Ryan Seacrest "Microcosm of What's Wrong With Radio"

[RoddyFreeman]

This morning in his Radio-Info column, Tom Taylor quotes "respected consultant" Bill McMahon as writing in his blog:

“The problem has nothing to do with the Seacrest show being produced in Hollywood and syndicated to local stations. The trouble is the show’s content. It’s ordinary, average, and forgettable. Mindless, soulless, lowest common denominator stuff [that] the media, including most cookie-cutter morning radio shows, are saturated with – vacuous interviews with celebrities hyping their latest projects, a steady stream of superficial celebrity news, and Hollywood gossip clipped from the pages of People, Us and the National Enquirer, and read breathlessly, with much manufactured enthusiasm and amazement, by Ryan and his cohorts. This is sad stuff.”

Star 94 might get some mileage out of the show since Seacrest's first radio job was there, and he obviously has star power. But I agree with McMahon's assessment.

By the way, I'm not talking about Tom Taylor the engineer. I don't know what he thinks.

My radio blog: www.atlairwaves.blogspot.com

 

[Chancethegardner]

Roddy it is a great article. Deep inside it, a quote from Lee Abrams that goes to the heart of the problem with radio programming today.

"Radio was one of the last great bastions of creative thinking. There were no rulebooks, you could come up with a new format idea in your basement, take it out and try it somewhere, and if it worked you were in business. Unfortunately the radio business, which was once a place with very few rules, evolved into a business with a whole lot of rules.... all great ideas start emotionally then you use science to determine whether or not you're full of it. In most big media today everything starts scientifically and the whole emotional component gets left out entirely."

 

[Radio Love]

"What's Wrong With Radio"

EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH RADIO. And as someone who grew up loving RADIO, I thought I would never see the day where I didn't enjoy it anymore. It's not about talent and community anymore, but you know what RADIO REALLY MEANS?!

R= REVENUE
A = ADVERTISING
D= DOLLARS
I = INVOICES (i.e. sales!)
0= OVERKILL (same 10 songs over and over and over!)

That's what I think RADIO is and has become! I'm pulling my show off RADIO in all markets and going ALL INTERNET, and am not looking back. Radio sucks. INTERNET is the new medium and the wave of the future! If I were a client, why would I invest in a dying medium, especially AM radio? It's so yesterday.

If it wasn't for the new station Majic, I wouldn't be listening at all. WAKE UP RADIO! If you don't re-invent yourself....R.I.P..(rest in peace!). The internet, satellite, and iPods will eat your revenue alive! Oh, that means you too FM Radio. What are you going to do when the Internet radio stations become available in peoples cars and on their mobile phones? Radio must become local again. Radio must SHIFT with the times or risk being left behind, extinct, and irrelevant. I'm no longer Radio Love....It's Radio Hate now! I still believe in you RADIO....BUT C'MON and get with it! Hopefully this economy will cause you to shift, transform, and reposition things as you transition into a new identity. You will survive as you transition and redefine who you are. I believe in you RADIO and am rooting for you. And at the end of the day....I guess I'll always love you. I long for the days where I spent most of the day with you RADIO...."scanning down your dial."..now I barely spend time with you. Radio, you will always have a special place in my heart and I will miss you. Me and thousands of listeners and clients will return to you when you start putting us first, and stop changing formats because of a PPM! Where's the love? Radio broke my heart years ago when one day my favorite station that I had given countless days and hours too up and left me and changed formats on me! Where's the love?! LISTENERS....THAT 'S WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BECOME TOO ATTACHED TO RADIO STATIONS...BECAUSE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT IF THE MONEY AIN'T RIGHT....THEY WILL DROP YOU LIKE A BAD HABIT.....NO LOVE....NO LOYALTY.....RADIO HAS NO LOVE....SO WHY SHOULD THE LISTENER AND CLIENTS? RADIO will survive only if it goes back to basics, back to its roots, and return to it's first LOVE.....the clients, local community, and listeners. Enough said.

 

[whit979]

Seacrest's mindless celebrity banter won't help anybody who's struggling to pay their light bill, find a job, learn more about the community in which they live, do something good for their family, etc. etc. etc. Some will argue that radio is an escape from the hardship of life, thus the need for shows like Ryan Seacrest. I argue that radio is better in the role of friend to the listener. That is the chief failure of radio at the moment. People are too busy and too preoccupied to have time for the blandness of Ryan Seacrest and others who put no heart into their prep work.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

So, what's the difference between Seacrest and Bob & Tom? Surely Mr. McMahon doesn't feel that Bob & Tom is more original or creative than Seacrest? Sure, B&T may not be all about celebrity gossip, but there are plenty of celebrity guests present to plug their wares.

 

[TheBigA]

The reason people don't like Ryan is because of professional jealousy. Nothing more.

If Ryan's show doesn't get ratings, he will be gone just like Whoopie. If he draws listeners, he will become the next Steve Harvey. That's what matters. Replacing local jocks doesn't matter if he attracts an audience. I never see anyone criticize Harvey. Probably because he does a great show that beats anything local people in his format can do. And most of these critics are white and don't listen to Urban radio. If Ryan can match Steve Harvey in his format, he will outlive his critics.

 

[jal41]

Ryan Seacrest (also host of "American Idol"...if anyone has forgotten) appeals to the teen girl set...the (current reality show formatted) MTV crowd who would rather be up to date on what is going on with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears rather than with world issues and the economy. Sad state of affairs.

On the other hand..."talk" radio (a term I would use is less family friendly) is owned by one group of people (conservatives). I could go on and on, but that is not the point. Also, religious groups (guess which ones) have taken over as well.

In between...50 minute music hours of 300 songs on a repeated loop with very little DJ platter or current happenings.

Something wrong with this picture? What is missing? How about news and information. If a life threating emergency happens...don't count on radio to save your butt (ask the good people of Minot, ND). Severe weather coming...better have a weatherradio in your car. The only information you may get is the weather forecast (15 seconds) and traffic (30 seconds), and the occasional sports score. WSB-AM is also guilty of not providing information (although they do try...just not hard enough)...I have heard talk programming several times when tornados were pummeling down on Metro Atlanta.

Public radio does a good job of covering news...just don't ask them to interrupt Mozart or Beethoven to report on a tornado or important news conference.

If the FCC can require public affairs programming (confined to Sunday AM...when no one is listening), they can require local news content (like they used to). They should also mandate EAS alerts for severe weather...maybe even mandate continuious severe weather coverage when any county in a station's listening area is under a tornado warning...playing music, ads, or talking about anything else results in a huge $100,000+ fine.

The government can't really mandate huge music playlists...or require playing unsigned artists of no interest (which really would many people away). People do tune into music stations for music...and talk stations to hear opinions...but if a life threatening emergency is coming, or imporant news that could change lives is happening...I would rather hear that then the latest song.

 

[whit979]

If Ryan can match Steve Harvey in his format, he will outlive his critics.

Well he won't match him with the latest celebrity gossip from Hollywood every day! The reason Steve Harvey is popular is because his audience can identify with him and what he's talking about. I can't identify with Ryan Seacrest, and most listeners I've seen from various stations can't and have no interest in identifying with him. It is for that reason that Seacrest's show will remain a crutch for the station that is not interested in providing local, topical information with which its audience can identify.

And with regard to the statement that Seacrest appeals to the 'teen girl' demographic: I would agree with that wholeheartedly. The only trouble here is that Star 94 put Seacrest in the middle of the day when that entire demographic is in SCHOOL. Put him in morning or afternoon drive? We might all be singing a different tune. Middays? Tripp West was worlds better.

 

[TheBigA]

What is missing? How about news and information. If a life threating emergency happens...don't count on radio to save your butt

WSB has a news staff of 20 full time people. I think they will handle any life-threatening emergency with the professionalism you'd expect. How many people would you like them to have on staff?

WSB-AM is also guilty of not providing information (although they do try...just not hard enough)...I have heard talk programming several times when tornados were pummeling down on Metro Atlanta.

What time of day was that? How many city and state offices were fully staffed at that time of day? Even CNN wasn't live at that hour, and their office was right in the middle of it.

Same thing with the Minot incident you cite. That happened at 2 AM. Even the local police station was closed. If local police and emergency is not staffed 24/7, why should a private business?

They should also mandate EAS alerts for severe weather...maybe even mandate continuious severe weather coverage when any county in a station's listening area is under a tornado warning...playing music, ads, or talking about anything else results in a huge $100,000+ fine.

That's more a decision of local agencies and authorities than federally mandated programs. During the hurricanes in Texas last summer, local emergency officials forced local radio stations to all sign off and evacuate their radio stations. They also didn't allow local radio operators to return to their stations until after they determined it was safe for residents. So the radio personnel was given no special authority by the local disaster officials.

 

[TheBigA]

I can't identify with Ryan Seacrest, and most listeners I've seen from various stations can't and have no interest in identifying with him.

The proper course of action is to see what the ratings say. That's how you evaluate a local air talent, and same with a national one. Until we have usable metrics on this show, let's all let him do his job, and see how he does against the competition.

 

[AnimatronicAbeLincoln]

Ryan is competent... safe... not a bad broadcaster but certainly not appointment listening.

Problem is, and I think this is what the OP was getting at, Ryan Seacrest doesn't give anybody a reason to think about how great radio is because they just heard this really hilarious or memorable break on the radio. He's just there. And, you put a guy who's just there on 300 stations (or however many) and it hurts all of radio.

Right now radio doesn't need things on it that are safe, radio needs things on it that are compelling or funny or interesting or else people will just forget all about radio. This is really the worst time ever for this guy to come along but if he hadn't come along they'd have found someone else safe.

Because decision makers don't want to take a chance or go out on a limb.

 

[amitherightcaller]

You have bean-counters running (ruining) radio today and those who don't want to take responsibility. Take for instance the many stations across the country paying thousands annually for music research - if that music format isn't successful, and fails, then management can point a finger and say: "They did it, not me"! Seems no one has the courage to take programming risks anymore and today's resulting product clearly speaks for itself!

 

[TheBigA]

Right now radio doesn't need things on it that are safe, radio needs things on it that are compelling or funny or interesting or else people will just forget all about radio.

It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience. The problem with all the anti-Ryan posts I read here is they're all focused around radio and what radio needs, and none of them deal with the fact (like it or not) that he is the ONLY radio personality who has direct access to the under-40 audience. No one else can do what he can do.

It's also not about owners, bean-counters, consultants, researchers, or anyone else. It's not about cutting salaries, saving money, or all the internal crap. It's all very simple: If the public likes it, it will succeed.

So once again, let's all hold our opinions until we see how he does in the ratings. The best does not always come in first. And when your income is based on advertising, best doesn't matter. Reaching the MOST is what matters. That is the basis of what radio does, and what mass media is all about. Don't make this more complicated than it has to be.

 

[whit979]

Right now radio doesn't need things on it that are safe, radio needs things on it that are compelling or funny or interesting or else people will just forget all about radio.

It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience. The problem with all the anti-Ryan posts I read here is they're all focused around radio and what radio needs, and none of them deal with the fact (like it or not) that he is the ONLY radio personality who has direct access to the under-40 audience. No one else can do what he can do.

It's also not about owners, bean-counters, consultants, researchers, or anyone else. It's not about cutting salaries, saving money, or all the internal crap. It's all very simple: If the public likes it, it will succeed.

So once again, let's all hold our opinions until we see how he does in the ratings. The best does not always come in first. And when your income is based on advertising, best doesn't matter. Reaching the MOST is what matters. That is the basis of what radio does, and what mass media is all about. Don't make this more complicated than it has to be.

Okay. No offense. You're entitled to your opinion and we can all respect that. But I have to tell you that I got a chuckle when I read this post.

Seacrest is not the only radio personality who has direct access to the sub-40 crowd. He's one of hundreds. Seacrest has name recognition and that's it. What he brings to the table is nothing different than what any other run-in-the-mill personality with connections can bring. Heck, Cindy and Ray do what Ryan Seacrest does...and they're local! And, again, Ryan Seacrest is on the air at Star 94 when his potential audience is busy DOING STUFF. His potential impact, whatever that might realistically be, is totally negated by his time slot.

It's not about owners and cost-cutting? Tell that to the thousands of former Clear Channel employees who are in the unemployment line this afternoon. The truth is, success with an audience takes a backseat to revenue when budgets are tight. I love shaving with the Gillette Fusion razor. It's my favorite razor. A pack of 4 blades costs around $14. As a result, I will probably start shaving with cheaper razors to save a little money. I'm sure there are plenty of others who have made changes in their own buying habits. So this fact about budgets vs. public success even applies in our own lives. And it most definitely applies to radio.

 

[franksandhotdogs]

Right now radio doesn't need things on it that are safe, radio needs things on it that are compelling or funny or interesting or else people will just forget all about radio.

It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience. The problem with all the anti-Ryan posts I read here is they're all focused around radio and what radio needs, and none of them deal with the fact (like it or not) that he is the ONLY radio personality who has direct access to the under-40 audience. No one else can do what he can do.

It's also not about owners, bean-counters, consultants, researchers, or anyone else. It's not about cutting salaries, saving money, or all the internal crap. It's all very simple: If the public likes it, it will succeed.

So once again, let's all hold our opinions until we see how he does in the ratings. The best does not always come in first. And when your income is based on advertising, best doesn't matter. Reaching the MOST is what matters. That is the basis of what radio does, and what mass media is all about. Don't make this more complicated than it has to be.

Okay. No offense. You're entitled to your opinion and we can all respect that. But I have to tell you that I got a chuckle when I read this post.

Seacrest is not the only radio personality who has direct access to the sub-40 crowd. He's one of hundreds. Seacrest has name recognition and that's it. What he brings to the table is nothing different than what any other run-in-the-mill personality with connections can bring. Heck, Cindy and Ray do what Ryan Seacrest does...and they're local! And, again, Ryan Seacrest is on the air at Star 94 when his potential audience is busy DOING STUFF. His potential impact, whatever that might realistically be, is totally negated by his time slot.

It's not about owners and cost-cutting? Tell that to the thousands of former Clear Channel employees who are in the unemployment line this afternoon. The truth is, success with an audience takes a backseat to revenue when budgets are tight. I love shaving with the Gillette Fusion razor. It's my favorite razor. A pack of 4 blades costs around $14. As a result, I will probably start shaving with cheaper razors to save a little money. I'm sure there are plenty of others who have made changes in their own buying habits. So this fact about budgets vs. public success even applies in our own lives. And it most definitely applies to radio.

Amen.

 

[AnimatronicAbeLincoln]

It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience.

Correct. If radio doesn't give people something compelling, interesting, funny, memorable, etc... there will be no audience. They'll be listening to mp3s with their winamp players on shuffle when they're in their cubicles at work and they'll be listening to their ipods in the car on the way home.

It's about what radio needs to do to in order for people to have a reason to turn it on. 'k?

 

[TheBigA]

Seacrest has name recognition and that's it.

EXTREMELY big name recognition. On TV's highest rated show, twice a week. How much money, in dollars, would you say that's worth in free publicity for your station? Maybe running local ads in Idol. Who else do you know who could deliver that?

Ryan Seacrest is on the air at Star 94 when his potential audience is busy DOING STUFF. His potential impact, whatever that might realistically be, is totally negated by his time slot.

So you're suggesting they fire Cindy & Ray and run him in their slot?

Look...here is programming 101: You don't run a radio station with one show. You put together lots of great personalities and talent. So Cindy & Ray do their thing in afternoons, Ryan does mid-days, and you're hard & local in mornings. What's wrong with that? That's how you build cume. And if I'm Cindy & Ray, I have Ryan as my opening act. I'd be pretty pleased with that.

It's not about owners and cost-cutting? Tell that to the thousands of former Clear Channel employees who are in the unemployment line this afternoon.

Not the point. Star is not a CC station. People are ranting about Ryan because they say it's all about cutting costs. They'd be right if he was just some slob in Odessa TX that the company decided to syndicate. But he's not, so let's focus on the facts: He is the best known name in his genre. Let's wait til we see a few ratings books before we pontificate that the public doesn't like him.

It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience.

Correct. If radio doesn't give people something compelling, interesting, funny, memorable, etc... there will be no audience.

Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be any of those things. It just has to be what they want, available at the time they want it, in the format they want. The rest is subjective.

Once again, let's wait for a few books, and see what he does, shall we?

 

[AnimatronicAbeLincoln]

Quote from: AnimatronicAbeLincoln on Yesterday at 06:33:52 pm
Quote
It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience.

Correct. If radio doesn't give people something compelling, interesting, funny, memorable, etc... there will be no audience.


Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be any of those things.

Yes it does.

 

[TheBigA]

Quote from: AnimatronicAbeLincoln on Yesterday at 06:33:52 pm
Quote
It's not about "what radio needs." It's about the audience.

Correct. If radio doesn't give people something compelling, interesting, funny, memorable, etc... there will be no audience.


Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be any of those things.

Yes it does.

If you watch what the audience does, you'll see that some might be attracted to your list. But some just as equally might not be. There is a chunk of audience that seems quite content with stuff that's none of the above on your list. They use the radio as background entertainment. And they get counted by PPM.

 

[AnimatronicAbeLincoln]

They use the radio as background entertainment. And they get counted by PPM.

OK - well, then why pay anyone to do anything? Why should we then not just let the automation run dead segues and go cold into spots?