Seacrest problem

[Roger That]

I don't really feel like quoting and responding, so I'll just lay out my responses here:

- You vastly over-generalize my stance on this. I'm not saying that Seacrest is the answer. I'm not saying live and local is the answer. I'm saying radio is failing...CHALLENGE EVERYTHING. Just because he's in a can doesn't mean he's not a better choice than what you have on the air right now. Prove me wrong. Get amazing ratings using your methods and then report back.

- You keep referring to the communication between the listener and the station. Please take some time and compare your cume to the amount of phone calls you get in a day. It is such a vastly small amount of people, that your focus should not solely be on satisfying just that group. Nor should you write off syndicated products just because people have a more difficult time "communicating" with them. The majority of your audience is too busy to call your radio station. Please keep that in mind.

- If you think Kannon does a great job on Sunday night, I rest my case. It's an ok show, but it's not revolutionary.

- That you think Kraddick's show hasn't evolved shows what your ears are focused on. You're focused on the "what" that he's doing, not the "how" that he's doing it. His show has evolved. He communicates to his audience differently, and it shows in both the quality of the show, and the ratings. And how many listeners of his 70 affiliates do you think call the show or need to get in touch with him to enjoy it?

- The teenager/Jonas Brothers quip was more exaggeration to prove my point. Look at the big picture of what I'm saying. PS...listened to a MAJOR, major market night show last night, and while I like the personality that's on then, the second I heard a teenager aired in a phone call, I died a little inside. The kid sounded 12. And if I'm a 24-28 year old female...hell...even an 18 year old female, how does the opinion of a 12 year old accurately communicate with me?

- Find some old airchecks from 20 or 30 years ago. Listen to them, and tell me how much different most radio stations are today.

- I really challenge you to listen to your radio stations with a critical ear. They're not doing what you think they're doing.

- You can take me seriously, or don't. Though the amount of times you use the word "dude" when referring to me might affect how it's reciprocated. C'mon...if we weren't all immature to a degree, would we be in radio?

 

[RonRoberts]

Well, give US ratings where replacing Seacrest has been an "overwhelming" ratings coup, then?

And you contradict yourself when you dismiss the communication between the listener and the station, then trumpet the "improvement" Kidd Kraddick's done in that regards. Besides, Kraddick is or has used Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, KiddNation, chat boards on his site, etc., to continually keep the lines of communication open between his show/staff and the listeners.

Seacrest, canned, replayed later in the day across the country, cannot provide the same instant access; it's impossible. Sure, he can have his site, his ClearChannel social platform, Myspace, Facebook... but there IS not back-and-forth while he's on the air.

You're right - radio IS showing signs of failure; but in my opnion, it has more to do with (in general) radio's distancing itself from its listener.

"Dude" i grew up listening to one of the greatest small-market CHRs of its era (1980s-1990s) and I know full well where radio has differed from then to now, but I also recall how well that station captivated the imagination of its audience not just with what it did on the air, but how well it reached out to the community at every turn.

The downward spiral of staffing at the local level means that's not as possible as it once were; that's indisputable.

And your one example of a major market night jock is just that - one example. Most PDs I've ever worked with will tell you there are only so many occasions where you'd be wise to air a very youthful-leaning phone call/conversation. If it is indeed entertaining, there's nothing wrong w/it. Bill Cosby had a nice run with a little show called "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" as I recall. Besides, it's a NIGHT show - the audience is overwhelmingly younger, anyhow, and to try and "change" radio to a degre where it deviates from what makes it work FOR that predominance of the audience wouldn't be wise. Again - they grow up to become 18-24, 25-34, etc. etc.

Challenge challenge challenge....grab some airchecks, listen to this, blah blah blah. You get answers to your charges ,and you go back to "dig up some ratings, listen to old airchecks," etc.

Jocks now don't sound corn-ball ballsy-voiced, fake, etc., as they did 20-30 years ago. Radio personalities and stations are capable of being FAR more interactive than they did 20-30 years ago. Radio uses the internet and has been BEGGING to be integrated into newer technologies (iPods, mp3 players, etc.) to remain in the hands of its consumer.

But you're right....they're not evolving....

 

[Roger That]

Well, give US ratings where replacing Seacrest has been an "overwhelming" ratings coup, then?

Again...I simply point out that this isn't about Seacrest. Yes, I know that this is a Seacrest thread, but my point is, how can you write it off simply because it's syndicated? If I'm to be accused of anything, it's having an open mind about the possibility that this may work. To write it off because it's simply not live and local hurts us.

Among radio's problems, is a complete departure from putting what someone may think is a compelling product on the air, and then marketing it. If you don't tell the audience it's there, it's not nearly as easy for them to recognize it exists, given how much of a utilitarian perception radio gets now. Believe me, if Seacrest, or Billy Bush, or XYZ program doesn't pan out in the ratings, I'll be the first to agree that it should go away. But left on its own to be found by the listener, it will take a while for real ratings (good or bad) to flesh themselves out. That said, there are examples (SF and DC come to mind) where the ratings improved instantly over the local variant that existed prior.

And you contradict yourself when you dismiss the communication between the listener and the station, then trumpet the "improvement" Kidd Kraddick's done in that regards. Besides, Kraddick is or has used Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, KiddNation, chat boards on his site, etc., to continually keep the lines of communication open between his show/staff and the listeners.

I didn't, actually, if you would simply read what I wrote, previously. They're two separate points: 1) Kidd has improved how HE communicates to his audience, irrespective of how they communicate with him. What I said was, he has improved his ability to reach his audience emotionally. He talks about things that matter to his audience, and does so in a compelling manner. And 2) I asked the question, "How many listeners, out of all the markets and affiliates he has, do you think actually have the time to call or write the show?" It is NOT the majority. So, regardless of how connected he is, in terms of how the audience can reach him, it's not the most important factor in his ability to have a compelling show.

Actually, it's three points. The third is that Kidd does mornings, period. They're two different animals. Once someone's day starts, they have even LESS time to dedicate to radio LISTENING, much less to radio interaction. The importance of people being able to call a radio station just isn't as important as it used to be.

Seacrest, canned, replayed later in the day across the country, cannot provide the same instant access; it's impossible. Sure, he can have his site, his ClearChannel social platform, Myspace, Facebook... but there IS not back-and-forth while he's on the air.

As I said...if you're going to compare Seacrest to Kraddick, we'll never get anywhere. Mornings vs any other daypart is irrelevant to this discussion.

FWIW, you air Seacrest at 10a on the East Coast, it's 7a on the West Coast. This means, if you call in to the show, you will be interacting while he's on the air. In addition, if the call doesn't fit the LA show, he cuts the phoner off the air there and mp3's it to your station for you to air on you own. You can learn all of this stuff through simple research and calling either A) guys who air the show, or B) Premiere. Again, I disclaim that it doesn't make the Seacrest show the end-all-be-all. Just making the point that just because it's "canned" doesn't mean that the (estimated, and likely exaggerated) 1% of your audience that wants to call your radio station or show isn't being served.

You're right - radio IS showing signs of failure; but in my opnion, it has more to do with (in general) radio's distancing itself from its listener.

Totally agree, but I bet we have different definitions of how we should be connected to them. My definition is relevant content, regardless of where it comes from. Things that don't just talk at our listener, but talk to them, in terms of subject matter. This means keeping an open mind about the delivery method. It doesn't always mean having a jock sitting in a studio to take requests.

"Dude" i grew up listening to one of the greatest small-market CHRs of its era (1980s-1990s) and I know full well where radio has differed from then to now, but I also recall how well that station captivated the imagination of its audience not just with what it did on the air, but how well it reached out to the community at every turn.

Actually, that missed my point entirely. I was suggesting that radio HASN'T changed much since that time. The audience has, though. They may have been more compelling in the delivery, but what they were talking about isn't largely different than what's talked about today. These include liners, contest teases full of mind-numbing details, and other irrelevant babble.

The downward spiral of staffing at the local level means that's not as possible as it once were; that's indisputable.

I agree that it makes it much harder, but this sounds like we should all just throw our hands in the air and give up. If you think it's bad now, just wait until round two of cuts comes. Picture this: Cumulus runs 330-some-odd radio stations. You think they have that many good programmers? Just wait until someone decides that instead of multiple stations run by the same person in one market, you have one country PD running multiple country stations in multiple markets. I have a feeling that's coming.

And your one example of a major market night jock is just that - one example. Most PDs I've ever worked with will tell you there are only so many occasions where you'd be wise to air a very youthful-leaning phone call/conversation. If it is indeed entertaining, there's nothing wrong w/it. Bill Cosby had a nice run with a little show called "Kids Say the Darnedest Things" as I recall. Besides, it's a NIGHT show - the audience is overwhelmingly younger, anyhow, and to try and "change" radio to a degre where it deviates from what makes it work FOR that predominance of the audience wouldn't be wise. Again - they grow up to become 18-24, 25-34, etc. etc.

A) Yes, there is a good reason to air some entertainingly young phone calls. The example I heard was not one of them.
B) As I've stated before, you can be relevant to your future 18-34's without airing them. In the meantime, the 18-34's you have currently are typically alienated by kids on a station, unless it's VERY compelling. I would argue that most of those calls are anything but that. Your target audience (not your future, may eventually be, target audience) only gives you a VERY limited time with them. Why would you waste it on a non-compelling product.

Challenge challenge challenge....grab some airchecks, listen to this, blah blah blah. You get answers to your charges ,and you go back to "dig up some ratings, listen to old airchecks," etc.

I don't remember ever saying to dig up some ratings. And listening to and old aircheck was mostly rhetorical. Regardless, you've hardly "answered my charges." Most of the time, you're arguing back points that aren't even ones I'm trying to make. Comparing mornings to middays, completely focusing on my exaggerated examples rather than the big picture of what I'm saying, etc.

Jocks now don't sound corn-ball ballsy-voiced, fake, etc., as they did 20-30 years ago.

Did you even read this back to see how silly that it sounds? Here's a test: Ask ANYONE under 30 to imitate a radio DJ. You're going to get the same pukey stereotype that is indicative of 30 years ago. Things have not changed as much as you think they have.

Radio personalities and stations are capable of being FAR more interactive than they did 20-30 years ago. Radio uses the internet and has been BEGGING to be integrated into newer technologies (iPods, mp3 players, etc.) to remain in the hands of its consumer.

But you're right....they're not evolving....

The thing I'm most disappointed in is the lack of talent cultivation over the years. Definitely blame Corporate America for that one. The only worse than the fact that there are a ton of cuts being made, is that the people that are left aren't nearly as good as they should be to have as much responsibility as they do. Meanwhile, there's no infrastructure to teach them or make them better, nor is there that for anyone trying to break into the business now. I think you could run things more efficiently, and with less people, but it needs to be the RIGHT people, and with no method to find or create those people, it's gonna get even uglier.

Integration into new technologies and interactivity are important, but there's still the matter of making the regular, physical product better. Having an iPhone app, Twitter feed, and Facebook page for your station doesn't do you much good if the content within isn't what your audience is looking for.

 

[CHRles]

The thing I'm most disappointed in is the lack of talent cultivation over the years. Definitely blame Corporate America for that one. The only worse than the fact that there are a ton of cuts being made, is that the people that are left aren't nearly as good as they should be to have as much responsibility as they do. Meanwhile, there's no infrastructure to teach them or make them better, nor is there that for anyone trying to break into the business now. I think you could run things more efficiently, and with less people, but it needs to be the RIGHT people, and with no method to find or create those people, it's gonna get even uglier.

I think we can all agree on that one

 

[RonRoberts]

Quote
Jocks now don't sound corn-ball ballsy-voiced, fake, etc., as they did 20-30 years ago.

Did you even read this back to see how silly that it sounds? Here's a test: Ask ANYONE under 30 to imitate a radio DJ. You're going to get the same pukey stereotype that is indicative of 30 years ago. Things have not changed as much as you think they have.

PRIME example came from an episode of "Family Guy" where two "wacky" radio morning DJs were featured (and mocked) for all their wacky, zany, sound effects, jingles and ballsy-voiced imaging.

Of COURSE it was mocking what radio WAS - not what 99.9% of radio stations sound like today, save for maybe those oldies stations that do that for heritage sake.

Folks may "mimick" something ingrained in their minds, but most of today's jocks don't have that over-hyped, yellish, wacky, canned voice on the air. C'mon... PLEASE.

 

[Roger That]

Folks may "mimick" something ingrained in their minds, but most of today's jocks don't have that over-hyped, yellish, wacky, canned voice on the air. C'mon... PLEASE.

How does someone who was not alive when this was so prevalent have it ingrained in their mind unless there is current precedent?

99.9%?? You have GOT to get out more.

Look...it may not be as obvious as it once was, but it still exists in a lot of places. But more importantly, the content hasn't improved, which may not make the stereotype accurate, but it's done nothing to dispute it. And it may not be as over-the-top, but jocks, in many instances, appear fake in the eyes of listeners. They're too busy being "rock stars" to really touch their audience. Are there examples where this is NOT the case? Of course! But it's not the majority.

 

[franksandhotdogs]

The thing I'm most disappointed in is the lack of talent cultivation over the years.  Definitely blame Corporate America for that one.  The only worse than the fact that there are a ton of cuts being made, is that the people that are left aren't nearly as good as they should be to have as much responsibility as they do.  Meanwhile, there's no infrastructure to teach them or make them better, nor is there that for anyone trying to break into the business now.  I think you could run things more efficiently, and with less people, but it needs to be the RIGHT people, and with no method to find or create those people, it's gonna get even uglier.

Agreed.  And I will also say that nobody has all the answers to all the problems in the world.

Speaking of OHP, Kannon has the better show these days, but Garabedian is good at interviewing.  It could use better call screeners, though.

PRIME example came from an episode of "Family Guy" where two "wacky" radio morning DJs were featured (and mocked) for all their wacky, zany, sound effects, jingles and ballsy-voiced imaging.

97.1 WQHG! 8)

 

[RonRoberts]

Folks may "mimick" something ingrained in their minds, but most of today's jocks don't have that over-hyped, yellish, wacky, canned voice on the air. C'mon... PLEASE.

How does someone who was not alive when this was so prevalent have it ingrained in their mind unless there is current precedent?

99.9%?? You have GOT to get out more.

Look...it may not be as obvious as it once was, but it still exists in a lot of places. But more importantly, the content hasn't improved, which may not make the stereotype accurate, but it's done nothing to dispute it. And it may not be as over-the-top, but jocks, in many instances, appear fake in the eyes of listeners. They're too busy being "rock stars" to really touch their audience. Are there examples where this is NOT the case? Of course! But it's not the majority.

1. Well, Seth McFarlane (creator of 'Family Guy') most certainly WAS alive long enough ago to remember over-the-top pukey DJs. And his little caricature of pukey-sounding, wakka-wakka goof-balll radio jocks now carries on in another generation (of those that watch his show, anyhow...) I'm 34, and I remember the balls-to-the-wall shock jocks of CHR/Pop from that era and before then, too. Guys like 'Wolfman Jack' were has-beens at that point, then, but I betcha most people knew who he was.

2. Listen, I was followed by a PD at my old station who was getting imaging and promotions ideas from a guy still stuck in that era; but this was a sub-200 market. You KNOW this old-school "1980s-era" shmuckery isn't all that prevalent. So over-dramatic...

3. We'll agree to disagree, then. I think we've both established that, but maybe you'll reply and ask for proof of such so you can have the last word. Have at it. I know this - I don't know ANY folks in the radio biz who see things the way you do. That don't make 'em right, or you wrong or vice-versa, but that's fairly easy to assess in every market I've worked in since dereg and the "wheel-and-spoke" approach took off within CC.