Sadly....Radio Is in Trouble

[Groove1670]

As I was driving home tonight. I am sad for the business I so much cared for.

As someone that has been out of the business and is on the outside, I feel that radio is in trouble. Kids have shifted to IPODS and MP3's. Listeners do not feel the excitement on the radio dial. I can't blame the corporate guys for cutting staff, why pay a high salary to read boring liner cards that say "The most music XXFM" or "Another 10 in a row up next on XXFM", There is a glut of stations on the market. One Big corporation has rolled back several of their "original" formats on their stations. That has dug them out of a trench in several markets especially for the older demos. Radio has become a high dollar game. The only problem the dollars are not catching up to the expenses, and the industry is in a panic.

A note to consultants and corporate programmers. "Rush" "Kraddick" & "Joyner" are okay, but it is not making your station the talk of the town. "Kiss", "Movin", "The Beat", or "Jack" is so well... boring do you think listeners really find this exciting.

In my area there are now three stations Alabama/Florida Line (93.3 Biloxi, 99.9 Mobile, 94.1 Pensacola) that carry Delilah. Three stations!!! What is wrong with this picture. Note to the FCC this is why market caps should not be raised ( I hope those who read this use this as an example).

I understand this is a business. Making a station your personal juke box is not going to work. Let's forget the music, we can argue that forever. Does the station you listen to excite you, or the listener. I don't think so.


Consultants here is a novel idea (Just one example). For the morning show why don't you turn loose a group of 19 to 21 year olds on your CHR to talk to the audience. If I was a programmer, that is what I would do. I think the biggest problem on radio is talent that could relate to the audience, and get them excited, and will keep them listening. Sorry, a syndicated show, or a 4 hour show VT'd in 20 minutes is not happening.

If you are laughing at this post, I urge you to print it, file it, and read it in 10 years. I hope I am wrong.

The clock is ticking......tick..tick..tick....

 

[SeanRuadh]

I remember the late '80s, the last time radio was in trouble. There were too many new move-in stations in the major markets, and license values were falling. The lenders wouldn't lend for radio license purchases.
That sure changed in the '90s, especially after '96.
Now we're told radio is dying. Again. I don't think that's quite right. If you saw the cash flow pecentage of billing for many of these station clusters, you'd see radio is very much alive.
The problem is not broadcasting, it's financing. Revenues aren't growing like they were in the '90s. The money-men and bean counters are in panic because they can't make their numbers. It doesn't mean the industry isn't working.
The effects of this panic are hurting efforts to develop new formats. It's a gamble: spend years building something that has no guarantee of success, or stick a low-cost flavor of the month format on a station and hope it hits big like it did in the market you stole it from. Moneymen go for the short term sure thing. Broadcasters apply the fundamentals to build something over time (if they have the time).
Slowly but surely, the speculators will leave the field. License costs will come down. Broadcasters will get back at the business of communication. You might even see what you described, teens being given a chance to communicate with their peers. It could work.
Or we could just turn off the transmitters, lock the studios, and go home.

 

[TomT]

Even more so. Yesterday several sources reported that the Commission will propose the following at the next Tuesday meeting. I suspect a deal has been cut to expand multiple ownership in exchange for a roll-back to these 1970 style rules; small owners to be sacrificed on the alter of commerce:

1. Require main studios to be manned 24/7;
2. Require periodic ascertainment surveys;
3. Require certain percentages of news and public affairs programming;
4. Perhaps an additional requirement for stations to report on how music is selected.

The stated reason is to increase "diversity." These political hacks on the Commission haven't a clue on how radio works, these rules insure less, not more diversity.

We own two FM's. One is a B-1 in a rated market dominated by two group owners. We own the only independent FM in this market of 15 stations. The other FM is a Class A in a county seat of 5,000; competing against two other FM's and an AM.

We can survive these rules, but for many small market operators the future under these rules is reduced to three bad alternatives:
A. Continue to run unattended, since any potential fine is less than the added cost of dead weight to watch the satellite;
B. Sell out to a group owner. But the group owners are selling their small market stations, and many groups are full up and can't add to their clusters (thought: that's what the kid (Martin) is selling--allow the clusters to grow and snap up these small stations on distress sale);
C. End overnights, cut back on expensive live programming, and add more canned crap to meet public affairs requirements.

The groups will be unaffected by these rule changes. They can hire someone to watch TV overnights and weekends while the Prophets confer in the back room on programming their six station clusters. They can hire an attractive EOE for minimum wage to go do ascertainment surveys for their 30 or 40 stations in a region (and spread the cost among all those stations). They can hire a geek to compile and post all the required reports on websites for the group. They can hire one news guy to do rip n' read for the local cluster--as well as export the newscast for other clusters in the same area. They can even generate their own PA programming (Meet Your Local Crook, err, Congressman) and set up an FTP site for all the group stations to download and replay.

The rest of us are scrooged.

 

[redneckriviera]

I remember the late '80s, the last time radio was in trouble. There were too many new move-in stations in the major markets, and license values were falling. The lenders wouldn't lend for radio license purchases.
That sure changed in the '90s, especially after '96.
Now we're told radio is dying. Again. I don't think that's quite right. If you saw the cash flow pecentage of billing for many of these station clusters, you'd see radio is very much alive.
The problem is not broadcasting, it's financing. Revenues aren't growing like they were in the '90s. The money-men and bean counters are in panic because they can't make their numbers. It doesn't mean the industry isn't working.
The effects of this panic are hurting efforts to develop new formats. It's a gamble: spend years building something that has no guarantee of success, or stick a low-cost flavor of the month format on a station and hope it hits big like it did in the market you stole it from. Moneymen go for the short term sure thing. Broadcasters apply the fundamentals to build something over time (if they have the time).
Slowly but surely, the speculators will leave the field. License costs will come down. Broadcasters will get back at the business of communication. You might even see what you described, teens being given a chance to communicate with their peers. It could work.
Or we could just turn off the transmitters, lock the studios, and go home.

You're right, it's not radio that's not working--it's the numbers.

Clear Channel (Lowry Mays & Tom Hicks) wrote the rules of the game a dozen years ago (+ another 8-10 years writing the legislation that enabled it), but they envisioned an exit strategy for 2007-ish. It's not going smoothly, but if they can shed the small markets and slip into private ownership flush with cash sometime in the next year or so they'll get to sit out the upcoming crash--triggered not by a revenue or cashflow crunch, but by a lender crisis.

But they really have screwed up the business. There is no denying that. And if Martin gets this latest bit of ass-kissing through the commission, we may all have to live with the shrapnel for another few decades. Hope that doesn't tank the industry. I don't think it will.

I would suggest to musiconradio that we non-CC types did some of the damage ourselves, by adopting many of the same operational strategies and applying them to our own independently-owned small market stations, like say around Orange Beach. Voicetracking, syndicated-or-network programming, human-free weekends have all contributed.

The notion of putting a few 19-21 year olds on the air does sound novel today--even though that's how most of us started in radio. But after ignoring everyone below the age of 25 for the past 30 years (name the last station you worked at that was targeted 12-24), I'm not sure we could find a pair that age who know how to work a radio...

 

[amfmxm]

Radio is going to be around for a long time.

Although large/public companies now own much of the large-market radio sector, the majority of American radio stations are NOT in large markets and are NOT owned by conglomerates.

The financiers among us will say that the large markets ARE the radio industry, because that's where most of the population and money are.

Those of us in non-metro America look around and see people... and money. We'll do okay. If "national business" disappears, that'll be okay, too--since we never got much of it anyway.

Younger listeners? Oh, some of them will go away for awhile til they get bored with their iPods. But sooner or later (probably sooner) a radio innovator will develop programming to bring them back. My 25-year old won't listen to anything on terrestrial/conventional radio... but thinks XM's indie XMU channel is VERY cool. If she could get it on "regular FM" she'd listen all the time. As they say, this ain't rocket surgery...

Frankly, it'll be nice to get rid of those guys. We've put up with them for more than a decade. They can go back to Wall Street for all we care. I don't think they'll miss us much, either.

But radio will be around for a long, long time.

 

[tomservo]

The notion of putting a few 19-21 year olds on the air does sound novel today--even though that's how most of us started in radio. But after ignoring everyone below the age of 25 for the past 30 years (name the last station you worked at that was targeted 12-24), I'm not sure we could find a pair that age who know how to work a radio...

Radio has done a poor job of cultivating talent, too. Those 19-21 year olds would later go on to be PDs, sometimes becoming the talent anchor for the rest of the station... Or at least going on to a bigger and hipper market with the skills needed to survive.

Even if there were 19-21 year olds who wanted to get on the air, who'd let them on? A decade ago I tried that and was told they only offered college intern positions to folks majoring in communications if they didn't have experience. (This was for CC in Birmingham.) I missed my opportunity to get into the comm building at university by registering late, and by the time the next semester rolled around, I'd soured on broadcasting. Why go to college and spends tens of thousands for a degree on a job that any high school graduate can do, as they did in the 60's? And why spend all that money on a job that pays minimum wage? The economic opportunity just isn't there anymore.

Maybe I'd have had better luck in a small town, but even a decade ago the small towns surrounding the magic city were often automated. The one one to blame for radio's current woes is radio itself.

 

[dbdigital]

The notion of putting a few 19-21 year olds on the air does sound novel today--even though that's how most of us started in radio. But after ignoring everyone below the age of 25 for the past 30 years (name the last station you worked at that was targeted 12-24), I'm not sure we could find a pair that age who know how to work a radio...

Radio has done a poor job of cultivating talent, too. Those 19-21 year olds would later go on to be PDs, sometimes becoming the talent anchor for the rest of the station... Or at least going on to a bigger and hipper market with the skills needed to survive.

Even if there were 19-21 year olds who wanted to get on the air, who'd let them on? A decade ago I tried that and was told they only offered college intern positions to folks majoring in communications if they didn't have experience. (This was for CC in Birmingham.) I missed my opportunity to get into the comm building at university by registering late, and by the time the next semester rolled around, I'd soured on broadcasting. Why go to college and spends tens of thousands for a degree on a job that any high school graduate can do, as they did in the 60's? And why spend all that money on a job that pays minimum wage? The economic opportunity just isn't there anymore.

Maybe I'd have had better luck in a small town, but even a decade ago the small towns surrounding the magic city were often automated. The one one to blame for radio's current woes is radio itself.

This is all very true. So where will future air talent come from? Everyone I know who works in radio was inspired by radio; "jock heroes" like Robert W. Morgan or Wolfman Jack whom they listened to, loved and even imitated. But if the majority of young people aren't listening to radio, where is the inspiration?

Salary is certainly an issue to be sure. But radio is like any other job in the arts, you either make it big, like a Ryan Seacrest, or you make almost nothing (unless you're in sales and in a large market).

Many feel internet radio is the future. Perhaps. We'll see if it will either strengthen radio or dilute it. But it may be that the internet can lure young talent to radio and thereby preserve its future.

db

 

[amfmsw]

AMFM Jr,

I have said radio will come around to the youth, or youth to the radio as well. I've said on these boards that thee youth will tire of their seperation from humanity with their private electronics. I've said the isolation will bore them, and the radio will always be there with a warm human contact. I now believe I was wrong, Jerry DelCaliano seems more right everyday. Corporate Co-pirates have raped the industry and the communities they "serve". FCC policy has been bought and paid for, and is now a hollow soul. Consultants have consulted the industry out of the next generation of radios users by not listening to our needs. I have heard my own children's complaints, I explain why we do things they way we do and why. They totally reject the big CC model. It would take an intense, LOCALIZED 2008 version of 77 WABC Top 40 Personality-style Radio to even get them to TRY radio again...something they CANNOT get on an Ipod. NO VOICE TRACKING. No Radio Corp will take up the challenge. Heck, today's youth don't even want to work on the air!

I now sadly believe the industry may die and collapse with the boomers. I now see the same fate for radio the has beset the Record Label and recording industry. Major artists are not renewing their contracts with major labels and are selling direct on the net with downloads. The sell 1/3 as many copies, but make twice as much money.

While a snake boa-constrictor is squeezing every last penny of profit, it has also squeezed the life out of it. To cut the head of the snake, we must reinstate ownership limits in each market. 3 AM-2 FM-2 TV is plenty to worry about and program with quality, and MAN THE BUILDING 24/7.

I believe LPFM, and hopefully someday LPAM, will bring the youth back our industry.

 

[dbdigital]

AMFM Jr,

I have said radio will come around to the youth, or youth to the radio as well. I've said on these boards that thee youth will tire of their seperation from humanity with their private electronics. I've said the isolation will bore them, and the radio will always be there with a warm human contact.

Well, as Jerry has often noted, young people are not isolated from themselves. Just the opposite. They text message, Facebook, cellphone and file share among each other all the time. They are very social within their own group. The problem with radio is that it is a passive medium (the Mark Ramsey complaint), and it's mostly owned and programmed by middle-aged white men.

So therein lies the problem with radio and a young audience: no listener engagement, no trust (a generation gap, if you will).

The idea of letting 20-somethings program a station or a daily show is not a bad one. Maybe aircheck some college radio and see what the students are up to.

db

 

[Groove1670]

I wonder if LPFM will shake things up. If it does that would be great. I think it will take a new group of people with fresh ideas ( heck they might even create a new format).

Kinda funny that certain groups oppose the expansion of LPFM. The third channel argument is bogus. How many stations are now Class A or 80-90 stations are "shoehorned" on the dial. Yes you can draw contour lines on a map and say there is no interference, but there is. A Little 100 Watt station on a third adjacent is not gonna make that much difference.

But....It will take listeners away....And since revenue and salaries are shrinking....I think many people would like to work for a community FM, especially one with fresh programming, local content, and without the fear of "Today is Friday, I've got great ratings, but it might be my last day". Being fired use to mean low ratings, station sold, new format. Now it's "we gotta make that budget".


Lets hope LPFM rules will allow one station owner to a market, and sponsorship advertising rules will be relaxed.

Lets hope a LPFM station somewhere will have a concept so great that it will make a corporate broadcaster shake a little in their shoes.

 

[tomservo]

Of course the two big issues with LPFM in my eyes: coverage and paying for good talent...

 

[redneckriviera]

I do think LPFM has the potential to bring radio back into the communications process--that is, talking with people instead of talking at them. In thousands of small towns whose radio stations were "moved-in" (away) years ago, it could mean a return of the medium to its once treasured position as a Community Resource.

Money is a problem. The NAB managed to lobby the FCC hard enough to keep commercial competitors out of LPFM's first cycle--the churches got most licenses. We had one nearby that basically used it to preach and play the pastor's favorite tunes until the money ran out; then it disappeared.

Then the FCC tossed the frequency into the latest auction & the winning bid went to a big regional group operator--so it will re-emerge in a few months as the market's second automated/networked rocker. Not one single new job. And the channel is gone for LPFM use.

Money? Yeah, you've got to have cash to get started--realistically around $100 grand, at least. Then, once you spend that on equipment ("capitalization") you've got to generate money for continuing operation. Since the NAB/FCC put the screws to selling commercials, you've got to sell underwriting (commercials by another name) & build a "membership" organization--you know, Listener Supported--a la public radio. Not impossible, but not a walk in the park, either. But with the limited coverage inherent in LPFM, that's all got to come from within a few miles of the stick.

And you've gotta do all this in your spare time, since you won't be able to actually quit your real job in order to do this.

So, yeah, money is a big problem with LPFM. Being independently wealthy is a big help!

 

[FredRichards]

Of course the two big issues with LPFM in my eyes: coverage and paying for good talent...

I don't know that talent is THAT important, as long as you give the public the things that they want and desire. The LPFMs that offer something are doing well. The LPFMs that are basically automated jukeboxes don't get any attention, and I'm not sure talent would help them.

 

[MACK184]

Radio is going to be around for a long time.

Although large/public companies now own much of the large-market radio sector, the majority of American radio stations are NOT in large markets and are NOT owned by conglomerates.

The financiers among us will say that the large markets ARE the radio industry, because that's where most of the population and money are.

Those of us in non-metro America look around and see people... and money. We'll do okay. If "national business" disappears, that'll be okay, too--since we never got much of it anyway.

Younger listeners? Oh, some of them will go away for awhile til they get bored with their iPods. But sooner or later (probably sooner) a radio innovator will develop programming to bring them back. My 25-year old won't listen to anything on terrestrial/conventional radio... but thinks XM's indie XMU channel is VERY cool. If she could get it on "regular FM" she'd listen all the time. As they say, this ain't rocket surgery...

Frankly, it'll be nice to get rid of those guys. We've put up with them for more than a decade. They can go back to Wall Street for all we care. I don't think they'll miss us much, either.

But radio will be around for a long, long time.

I started in radio in the early 70's in Bozeman Montana at KXXL. As for your statement that small market stations are not in the hands of conglomerates, I beg to differ. That station that I started at, that's in an unrated market is now running on a box in a closet with a collection of other stations, all owned by Clear Channel. There are plenty of small market stations that are in the hands of Cheap Channel, Citadel, Entercom, Cumulus and others. Radio is in trouble because of one thing. These new "owners" are not broadcasters, they are real estate investors. They are no different than people who buy homes to "flip" them. They have no interest in taking a long view, virtually all their stratagies are short term. Until these companies get away from the short view and quick profits and turnover, radio will continue to suffer.

 

[amfmxm]

Radio is going to be around for a long time.

Although large/public companies now own much of the large-market radio sector, the majority of American radio stations are NOT in large markets and are NOT owned by conglomerates.

The financiers among us will say that the large markets ARE the radio industry, because that's where most of the population and money are.

Those of us in non-metro America look around and see people... and money. We'll do okay. If "national business" disappears, that'll be okay, too--since we never got much of it anyway.

Younger listeners? Oh, some of them will go away for awhile til they get bored with their iPods. But sooner or later (probably sooner) a radio innovator will develop programming to bring them back. My 25-year old won't listen to anything on terrestrial/conventional radio... but thinks XM's indie XMU channel is VERY cool. If she could get it on "regular FM" she'd listen all the time. As they say, this ain't rocket surgery...

Frankly, it'll be nice to get rid of those guys. We've put up with them for more than a decade. They can go back to Wall Street for all we care. I don't think they'll miss us much, either.

But radio will be around for a long, long time.

I started in radio in the early 70's in Bozeman Montana at KXXL. As for your statement that small market stations are not in the hands of conglomerates, I beg to differ. That station that I started at, that's in an unrated market is now running on a box in a closet with a collection of other stations, all owned by Clear Channel. There are plenty of small market stations that are in the hands of Cheap Channel, Citadel, Entercom, Cumulus and others. Radio is in trouble because of one thing. These new "owners" are not broadcasters, they are real estate investors. They are no different than people who buy homes to "flip" them. They have no interest in taking a long view, virtually all their stratagies are short term. Until these companies get away from the short view and quick profits and turnover, radio will continue to suffer.

You're right on many counts. Radio became a real estate game when the FCC relaxed the rules on "traffiking" stations about 30 years ago, and "flipping" reached epidemic proportions during the mass Clear Channel-Capstar acquisition scam in the late nineties. (An aside: Back around 1994 I saw a guy buy an AM-FM for $4 million one morning, then sell the AM by itself for $4 million after lunch, and head for Happy Hour with an absolutely free 100,000 watt large-market FM).

For what it's worth, Bozeman (and Great Falls?) are exceptions--like the dozens of small-town stations in Ohio gobbled up during Randy Michaels' buying frenzy on the way to the Mays checkbook. Remember, Clear Channel has been trying to get rid of most (750-plus???) of those 1,200 radio stations for the past year or so--nearly all of them in small markets. But even at consolidation's height, the CC/Cumulus/Citadel/Entercom property count in non-rated markets was in the dozens--leaving the other 5,000+ for smaller players. Are some of those "smaller players" actually pretty big? Yeah--but there really aren't that many of them.

In sheer revenue share, radio is an extremely consolidated industry. In sheer station count, radio is not very consolidated, at all.

 

[SaltyDog]

The subject line: "Sadly....Radio Is in Trouble" makes me sad. What's sad is that there are so many people pining for "the good old days" instead of being forward thinking. There are people who want to use the FCC to try and take us back to those days. Well, they're gone and they aren't coming back. Like all recollections of "The Good Ol' Days" they become better over time the more they fade into history. Boy, it must have been great to have horses before all these damn cars came along and screwed everything up... never mind the horrible smell from the horses taking a dump...

Time marches on not just for radio but for everyone, not even just media. But keeping the discussion within the media world, look at newspapers, look at TV. Changes are driven by technology not greedy corporations. Any attempt to restore "The Good Ol' Days" by the imposition of ownership caps from the past would cause more pain with no benefit.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Yes, there's trouble here

Any attempt to restore "The Good Ol' Days" by the imposition of ownership caps from the past would cause more pain with no benefit.

Tell that to the hundreds - yes hundreds - that CC has whacked in the last few months. Tell that to the towns that don't have a live body overseeing multiple stations under a single ownership when an overnight emergency happens. Tell that to an entire generation that sees radio as "an MP3 player with commercials" instead of a source for new music, entertainment, and information.

You've been told by "corporate" that companies like Clear Channel "saved" radio so many times that you now believe it. That's a prime example of "the Big Lie". Even Clear Channel doesn't believe it anymore, which is why they're getting out of markets outside the Top 50 - and losing their shirt in some cases in the process. If you don't believe that, check out the "Syracuse/Utica" board.

 

[firepoint525]

To some extent, I agree with what Salty Dog is saying. No one is arguing for soap operas on the radio (they have moved on to TV), or live big band orchestras over the air. I think what most people here are arguing against is the "slippery slope" that we presently find ourselves sliding down. Technology need not be our enemy. It can, in fact, make our lives (and our jobs) better and easier. We should embrace technology when it does that (and more) for us. But when it is used as a tool to screw people out of their jobs, then maybe that is taking it just a little too far. Technological changes certainly made my last radio job easier, and I am only discussing changes that were made over the last 10 years, because that is how long I was there.

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: Yes, there's trouble here

Tell that to the hundreds - yes hundreds - that CC has whacked in the last few months.

Sympathy, which I have in abundance, does not change the truth. The government is incapable of restoring radio jobs and saving you from the creative destruction that works in radio the same as it does in other businesses.

You've been told by "corporate" that companies like Clear Channel "saved" radio so many times that you now believe it. That's a prime example of "the Big Lie".

Oh, now you're just striking out at me asking me to defend sentiments I never expressed. Just because I don't blame Clear Channel for the changes roiling the media world doesn't mean I admire the company.

Forgive me for refusing to wallow in bitterness and instead make the best of the reality that is.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Dog, you're the one that said:

the imposition of ownership caps from the past would cause more pain with no benefit

I simply disagree. It has been amply demonstrated that the "economies of scale", "regional synergies", attempts to create virtual monopolies in local broadcasting, and all the other ideas that Clear Channel (and others) rolled out to try an justify their overspending on radio stations have failed miserably.

Competition bred better radio, and ownership caps would breed more competition. The "reality" is that radio is losing its identity as an entertainment and information medium, and losing the next generation of listeners because of it.