Shocking News

[uppendowndadial]

A study by the FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION claims that the radio industry has experienced layoffs and lower wage growth in most U.S. cities, and blames the situation on ownership concentration. The study attempts to draw a causal relationship between concentration- the combined market share of the top four radio companies- and greater job loss and smaller wage growth, noting that consolidation and centralization of operations since 1996 has led to cutting local jobs and increased use of voice tracking.

"Consolidation in radio ownership hasn't just homogenized music formats," said Exec. Dir. JENNY TOOMEY. "It has devastated the broadcast profession and virtually eliminated the ability of radio stations to provide unique coverage of local news, music and community issues. Before the FCC moves forward to further loosen already weak ownership limits, it should understand the impact that deregulation has had on jobs and communities."

--GEEZ LOUISE! Did they PAY to find that out?!?!?!?

 

[dbdigital]

A study by the FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION claims that the radio industry has experienced layoffs and lower wage growth in most U.S. cities, and blames the situation on ownership concentration. The study attempts to draw a causal relationship between concentration- the combined market share of the top four radio companies- and greater job loss and smaller wage growth, noting that consolidation and centralization of operations since 1996 has led to cutting local jobs and increased use of voice tracking.

"Consolidation in radio ownership hasn't just homogenized music formats," said Exec. Dir. JENNY TOOMEY. "It has devastated the broadcast profession and virtually eliminated the ability of radio stations to provide unique coverage of local news, music and community issues. Before the FCC moves forward to further loosen already weak ownership limits, it should understand the impact that deregulation has had on jobs and communities."

--GEEZ LOUISE! Did they PAY to find that out?!?!?!?

True, but it's nice to have it confirmed and articulated by an "expert" source. If nothing else, we can use that study when filing comments to the FCC on this issue.

db

 

[davideduardo]

True, but it's nice to have it confirmed and articulated by an "expert" source. If nothing else, we can use that study when filing comments to the FCC on this issue.
[/quote]

The study is seriously flawed. Here are a couple of examples...

The study fails to recognize that "voice tracking" is a new term for an old practice. A higher percentage of US stations were voice tracked int he 70's than today, but we did not use that name.

Voice tracking was considered an advantage of consolidation, and widely implemented post-1966. In the last few years, there has been a considerable reduction in voice tracking, which some companies not using it at all.

Diversity of formats has never been higher. In the 70's and 80's, when 7/7/7 was the cap, every owner wanted one of the big formats, so we had 3 or 4 CHRs, for example. Today, we have few fomrats that aree on more than two local channels, and many formats not commonly used int he 70's and 89's doing very well.

What we have is a recognition that listeners want far less new music and more familiar music. This is what the coalition does not want to say... that new songs by new artists are not being heard because in most formats they are tune-outs. With more stations in more formats, tune outs are far more critical today, so we are more aware than ever of how little the average listener really wants to hear unfamiliar music.

 

[dx7]

Did you just say there was more voice tracking in the 70's than today?

With all due respect, David, please explain and verify your comment.

I worked at radio stations in markets large and small throughout the 70's and don't recall ANY voice tracking, other than for the reel-to-reel "Beautiful Music" automation gear at some of the FMs.

 

[davideduardo]

Did you just say there was more voice tracking in the 70's than today?

With all due respect, David, please explain and verify your comment.

I worked at radio stations in markets large and small throughout the 70's and don't recall ANY voice tracking, other than for the reel-to-reel "Beautiful Music" automation gear at some of the FMs.

I said there was a much higer percentage of staitons using voice tracking in the 70's than today. In the 70's, perhaps 60% of all FMs used sysndicated tape formats, with companies l.ike Shulke, Bonneville, FM 100, Peters Productions, IGM, TM, Drake Chennault, Churchill, RPM, Kala Music, Musica en Flor and others providing taped fromats from soft rock and Top 40 to Beautiful music and country. Some companies, like EZ, syndicated in house. Other stations used automation to do local formats. But far higher a percentage of stations were "voice tracked" (we just called it automated then...) then than now.

I recall one Top 15 market where the #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6 stations were voice tracked in the 70's... as well as nearly all the lower rated ones.

 

[apco25]

True, but it's nice to have it confirmed and articulated by an "expert" source. If nothing else, we can use that study when filing comments to the FCC on this issue.

The study is seriously flawed. Here are a couple of examples...

The study fails to recognize that "voice tracking" is a new term for an old practice. A higher percentage of US stations were voice tracked int he 70's than today, but we did not use that name.

Voice tracking was considered an advantage of consolidation, and widely implemented post-1966. In the last few years, there has been a considerable reduction in voice tracking, which some companies not using it at all.

Diversity of formats has never been higher. In the 70's and 80's, when 7/7/7 was the cap, every owner wanted one of the big formats, so we had 3 or 4 CHRs, for example. Today, we have few fomrats that aree on more than two local channels, and many formats not commonly used int he 70's and 89's doing very well.

What we have is a recognition that listeners want far less new music and more familiar music. This is what the coalition does not want to say... that new songs by new artists are not being heard because in most formats they are tune-outs. With more stations in more formats, tune outs are far more critical today, so we are more aware than ever of how little the average listener really wants to hear unfamiliar music.



Interesting to quote you on this, that listener's want far less music and more familiar non-current music. Yes and no, I believe ....... I don't think they would prefer far less non current music over new released music today. They are forced to wanting more non-current music because what comes out today has been poor and limited. And most new recordings cater to the hip hop/rythmic crowd only which the majority doesn't listen to.
Take the year 1968....almost everything that came out as hitbound weren't tuneouts let alone 1978. Even 1988 people were looking or giving a minute to a new release to see if they like it.



[/quote]

 

[davideduardo]

Interesting to quote you on this, that listener's want far less music and more familiar non-current music. Yes and no, I believe ....... I don't think they would prefer far less non current music over new released music today. They are forced to wanting more non-current music because what comes out today has been poor and limited. And most new recordings cater to the hip hop/rythmic crowd only which the majority doesn't listen to.
Take the year 1968....almost everything that came out as hitbound weren't tuneouts let alone 1978. Even 1988 people were looking or giving a minute to a new release to see if they like it.

I have interviewed tens and tens of thousands of persons together with my crew. we have never, ever, had a listener say, "I want to hear lots of songs I have never heard before." All do say, "I want to hear my favorite songs often."

The more we find out about new music, the more we realize that in all but a very narrow demographic, people do not want much of it and are upset if they hear to much of it. New music is pushed by the record ducks, and some programmers spend far too much time with ducks and artists and nowhere near enough time with listeners on the street.

 

[apco25]

So has that been the reason why playlist have become so tight. And the major record companies release less and less. And thousands of record labels in the past has become 1-2 major labels like BMG?

 

[davideduardo]

So has that been the reason why playlist have become so tight. And the major record companies release less and less. And thousands of record labels in the past has become 1-2 major labels like BMG?

Actually, ther eare far more releases now because formats are so fragmented. We saw 10 or 15 releases a week in Top 40 days... now every format that plays currents gets 5 or 6 if not more.

Every time a bunch of labels gets big, a bunch of indies crop up.

 

[apco25]

Actually, ther eare far more releases now because formats are so fragmented. We saw 10 or 15 releases a week in Top 40 days... now every format that plays currents gets 5 or 6 if not more.

That's maybe true, but most of them never make to mainstream radio. It seems like 95 %. I t was practically unheard until the 90's that the average hit song would have a chart run over 30 weeks plus. "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter has been practically played on several formats continuosly since this winter when America's talented on Fox started it's season. And there's many songs that has charted sucessfully are average 3 months short of that which is still a long time.
"Smooth" By Santana seem to be played forever on mainstream stations , and I mean forever everyday for the year.

Actually, there are far more releases now because formats are so fragmented. We saw 10 or 15 releases a week in Top 40 days... now every format that plays currents gets 5 or 6 if not more.

But realistically they or most don't get played on the Clear Channels and Infinity's that you will remember as a golden oldie or non- current 3 -10 years from now.

Every time a bunch of labels gets big, a bunch of indies crop up.

Well they maybe true , but they won't exposed or played on major owned radio like I mentioned above. There mostly trying to crack the Internet web streaming market (in most cases).

 

[davideduardo]

That's maybe true, but most of them never make to mainstream radio. It seems like 95 %. I t was practically unheard until the 90's that the average hit song would have a chart run over 30 weeks plus. "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter has been practically played on several formats continuosly since this winter when America's talented on Fox started it's season. And there's many songs that has charted sucessfully are average 3 months short of that which is still a long time.
"Smooth" By Santana seem to be played forever on mainstream stations , and I mean forever everyday for the year.

But realistically they or most don't get played on the Clear Channels and Infinity's that you will remember as a golden oldie or non- current 3 -10 years from now.

Well they maybe true , but they won't exposed or played on major owned radio like I mentioned above. There mostly trying to crack the Internet web streaming market (in most cases).

I don't know what "mainstream" means. When in most larger market, the #1 staiton has 5 to 7 shares, there is no mainstream, at least in my opinion.

What you have, comapred to when you had Top 40 stations decades ago, is a wide variety of stations adding a few songs that are appropriate for thie specific format every week or so. The end result is that lots more songs get played, but on individual stations that each have smaller segments of the audinece. However, the average listener has 3 or 4 favorite stations, so they hear the best new songs.

Radio stations that I am familiar with, and that includes some run by the biggest owners, don't care what label a song is on. There is no favoritism for bigger labels... the difference is that the big lables have more releases, but all get played in proportion. Some genres, like hip hop, grew almost entirely due to independent lables.

 

[apco25]

What I refer to as mainstream for example......"Kiss Me", Sixpence None the Richer, "Smooth", Santana, "I'm a Believer" The Monkees, just to throw some songs at the top of my mind out there....they are songs that no matter what age, or background your from, there familiar to everyone who listens to a radio or mp 3 player.
You might take a top 10 from Jay Z, Chamillionare, Ciarra, on the CHR charts, and except for certain 14-17 year olds, most people won't remember who or even be exposed to these songs let alone remember them 5 years from now. Today's hit whether it's a top 10 on the CHR or Hot AC chart doesn't necessarily means it's being played or exposed in every market, major or minor.
There's alot of songs that XM Hitlist, or Flight 26 plays, that chart well on the R&R page, but I don't see them or hear them in my market because eithier it didn't test well, no one left them promo copies , whatever.
If my market (Bay Area- N. Calif) decides to add a song, it's usually old and tired on XM and it's slipping down the R&R chart. Not all the time, but it's common. Many of these current songs are never played in sequence with the national charts , and I know it happens in other markets as well. (It's called Playing it Safe). It use to be if you were 30 and under, (stereotyping) everone knew what the hits were. All at least 30 of them. Now that's what I mean mainstream. If it was a hit on Kasey Kasems top 20, or Dick Clark's top 10 Bandstand....it was a hit to be remembered with everybody everywhere in the USA.
Answer this, then I have another question for you from a quote you made.