Ryan Seacrest

[romer979fm]

let's see if I have this right:

Seacrest starts in Atlanta...a major market.
moves west, and does drive-time in SF and LA...including mornings at KIIS.
has multiple national TV gigs.
has a syndicated national radio gig.

yep...you guys are right...sound like a no-talent loser to me...and this has
been handed to him for no reason. he's so much less-talented than...let's say...YOU?

if he could just develop a work ethic, he might be as successful as the jealous critics here.


and for the record: don't know him...never met him...never talked to him.

 

[airpab]

Anyone that can honestly say he is not talented is just ridiculous? America is so funny that way. We love to build up a star, see him/her get to the top and then we get jealous and yearn to see em fall! Amazing!

A huge part of becoming a star and well-known is luck, putting yourself in position to be lucky and then having the talent to bring it when you do get the chances! He's done that and more!

Seacrest is as about as talented as they come in the DJ/Host/Emcee/Spokesman category. He's affable, smart, quick on his feet, very smooth, and likeable....which is why he is everywhere and then some!

 

[blowmonkey105]

Just over-exposed! Kinda like Peyton Manning was after he won the Superbowl. You couldn't turn on the TV with seeing him. Same thing with Seacrest. He'll wear out his welcome sooner than later.

 

[radiosaur]

let's see if I have this right:

Seacrest starts in Atlanta...a major market.
moves west, and does drive-time in SF and LA...including mornings at KIIS.
has multiple national TV gigs.
has a syndicated national radio gig.

yep...you guys are right...sound like a no-talent loser to me...and this has
been handed to him for no reason. he's so much less-talented than...let's say...YOU?

if he could just develop a work ethic, he might be as successful as the jealous critics here.


and for the record: don't know him...never met him...never talked to him.

No, you didn’t get it right.


Seacrest is a huge success. Granted.

Seacrest is a master in today's media world: Granted

Seacrest is a very smart businessman. Granted.

Seacrest could have made it just as big in a non-internet, non-TV world doing a bit-driven, personality-oriented radio show ala Dees:

No way.

 

[radio_gal1]

All of you people who are saying that he is not talented are just hating on him.

He is great at what he does and he does his job very professionally.
He wasn't "at the right place at the right time"... he has worked his was up and has earned his positions.

Yes, he may get annoying at times because he is eveywhere... BUT that doesn't give a reason to say he isn't talented.

 

[Bob_Hudson]

Seacrest could have made it just as big in a non-internet, non-TV world doing a bit-driven, personality-oriented radio show ala Dees:

No way.

I'm not a fan of Seacrest but he has done what Dees could never do: move "beyond" local radio and become a truly national celebrity (The Rick Dees' Weekly Top 40 is not even in the same league as dong American Idol and being Dick Clark's annointed heir). Dees did that "Into the Night with Rick Dees" show on which he lasted two episodes (a show that prompted one IMBD poster to write, "Watching Rick Dees, a west coast DJ, do things on TV was like having a forklift push your eyeballs into the back of your head.") It's not that he didn't want to do more: I was at KHJ when Dees was there in 79 and 80 and he was rushing all over Hollywood looking for TV deals of any sort and he certainly tried several things, none of which stuck, because, well, he just didn't have the talent for it. Seacrest makes it look easy to do what he does on TV and some people confuse that with having no talent. It's like Dick Clark: he doesn't sing, he doesn't dance, he doesn't tell jokes, he doesn't act - so what's his talent?

Yes, Rick was better than Ryan at doing shtick on morning radio, but that was all he did, but even that is gone judging by his most recent stab at radio.

Rick was very, very successful as the KIIS morning radio host (and seems to have invested his earnings wisely), no question about that, but I'm afraid Seacrest has the potential to be one of those people like Dick Clark, Bob Barker, Ed McMahon and other host/announcers whose star continues burning bright well into old age.

 

[bigtime]

Talent is in the ear of beholder. If what Ryan S. does works for people, that means he has it. Overexposure is a risk he's willing to take. I'm just glad Howard Stern has left over the air radio and now has his small pay-per-listen audience. Stern was way over exposed and had limited popularity in most of the country. He's an east coast thing. Ryan S. is vanilla enough to be a national thing.

 

[TheTominator]

Anyone in the radio biz would love to have the problems Seacrest is having. If I was in his position I would take all the opportunities that came my way too. The last thing anyone should do is complain. That reaks of sour grapes...

just my 2 cents....

 

[ocer]

Regardless of Seacrest's talent what stations all over the country need is good local talent. I know I'm dreaming but the more syndication there is the less people will be excited about radio and the more people will turn to other forms of entertainment. There's plenty of research to show that it's already happening as I'm sure everyone here is well aware. I know of a few stations that have been successful with talent that is locally focused and anyone who does that these days won't have much trouble beating the competition as there is less local talent everywhere. Unfortunately the big players are thinking much more about short term cash than long term success.

 

[bigtime]

Radio has always been about making money, but it was a little more art and a little less business when it was private and not so heavily controlled by Wall street. Technology hasn't really helped either. 15 years ago almost every station was live 24/7.

 

[davideduardo]

Regardless of Seacrest's talent what stations all over the country need is good local talent.

When I see a local late-nite TV show beat Leno, I will agree. Otherwise, the most entertaining show wins.

I know I'm dreaming but the more syndication there is the less people will be excited about radio and the more people will turn to other forms of entertainment.

No, the more good content there is the more exciting radio will be. Do you think the Howard stern listeners cared where his studio was?

There's plenty of research to show that it's already happening as I'm sure everyone here is well aware.

I know of no research that shows listeners tune out of syndication if it is good because it is not locally originated. I see plenty of Arbitron data that shows the exact opposite.

I know of a few stations that have been successful with talent that is locally focused and anyone who does that these days won't have much trouble beating the competition as there is less local talent everywhere.

For most listeners, "local" is not what drives them. Nobody says, "heard any local shows lately?" but they would say, "heard any good shows lately?"

Unfortunately the big players are thinking much more about short term cash than long term success.

No, we are thinking about entertaining listeners... as many as possible. Syndicated morning shows often cost more than a local show would. But they get numbers.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio has always been about making money, but it was a little more art and a little less business when it was private and not so heavily controlled by Wall street. Technology hasn't really helped either. 15 years ago almost every station was live 24/7.

In the 70's, it is likely that a higher percentage of stations was "voice tracked" all day than at any other point in the history of radio. And in the 80''s, we had a huge percentage of satellite delivered stations, too.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

In the 70's, it is likely that a higher percentage of stations was "voice tracked" all day than at any other point in the history of radio. And in the 80''s, we had a huge percentage of satellite delivered stations, too.

You've made this claim before, I just did not hear those stations. Of course, I grew up in Central NJ where I heard both NYC and Philadelphia radio in the 70s. Maybe they "voice-tracked" then in the sticks, but I seriously doubt they did that in any big city like Philly and The Big Apple.

 

[davideduardo]

You've made this claim before, I just did not hear those stations. Of course, I grew up in Central NJ where I heard both NYC and Philadelphia radio in the 70s. Maybe they "voice-tracked" then in the sticks, but I seriously doubt they did that in any big city like Philly and The Big Apple.

A "claim" is something subject to confirmation. Here it is.

Fact: Shulke, Bonneville, Drake-Chennault, TM, Peters, IGM, KalaMusic, RPM, FM 100 Plan, Churchill, Música en Flor, and others did tape-distributed formats that, save a very few markets where there were live announcers, were 100% voice tracked. We are talking about, perhaps, 60% of all FMs at one time... including some in Top 20 markets and nearly all of the ones outside the bigger markets.

Even suburban stations in the NY and Philly metros did this. The exceptions in the biggest markets made the rule true.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Maybe the suburban stations did this but as I recall I don't think the NYC FM stations (or AM) did this. Soooo David, you may be correct but am I also correct as well regarding NYC radio stations like WABC, WPIX, WNBC, WNEW-FM, WPLJ, WXLO (WRKS) and WKTU (Disco 92) and Philadelphia stations like WFIL, WIBG (later WZZD), WMMR, etc?

BTW since it was before the digital age, how DID they put the voice tracking together?? DJ recorded his announcements, engineer spliced it in with music and all was taped, or did an engineer play the music off a cart or turntable with the DJ's voice taped? Sounds clunky.

 

[Bob_Hudson]

You've made this claim before, I just did not hear those stations. Of course, I grew up in Central NJ where I heard both NYC and Philadelphia radio in the 70s. Maybe they "voice-tracked" then in the sticks, but I seriously doubt they did that in any big city like Philly and The Big Apple.

A "claim" is something subject to confirmation. Here it is.

Fact: Shulke, Bonneville, Drake-Chennault, TM, Peters, IGM, KalaMusic, RPM, FM 100 Plan, Churchill, Música en Flor, and others did tape-distributed formats that, save a very few markets where there were live announcers, were 100% voice tracked. We are talking about, perhaps, 60% of all FMs at one time... including some in Top 20 markets and nearly all of the ones outside the bigger markets.

Even suburban stations in the NY and Philly metros did this. The exceptions in the biggest markets made the rule true.

Anyone who worked at an AM-FM combo in the early 70's at least, probably learned how to change the tapes on the automated FM operating from a large closet. You had reels of music, sometimes carousel cart machines for spots and announcements and an electro-mechanical system for programming it.

 

[ocer]

Regardless of Seacrest's talent what stations all over the country need is good local talent.

When I see a local late-nite TV show beat Leno, I will agree. Otherwise, the most entertaining show wins.

This is true. However, would or has anyone shelled out the cash to do a local show late night TV talk show?

I know I'm dreaming but the more syndication there is the less people will be excited about radio and the more people will turn to other forms of entertainment.

No, the more good content there is the more exciting radio will be. Do you think the Howard stern listeners cared where his studio was? [/quote]

You're right but I'm not thinking that way. I'm thinking that local personalities can talk about things more relevant to a local community then a national personality ever could. You don't hear Howard Sten talking about what's going on in Santa Monica this weekend (unless it's really big news).

I know of a few stations that have been successful with talent that is locally focused and anyone who does that these days won't have much trouble beating the competition as there is less local talent everywhere.

For most listeners, "local" is not what drives them. Nobody says, "heard any local shows lately?" but they would say, "heard any good shows lately?" [/quote]

People don't analyze what they're listening too. I don't have the numbers but it seems like Kevin and Bean would do better than Howard Stern in LA. Local personalities can customize themselves to a market better than any national personality could.

Unfortunately the big players are thinking much more about short term cash than long term success.

No, we are thinking about entertaining listeners... as many as possible. Syndicated morning shows often cost more than a local show would. But they get numbers.
[/quote]

That surprises me but I guess you would know better because I don't work in the industry. One station that is probably the best example of what I am thinking of is KSTP-FM/Minneapolis. They're a Hot AC that is live and local 24/7 and emphasises it. Granted other stations have local tallent too but KSTP makes their local talent very engaged and present on air with local topics and local callers. Their afternoon show talks quite a bit like most morning shows and it's also darn strong in the ratings (#1 women 25-54). Overall the station is #2 women 25-54 and they've recently tied the local CHR in 12+. Sure you could argue that the market is pretty white, but is there really another Hot AC doing this well? I don't have all the numbers but I suspect not. At least part of their success has to be due to the emphasis on local talent that is very present on air.

You make good points about national talent, but local talent serves in ways national talent can't. National talent has it's place but it's not necessarily a winner in each case. Local talent can talk about national topics but national talent can't talk about local topics.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Minneapolis has always been more of a local personality market. Case in point, they tried Howard Stern and it failed miserably against KQRS. Rush & Hannity aren't exactly burning up in the ratings as well. KSTP-Am even dropped Rush.

 

[davideduardo]

When I see a local late-nite TV show beat Leno, I will agree. Otherwise, the most entertaining show wins.

This is true. However, would or has anyone shelled out the cash to do a local show late night TV talk show?

Back in the Steve Allen and Jack Parr and Carson era, it was tried with an amazing lack of succress.

No, the more good content there is the more exciting radio will be. Do you think the Howard stern listeners cared where his studio was?

You're right but I'm not thinking that way. I'm thinking that local personalities can talk about things more relevant to a local community then a national personality ever could. You don't hear Howard Sten talking about what's going on in Santa Monica this weekend (unless it's really big news).

Most listeners don't really care if the personality is near or far. They car if the content is entertaining. A mention of a local place is not entertaining.

[/quote]
For most listeners, "local" is not what drives them. Nobody says, "heard any local shows lately?" but they would say, "heard any good shows lately?"

People don't analyze what they're listening too. I don't have the numbers but it seems like Kevin and Bean would do better than Howard Stern in LA. Local personalities can customize themselves to a market better than any national personality could. [/quote]

The point is that for most content, localization is not an important part of entertainment programming. Being entertaining is.

[/quote]
No, we are thinking about entertaining listeners... as many as possible. Syndicated morning shows often cost more than a local show would. But they get numbers.

Sure you could argue that the market is pretty white, but is there really another Hot AC doing this well? I don't have all the numbers but I suspect not. At least part of their success has to be due to the emphasis on local talent that is very present on air. [/quote]

Just identifying one format does not clinch it. The entire competitive array determines how the various stations can fare or their potential. There are lots of non-gold-based AC stations that do very well. Keep in mind, too, that Mppls. is a famous under-radioed market.

You make good points about national talent, but local talent serves in ways national talent can't. National talent has it's place but it's not necessarily a winner in each case. Local talent can talk about national topics but national talent can't talk about local topics.

In most markets outside the top 10 to 20 markets, there is not enough to talk about locally to sustain a format that uses localism as its hook. Most successful local shows are really only minimally localized. The are simply just good shows that have not had an opportunity to go national... or are not good enough.

And, yes, Stern beat Mark and Brian and every other local morning show in English in LA. And the #1 show in mornings in LA... is networked to another 45 markets.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Maybe the suburban stations did this but as I recall I don't think the NYC FM stations (or AM) did this. Soooo David, you may be correct but am I also correct as well regarding NYC radio stations like WABC, WPIX, WNBC, WNEW-FM, WPLJ, WXLO (WRKS) and WKTU (Disco 92) and Philadelphia stations like WFIL, WIBG (later WZZD), WMMR, etc?

David is actually correct. The stations you cited were indeed live 24/7 but other NYC stations in the 70's like WTFM (103.5), WRFM (105.1), WVNJ (100.3), WPAT (93.1),WQXR (96.1) and WNBC_FM/WYNY (97.1) all were voicetracked/automated at various points each day. The same is true for the 70's incarnations of Philly's WCAU-FM (98.1), WPPZ (103.9), WDVR (101.1), WFLN (95.7) and WPEN-FM (102.9).