The original premise I made in starting this thread was that listeners who live in rural areas are a different kind of target. They have different tastes, different expectations than do people who are dwellers in high-density metro area and urban areas.
After sifting through a great bunch of responses and contributions to the thread, I offer a second premise on why the relationship between the listener and the station can be different in the rural area. Since there is such a small portion of the public still living in the wide open spaces, it is hard to prove or disprove our views on radio in "the boonies". Hang-on.. this gets wordy.
I can remember when in metro areas there were some "spare parts" stations that could be picked up for modest sums. As we moved into the era of ratings-driven programming and sales, people realized there was serious money to be made with big city stations. No longer were the "winning stations" willing to ignore the marginal stations... which allowed the marginal stations in significant cities be toys and hobbies for some people in earlier years. In recent years every station became valuable if it was in the city, and the "big boys" with multiple stations could use their skills in research and programming to drive you into the ground if they could not convince you to sell to them under normal arms-length offers to purchase. That means even the marginal stations had to get their acts together and become part of the MBA driven business model. No more Mayberry "as shucks" style operations.. in the metro areas.
But when you are in a rural area, in maybe a county with a population of 30,000 people, operating from a city-of-license of 6,000 to 10,000 people, you are not valuable enough for the major corporate types to worry about acquiring you. (The exception of course are those FM stations which are close enough to metro areas to strip out and move toward town.)
Whether Rural thin-density listeners will accept or expect different programming and levels of service from their radio station or not,
the broadcaster who has one of these stations and has a mind-set to do service-oriented-radio... whatever we decide that is, does not have to lay awake nights thinking: I must kill my competitor before he kills me. The little market under normal conditions is not worth waging war over, and killing the competitor.
That concept used to work in 50% of the population of this country. Now that we are down to 16% of the population living in "not worth killing over" markets, there are few radio people even trying to wrap their brains around such a concept.
So, I propose there are two reasons that make radio in rural areas different than radio in metro areas:
1. What the rural audience expects from the station is different that what the metro audience expects.
2. Renegade owners can survive in rural areas, but will be quickly cannibalized in metro areas.
I guess we could say it takes renegade listeners coupled with renegade owners for radio to be at it's best in low-density population.
After sifting through a great bunch of responses and contributions to the thread, I offer a second premise on why the relationship between the listener and the station can be different in the rural area. Since there is such a small portion of the public still living in the wide open spaces, it is hard to prove or disprove our views on radio in "the boonies". Hang-on.. this gets wordy.
I can remember when in metro areas there were some "spare parts" stations that could be picked up for modest sums. As we moved into the era of ratings-driven programming and sales, people realized there was serious money to be made with big city stations. No longer were the "winning stations" willing to ignore the marginal stations... which allowed the marginal stations in significant cities be toys and hobbies for some people in earlier years. In recent years every station became valuable if it was in the city, and the "big boys" with multiple stations could use their skills in research and programming to drive you into the ground if they could not convince you to sell to them under normal arms-length offers to purchase. That means even the marginal stations had to get their acts together and become part of the MBA driven business model. No more Mayberry "as shucks" style operations.. in the metro areas.
But when you are in a rural area, in maybe a county with a population of 30,000 people, operating from a city-of-license of 6,000 to 10,000 people, you are not valuable enough for the major corporate types to worry about acquiring you. (The exception of course are those FM stations which are close enough to metro areas to strip out and move toward town.)
Whether Rural thin-density listeners will accept or expect different programming and levels of service from their radio station or not,
the broadcaster who has one of these stations and has a mind-set to do service-oriented-radio... whatever we decide that is, does not have to lay awake nights thinking: I must kill my competitor before he kills me. The little market under normal conditions is not worth waging war over, and killing the competitor.
That concept used to work in 50% of the population of this country. Now that we are down to 16% of the population living in "not worth killing over" markets, there are few radio people even trying to wrap their brains around such a concept.
So, I propose there are two reasons that make radio in rural areas different than radio in metro areas:
1. What the rural audience expects from the station is different that what the metro audience expects.
2. Renegade owners can survive in rural areas, but will be quickly cannibalized in metro areas.
I guess we could say it takes renegade listeners coupled with renegade owners for radio to be at it's best in low-density population.