Rock 92.9 To Bloomberg

[TheBigA]

Why do you suppose this nationalization of radio hasn't happened yet?

Partly because no one owns stations in every city. Nobody owns a national platform. If our system was based on a single owner (such as the federal government), it would have happened a long time ago.

The great thing about Sirius is it used one great big transmitter, known as a satellite. Broadcasting doesn't work that way.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

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.

In the Blizzard of ‘78 radio here proved it was THE most important source of news, information, entertainment, even personal safety. Of all sources. Newspapers were a FAR greater source than now. And Broadcast TV an INFINITELY larger player than today (audiences 100%+ bigger in share)..so please with the “only game in town”. We in radio had FAR bigger local competitors than today!

I worked at WHDH and we broadcast around the clock for 7 days straight in 1978. I lived at the station and we were the direct link between government, safety officials, stranded people in need, almost everything. We emerged from that as the #1 station, toppling mighty WBZ. But ..point is…Cumes for EVERYONE went through the roof and stayed elevated for a few years. Radio was VITAL. And habits for media consumption were literally altered in favor of radio. It became an essential community resource. For those of you who disparage my hyper local idea..
I was part of another renaissance ..I went to work on air with the King of Hyper Local Ed Perry just 2 years later. The Blizzard of ‘78 put HIM on the map, too!.. Ed succeeded, in part, because he delivered the goods around the clock 7 days a week during the blizzard on his backup generator on his Marshfield station. He made and still makes RADIO MEANINGFUL. VITAL.

Soon after it was launched WATD went from new & irrelevant to a vital community gem that STILL thrives TODAY with outstanding local coverage. It’s never looked back…in 46 YEARS!! It is STILL a literal fixture in the community. Funny how local involvement & commitment still works beautifully. Despite the “internet”. Ed proved it. And yes still winning all the awards and still doing great billing today. 46 straight years is no fluke,

Don’t surrender to the IHeart/Clear Channel multiple failed model which copycats also continue to fail with: just do the same lame thing but find a way to automate it or just do it cheaper and scale it with hundreds of bland properties. This widespread model had been a boon for bankruptcy courts but few else. Times are fine, great product works in radio. I’ve been a part of it and I see it still work marvelously. Less whining, more innovation.

I don’t have to be the only generation of your listening audience. It doesn’t have to be that way, Don’t believe the doubters. Prove them wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Bloomberg. It is original, new fresh Content.

It is a promotional arm for the Bloomberg financial services, starting with the ubiquitous Bloomberg Terminals. It is not intended to be a true profit center on its own.

Like the relatively ephemeral Radio Disney, Bloomberg Radio is intended to be a piece of a much larger puzzle.

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.

Again, LOUDER: FM music radio is a "one to many" proposition. Free to hear, but you get a dose of commercials. As a one for all operation, any subset, called a "format" has to play only those songs that are commonly liked and accepted.

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.

Where did this come into the picture? The discussion was about commercial terrestrial radio, not the perspectives of different generations. Millennials have found radio too generalized and non-specific and they like one-on-one streaming services and podcasts.

Let's move on. There is little the U.S. model of individual stations in every market trying to make money off, mostly, the local economy, for Millennials.

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.

The 35-54 audience is what significant advertisers are looking at more and more on commercial radio. They are not looking for Boomers, and never have.

Agency accounts don't buy local radio for Boomers. They may buy national, but generally for video services as they want to show their products as "life enhancing". You know, walking on the seashore or frolicking with the grandkids because you take their medicine. Or getting up the stairs because you bought their stairlift.

Local accounts are disappearing but they may buy up to 65 year-olds but they know that empty nesters, retired on fixed incomes, are not their biggest consumers unless they run a mortuary.

 

[leegart3]

Really? So you know more than the national sales folks at Bloomberg? If that's the case, why are you posting on some radio discussion board?

Not at all, but some consultant-driven decisions made by some very intelligent people about acquiring or formatting radio stations haven't worked out these days as things have changed.

 

[TheBigA]

Don’t surrender to the IHeart/Clear Channel multiple failed model which copycats also continue to fail with:

Here's radio 101: Somebody has to own these stations. The American system of broadcasting is based on private ownership of a public resource. It's called a public-private partnership. It's been the model for 100 years. Say what you will about iHeart: They're not EMF. That's pretty much the choice. If iHeart can't turn it around, it's not going back to the 70s. Those stations will be bought by people with money and agendas. There are lots of non-profit religious groups selling salvation who see radio as a way to promote their agenda. Why is that? Because we're in a money vacuum, and no one is willing to spend the cash. We saw that with Paramount. Why spend billions of dollars for an obsolete linear broadcasting platform when all the people really want is the content? People don't want to pay for cable or watch commercials. You think radio is in trouble? I know a lot of people who thought they were safe working in TV. They don't feel so safe anymore.

 

[davideduardo]

And Broadcast TV an INFINITELY larger player than today (audiences 100%+ bigger in share)..

You are making a vacuous argument based on a total misunderstanding of audience size.

Any argument based on a false premise fails.

"Share" is the percentage of the actual audience that listens to or views a particular radio or TV station. "Share" does not include people who are not using those services in the time period being reviewed.

The total share of listening has been 100 ever since KDKA went on the air in 1920.

Hint: you should be looking at "rating" which is the percentage of the universe under study whether they are using broadcast media at the time or not.

 

[davideduardo]

I worked at WHDH and we broadcast around the clock for 7 days straight in 1978. I lived at the station and we were the direct link between government, safety officials, stranded people in need, almost everything. We emerged from that as the #1 station, toppling mighty WBZ. But ..point is…Cumes for EVERYONE went through the roof and stayed elevated for a few years. Radio was VITAL. And habits for media consumption were literally altered in favor of radio. It became an essential community resource. For those of you who disparage my hyper local idea..
I was part of another renaissance ..I went to work on air with the King of Hyper Local Ed Perry just 2 years later. The Blizzard of ‘78 put HIM on the map, too!.. Ed succeeded, in part, because he delivered the goods around the clock 7 days a week during the blizzard on his backup generator on his Marshfield station. He made and still makes RADIO MEANINGFUL. VITAL.

Both arguments are irrelevant. Today, we get out emergency information on our cellphone or tablet or laptop.

Even if a station is on a genny during an emergency, people look first at their phone for information, not a radio.

The only recent case where I have seen radio fill in a total gap was after Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico where almost all cellulars were out, 100% of the electricity was out, all TV was out and just one radio station, WKAQ, was off the air. Fortunately, WKAQ is and was a news and talk station (which I had the privilege of working with for 15 years until just recently) and it was able to become the voice of the Island while everyone else scrambled to start putting the broken pieces back together.

But this example is the exception that breaks the rule. In practically no mainland US location have we ever had such a total lack of services. Even the New Orleans hurricane event decades before was nowhere nearly as extreme, and there were nearby radio services easily heard in that metro area...

 

[davideduardo]

Don’t surrender to the IHeart/Clear Channel multiple failed model which copycats also continue to fail with: just do the same lame thing but find a way to automate it or just do it cheaper and scale it with hundreds of bland properties. This widespread model had been a boon for bankruptcy courts but few else. Times are fine, great product works in radio. I’ve been a part of it and I see it still work marvelously. Less whining, more innovation.

iHeart's consolidted formats are motivated by economic reasons due to the recession in local ad markets. They don't have any format that reaches even a quarter of all people in the country, and even then the formats are locally assembled even if they use national workparts.

The only terrestrial broadcast that is nearly national is K-love. That is the example that others should follow, but because it is a religious operation most operators dismiss its model.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

You are making a vacuous argument based on a total misunderstanding of audience size.

Any argument based on a false premise fails.

"Share" is the percentage of the actual audience that listens to or views a particular radio or TV station. "Share" does not include people who are not using those services in the time period being reviewed.

The total share of listening has been 100 ever since KDKA went on the air in 1920.

Hint: you should be looking at "rating" which is the percentage of the universe under study whether they are using broadcast media at the time or not.

I worked in TV in the 80s…I understand share/rating…the RATINGS among news leaders THEN were literally double what they are today. Obviously “ratings” are actual people versus the “share” who happened to be watching that hour.

TV was massively larger competition to radio then compared to today— not even close. I worked for an NBC in the 85th market, we had more viewers in 1988 than the NBC in BOSTON today! The rating of #1 WCVB today wouldn’t even make 4th back then.

It’s funny we blame the internet for slicing radio numbers….but it didn’t decimate TV? Ok..

And newspaper even MORE lobsided. It was a huge competitor then. It barely exists today.

Y’all can’t whine how the internet is killing you while ignoring its decimated ALL of your media competitors. It’s disingenuous, and claiming subjective opinions are objectively wrong is..well..

And sure radio wants 25-54s, especially the more achievable 35-54. But what is it GETTING? Demos when the Patriots & Bruins win on sports talk. Exaggeration sure …but you know the reality. And we know what music formats win big. Despite what is “desired”.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

iHeart's consolidted formats are motivated by economic reasons due to the recession in local ad markets. They don't have any format that reaches even a quarter of all people in the country, and even then the formats are locally assembled even if they use national workparts.

The only terrestrial broadcast that is nearly national is K-love. That is the example that others should follow, but because it is a religious operation most operators dismiss its model.

What?IHeart unveiled the ultimate and original national strategy.

IHeart did that before they were IHeart…2 recessions and 3 recoveries ago…on a NATIONAL basis. They even specifically stated it was due to the permanently altered economics of the industry.

Sure it’s different market to market…but it’s a simple game plan: buy hundreds, preferably thousands of stations! load up debt, fund the debt with massive layoffs, voice track from a central facility, pay back debt, and then just chapter 11 over and over again when those late debt maturities hit. Rinse, wash, and repeat.

I never really bought into the Pittman as a genius theory though he was shamelessly self promoting himself as a boy wonder programming genius back in my era. He was part of the utter destruction of the medium.

Pretty simple strategy.

 

[TheBigA]

Y’all can’t whine how the internet is killing you while ignoring its decimated ALK of your media competitors. It’s disingenuous,

Don't misinterpret my view of this situation as "whining." There's no point whining about something you can't change. The way to handle it is to adapt to the new environment and direct your resources to that instead of spending money propping up the mythical concept of live & local. That's what companies are doing, to the dismay of people who grew up in a different time. All we're doing is explaining why the 70s don't apply to the present.

If you really want to be worried, sit in some of the conferences I go to where futurists worry about who will pay for journalism now that the old revenue model is disappearing. Even NPR is struggling. But that's a different subject.

 

[davideduardo]

I worked in TV in the 80s…I understand share/rating…the RATINGS among news leaders THEN were literally double what they are today. Obviously “ratings” are actual people versus the “share” who happened to be watching that hour.

Ratings and share are the same numbers based on different denominators. Share is the percentage of actual viewers watching one particular channel. Rating is the percentage of all people, watching or not, who are watching a particular channel. When expressed as "persons" or "households" the number is the same in both cases.

TV was massively larger competition to radio then compared to today— not even close. I worked for an NBC in the 85th market, we had more viewers in 1988 than the NBC in BOSTON today! The rating of #1 WCVB today wouldn’t even make 4th back then.

And you had, what, 4 or 5 other channels to compete against? Today, you have not just dozens of local OTA channels and subchannels but hundreds of cable options and thousands of streaming video options.

You keep comparing today with situations from 50 years ago. Absurd.

It’s funny we blame the internet for slicing radio numbers….but it didn’t decimate TV? Ok..

Yes, it did. Even heard of YouTube or Netflix?

And newspaper even MORE lobsided. It was a huge competitor then. It barely exists today.

Because of streaming sources for news, classifieds, car dealers, weather forecasts and the like.

Y’all can’t whine how the internet is killing you while ignoring its decimated ALK of your media competitors. It’s disingenuous,

What the Internet did was offer many options. In particular, one-to-one options that give you my music and my content at the time I want it.

And sure radio wants 25-54s, especially the more achievable 35-54. But what is it GETTING? Demos when the Patriots & Bruins win on sports talk. Exaggeration sure …but you know the reality

Actually, total radio users in 18-54 is off by less than 10% in the last 20 years. The real issue is that there are so many choices, people divide their time differently.

What nobody had brought up as perhaps the most destructive force against OTA radio: Docket 80-90. By 1990, we had so many new stations in most small markets and so many move ins and upgrades in larger markets that nobody was making money like before and half of all U.S. stations were not profitable.

If you want to place the blame for today's radio, look at the FCC and Docket 80-90 and not the good broadcasters who suddenly had less per-station revenue and many of whom could not make a profit.

 

[davideduardo]

What?IHeart unveiled the ultimate and original national strategy.

It is not a "national strategy". It is a corporate strategy in a limited number of markets with a wide variety of formats in each market.

IHeart did that before they were IHeart…2 recessions and 3 recoveries ago…on a NATIONAL basis. They even specifically stated it was due to the permanently altered economics of the industry.

They never did a "national" strategy because they had, nowhere, any single format that covered the whole country. "Never" is the keyword here.

Sure it’s different market to market…but it’s a simple game plan: buy hundreds, preferably thousands of stations! load up debt, fund the debt with massive layoffs, voice track from a central facility, pay back debt, and then just chapter 11 over and over again when those late debt maturities hit. Rinse, wash, and repeat.

When Clear Channel went for 7 AM to 7 FM to hundreds of stations (never thousands) was after the FCC allowed more stations per owner in the mid-90's. Initially, they did not cut local airstaff numbers but they did reduce management and back office staff. They did not start broad voice tracking until that became an economic necessity more than a decade later.

The Clear Channel bankruptcy was not due to operations, anyway. It was due to a sale to investment banks right at the start of the depression of 2008: the banks tried to get out but were legally forced to pay more than the enterprise was worth during the recession. In other words, a profitable company that banks overpaid for and not a "radio broadcasting" deficiency.

I never really bought into the Pittman as a genius theory though he was shamelessly self promoting himself as a boy wonder programming genius back in my era. He was part of the utter destruction of the medium.

He was really a terrible programmer and is now just a bad manager. Just look at how Bill Tanner's AM Top 40 station in Pittsburgh beat his full FM over and over and over. Pittman just seems to fall upwards.

 

[BostonRadioListener]

Ratings and share are the same numbers based on different denominators. Share is the percentage of actual viewers watching one particular channel. Rating is the percentage of all people, watching or not, who are watching a particular channel. When expressed as "persons" or "households" the number is the same in both cases.

And you had, what, 4 or 5 other channels to compete against? Today, you have not just dozens of local OTA channels and subchannels but hundreds of cable options and thousands of streaming video options.

You keep comparing today with situations from 50 years ago. Absurd.

Yes, it did. Even heard of YouTube or Netflix?

Because of streaming sources for news, classifieds, car dealers, weather forecasts and the like.

What the Internet did was offer many options. In particular, one-to-one options that give you my music and my content at the time I want it.

Actually, total radio users in 18-54 is off by less than 10% in the last 20 years. The real issue is that there are so many choices, people divide their time differently.

What nobody had brought up as perhaps the most destructive force against OTA radio: Docket 80-90. By 1990, we had so many new stations in most small markets and so many move ins and upgrades in larger markets that nobody was making money like before and half of all U.S. stations were not profitable.

If you want to place the blame for today's radio, look at the FCC and Docket 80-90 and not the good broadcasters who suddenly had less per-station revenue and many of whom could not make a

It is not a "national strategy". It is a corporate strategy in a limited number of markets with a wide variety of formats in each market.

They never did a "national" strategy because they had, nowhere, any single format that covered the whole country. "Never" is the keyword here.

When Clear Channel went for 7 AM to 7 FM to hundreds of stations (never thousands) was after the FCC allowed more stations per owner in the mid-90's. Initially, they did not cut local airstaff numbers but they did reduce management and back office staff. They did not start broad voice tracking until that became an economic necessity more than a decade later.

The Clear Channel bankruptcy was not due to operations, anyway. It was due to a sale to investment banks right at the start of the depression of 2008: the banks tried to get out but were legally forced to pay more than the enterprise was worth during the recession. In other words, a profitable company that banks overpaid for and not a "radio broadcasting" deficiency.

He was really a terrible programmer and is now just a bad manager. Just look at how Bill Tanner's AM Top 40 station in Pittsburgh beat his full FM over and over and over. Pittman just seems to fall upwards.

It

It is not a "national strategy". It is a corporate strategy in a limited number of markets with a wide variety of formats in each market.

They never did a "national" strategy because they had, nowhere, any single format that covered the whole country. "Never" is the keyword here.

When Clear Channel went for 7 AM to 7 FM to hundreds of stations (never thousands) was after the FCC allowed more stations per owner in the mid-90's. Initially, they did not cut local airstaff numbers but they did reduce management and back office staff. They did not start broad voice tracking until that became an economic necessity more than a decade later.

The Clear Channel bankruptcy was not due to operations, anyway. It was due to a sale to investment banks right at the start of the depression of 2008: the banks tried to get out but were legally forced to pay more than the enterprise was worth during the recession. In other words, a profitable company that banks overpaid for and not a "radio broadcasting" deficiency.

He was really a terrible programmer and is now just a bad manager. Just look at how Bill Tanner's AM Top 40 station in Pittsburgh beat his full FM over and over and over. Pittman just seems to fall upwards.

Look, I appreciate that you view the world quite differently than I do. And I don’t particularly appreciate your style of engagement.

So let’s leave it on the only thing we agree on. Bob Pittman!

 

[davideduardo]

Look, I appreciate that you view the world quite differently than I do. And I don’t particularly appreciate your style of engagement.

Obviously, we have different experiences. I began in radio in 1959 with one of America's worst group operators, Richard Eaton. I owned stations by 1964 and have managed stations and groups or been a large group program executive since the 90's. I only semi-retired from radio last year because the economy internationally pretty much thwarted the ability of stations to pay me any more.

And I did my first consolidation in the 60's, building a 9 station cluster in one city and about 14 total stations by 1970. I apprenticed in a 5 station cluster in the largest market in the Americas in 1963, and saw how there was enormous synergy in cluster creation back when ad budgets were not so thoroughly fragmented.

In other words, I have spent about 65 non-stop years in radio management and operations through many ups and downs, a few revolutions and even having a station seized by terrorists. I've been a keynote NAB speaker and been chair of state broadcast association committees, so I have a pretty broad range of experience nationally and internationally. I do not see that in your ancient single market experiences nor in your unrealistic suggestions and criticisms or today's broadcast radio.

But you can take your marbles and go home.

So let’s leave it on the only thing we agree on. Bob Pittman!

We are not alone.

 

[raccoonradio]

The WBOS format will still be on via 1330 and FMt 106.1 so ZLX not only one

 

[CTListener]

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.

Nor is it R&B or hip-hop but WERS plays some of both as part of its eclectic rock-and-whatever mix.

 

[CTListener]

Local accounts are disappearing but they may buy up to 65 year-olds but they know that empty nesters, retired on fixed incomes, are not their biggest consumers unless they run a mortuary.

They also know that if one accepts 1946-1964 as the baby boom years, baby boomers in 2024 are turning 60 to 78 years old. The actuarial tables will tell you that's not whom businesses looking beyond a one-time purchase toward long-lasting brand loyalty (the ultimate aim of pretty much all advertising) should be targeting. More than half of the upper third of those listeners will be dead within five years, neither listening nor spending.

 

[Rosends]

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.

I understand that but back in my day, it was a lot of Jazz and less mainstream music.

 

[davideduardo]

They also know that if one accepts 1946-1964 as the baby boom years, baby boomers in 2024 are turning 60 to 78 years old. The actuarial tables will tell you that's not whom businesses looking beyond a one-time purchase toward long-lasting brand loyalty (the ultimate aim of pretty much all advertising) should be targeting. More than half of the upper third of those listeners will be dead within five years, neither listening nor spending.

I was born 5 days into the Baby Boom generation. I have no expectation of being served by any OTA radio station unless my tastes are parallel with what their target audience enjoys.

As someone who still works 8 to 10 hours a day, I hope to be around as long as my mother, who worked fulltime on the board of a big hospital until she was 94!