it with".

An "economy" exists any time people specialize in one occupation and trade for the products and services of others.

 

[davideduardo]

So if broadcast radio can cut its costs, do a national feed, and find an additional revenue stream (such as a subscription), then it can cut the commercial load just like Pandora.

Bingo!

This is the "winning" formula for radio in much of the world... true national radio with lower spot loads but just one product on many, many transmitters.

This works best when total, 100% national coverage is achieved... not just a random collection of a few stations in each format spread across just some of the markets. The only thing close to this is satellite radio , and we can see that over 30,000,000 subscribers seem to like it enough to pay for it.

And those thirty million subscribers probably mean the double or more listeners nationally. That is around a quarter of all adults in the country. And that is with formats that are not particularly well programmed in any of the music categories!

 

[Rosends]

Depends on what you call rock. There's WERS, The River, and Big 103.

Hold up...and excuse my absolute ignorance -- WERS is a rock station now? (apologies; I don't mean to derail a thread but I'd like to know)

 

[BostonRadioListener]

I know you guys don’t agree with me. I hear anecdotes about people with unfortunate hard times—sad stories that were every bit as prevalent in radios heyday. Actually much more so then. But the facts speak for themselves and you can learn those facts quite ironically on Bloomberg which deals with economic facts in TOTALITY in a macro sense—I.e. the big picture. It ain’t what you’re seeing….

But the fact remains if you went to sleep in 1995 and woke up today you’d hear the same formats, the same paradigm, and even the same SONGS! You don’t want hyper local..fine! How about some attempt at a new paradigm?

So..Circle back to…the thread topic..


Bloomberg. It is original, new fresh Content. Which the operator of said frequency gets PAID to share. 92.9 Rock is a rehash of what some consultant determined are AGAIN MY favorite songs from 40 years ago that I’m not sick of yet—with commercials. At a cost to the station to operate. Let’s refocus the discussion to why such a decision could be made? Shocking.

We boomers just can’t figure these things out. You may be right (though the Felger pay is pretty hilarious) But here’s a suggestion to you brilliant millennials: you should selfishly back off on the disparaging remarks about us boomers.

Check your music formats—who are you all gunning for today?? Because we Boomers collectively are so dumb we still listen to terrestrial radio. Embrace our stupidity! It’s what pays your bills. Read what you post, Boston Radio programmers love us. Their collective Boston music play list is MY iPod. Fact. At some point, after how many bankruptcies… will you finally realize the problem is the 1995 software. It needs an update.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

No, it did not. I was GM of some major market stations in all of the 70's and business was tough. In one market, ranked 14th back then, we had zero growth from 1970 to 1976; in several years we had a decline in market revenue.

You are naming a bunch of factors that are sociopolitical that have little impact on local radio station revenue, even now.

No, it was not. It was very hard work. I did 12 hour days some weeks during that period just to stay ahead. While I managed to have my stations grow nicely in that period, the markets I was in were shrinking in total revenue when adjusted for inflation.

And radio had no kind of competition for what it did. It found, in the mid-50's, a way out of the collapse in revenue caused by television. That was music radio. But now we have a new way of delivering music that is individualized and radio, with ads and consensus playlists, is at a disadvantage.

There has been an "economy" ever since primitive man started exchanging food for services: "I'll catch you a deer to eat if you make me a bow to shoot it with".

An "economy" exists any time people specialize in one occupation and trade for the products and services of others.

I worked then and I completely disagree. WHDH and WCOZ enjoyed historic success. WBCN set a standard for the nation culturally and in the medium, WBZ was at the pinnacle of its superstation status with a lineup of Radio HOF legends. Radio was a primary news and information AND entertainment source. It was everything. The Blizzard of ‘78 set radio off to a half decade of glory days on Boston. It changed lives and listening habits. Passive research launched an absolute renaissance. And a new paradigm. I totally respect your perspective. It’s subjective.

 

[boombox4]

Good questions..

5% up…from what WAS last year the highest GDP in history..but to your point..

Totally agree. There are major issues today from inflation to consolidation of retail. Competition from New Media And recovery from Pandemic. Absolutely!

But CONTEXT: There have ALWAYS been major issues!

Radio THRIVED in the 1970s..during..
A.) 2 MAJOR recessions that hit everything. Big retail, small retail, everything.
B.) inflation? We whine about 5% today..it hit 18%!
C.) Mortgage rates hit 17%.
D.) ongoing Vietnam War.
E.) President kicked out of office.

That was a GOLDEN ERA for radio. It was a blast!

The ABOVE economy was a hiccup for radio but stations grew, ad revenue grew, stations became enormously creative.
When you stepped outside the confines of a happy, fun, thriving radio station—you saw an ugly world. You wanted to go back to work. Today…exactly the opposite!

The common denominator, to your point, the world is imperfect and the economy creates winners and losers with major problems EVERY year. Nothing new there. Been that way since the 1780s when something resembling an economy began.

Radio thrived in the 1970's through all that you mentioned because it was the only game in town. There was no Sirius/XM, no cable music channels. And no internet streaming -- no podcasts. Definitely no smartphones. Radio's only 'competition' for music listening or news programming was the cassette deck, and/or print media (for news). TV of course was a big deal, and delivered news and some entertainment, but it wasn't portable, you couldn't take it around with you, or in your car; and it didn't supply the music and other morning and afternoon entertainment value that Radio did.

So it's easy to say "Radio thrived" through the economic challenges of the 1970's. But -- for all intents and purposes -- it had no competition for what it excelled at. The radio device itself -- the portable radio, the car radio, the transistor radio -- also didn't have much, if any, competition for what it was capable of delivering. Even walkmen cassette players had radios built in, and a lot of folks used the radios in them. I still have one from the early 80's. Still works.

Once the internet kicked in with streaming, and then the smartphone came along, with all that internet connectivity, all bets were off, not just for radio, but for other legacy media. And that is what is kicking Radio in the backside today. The internet has already taken down newspapers. Newspapers and magazines have tried to diversify by going online, but they're struggling. The chief paper in the #2 metro in the United States, the LA Times, laid off 170+ people last year and are still losing money. Atlantic magazine is struggling to survive.

Today it's a different media world. The internet delivers what print newspapers and magazines used to, what TV used to, what movie theaters used to, what billboards used to, what print flyers used to, and what radio used to. It also delivers what the cassette deck used to. And it delivers it all on just one portable device, the smartphone.

And advertising has changed to meet the changes in the media delivery services. With the internet, you've got nearly an infinite number of possible advertising slots. That nearly infinite number of possible advertising slots drives down the revenue, thanks to supply and demand.

So while I understand your perspective, there are massive hurdles that all of the legacy media face today.

 

[luperm]

Bingo!

This is the "winning" formula for radio in much of the world... true national radio with lower spot loads but just one product on many, many transmitters.

This works best when total, 100% national coverage is achieved... not just a random collection of a few stations in each format spread across just some of the markets. The only thing close to this is satellite radio , and we can see that over 30,000,000 subscribers seem to like it enough to pay for it.

And those thirty million subscribers probably mean the double or more listeners nationally. That is around a quarter of all adults in the country. And that is with formats that are not particularly well programmed in any of the music categories!

Why do you suppose this nationalization of radio hasn't happened yet? You see traces of it with out of market voice tracking or use of pre-programmed formats in many markets. However, other than SiriusXM, nobody has really gone all in on it.

Interestingly enough, SiriusXM is on a slow roll out of a free ad supported tier. Let's see where that goes.

 

[TheBigA]

Hold up...and excuse my absolute ignorance -- WERS is a rock station now? (apologies; I don't mean to derail a thread but I'd like to know)

The first part of my sentence was: It depends on what you call rock. They play what some might call rock or indie or alt or whatever. It's not country.

 

[TheBigA]

I know you guys don’t agree with me.

I agree with some of what you said (and I indicated that) and disagree with other parts. Not unusual.

But the fact remains if you went to sleep in 1995 and woke up today you’d hear the same formats, the same paradigm, and even the same SONGS! You don’t want hyper local..fine! How about some attempt at a new paradigm?

It depends on the format. WKLB doesn't play much from the 90s. It's all from the past 10 or so years.

As for new paradigm, yes. I went through that at the end of post #104, where I said 'You want new & different for radio.'

Radio needs a new business model. The old one isn't working, as evidenced by companies having financial problems. These aren't badly run companies. The business environment has changed. It won't be solved by a format change. There are fewer people using radio now than in 1995, and that's not going to improve. So you program to the people who still listen.

Bloomberg. It is original, new fresh Content.

So is what you hear on WBZ, both AM & FM. What's your point? As I said earlier in this thread, the driving force behind Bloomberg is the business brand. The radio station is part of a multi-platform media empire that attracts a certain demographic and advertisers. That's what other formats need to do. At one time radio companies owned record labels. So playing music on the radio made sense. The company that owned Bob Dylan's record label owned radio and TV stations. Not anymore. If the companies that own the music now wanted to own radio stations, they would. But they instead finance streaming stations and artist channels on Sirius, Amazon, and Apple. So it doesn't make sense to play music on the radio unless there's a business plan for it. Subscription, listener sponsorship, or brand identification. That's the new paradigm you asked for.