SHOULD RADIO BE MANNED 24/7? SHOULD LIVE & LOCAL BE THE WAY?

[bturner]

I'm going to have to cheat a bit here and paste messages. This will be lengthy. In the EAS FAIL subject, Jon David Wells mentioned this. I responded, etc. etc. Here's a bit of 'catch up'

Since no one else can see the elephant in the room....

This test proves definitively that Radio's headlong rush to unmanned, network-syndicated, automated stations is a recipe for real civil disaster...

The fix:

•Licensed Operators per License, 24/7-365
•Broadcasters in Charge of the FCC
•Operate in the Public Interest, as a Public Trustee...That means spilling a little on your way to the bank as an investment in saving your Listener's lives in the Post 9-11 World.

If this wrecks your Business Model....Trying developing a Service Model instead. It sure works for Salem.

Jon-David Wells
The Wells Report

Jon-David, you have my vote to head the FCC. I have to ponder just how difficult it would be for stations to survive with those requirements.

Back when I began in radio in a small market, we had to be manned. We played records and carts. Our AP and NWS tickers were connected to long distance phone lines just like our network feed. For the price of a triple-decker cart machine I could buy a new car and pay sticker price. We not only had jocks for every shift but account executives, a secretary, a traffic person and staff engineer even in a small market. The monthly 'nut' had to be exceptional compared to the $2 spot rate for a 30. Even so, that station was financially successful.

Now there are many more options for advertisers and listeners but I realize those options are based on choice. We keep saying those 'good old days' are gone, a glaring fact, but might it be because we as an industry gave these competing options a leg to stand on? Nobody seems to consider the psychological effect radio had on listeners and ignores the fact this has not gone away.

While I'm in Houston, I have family in DFW and have heard you on your previous home as well as KSKY. The one thing that strikes me in the rise of talk radio over the yeas is the fact people tune in because they like you, the fact you say what they are thinking and the fact the listener feels they know you. Radio used to win ratings wars for those very reasons. Is not Talk Radio the 'personality radio' of the 1960s and 70s? If you took away the personality and listener interaction would talk radio survive (as if that was possible)?

Listeners want to feel their world is safe and radio used to serve this basic human need. Radio was a friend and listeners connected to their friends just as they do with tweets today. There were people I knew who thought stations such as KVIL in the 1970s were too easy or too Top 40 that listened not because of the music but the emotional connection.

I wonder if someone made that long-term investment if we might begin to recover what we lost. It would take a special investor, but I have a hunch that live, community oriented radio might win back some of those who today find radio irrevelant.

I think folks need to understand that being #1 12+ in the PPM and hitting your targeted demos is exceptional, but you don't have to score the biggest numbers to have a successful and appreciated station with good overall awareness that hits revenue targets. Of all the stations, there is only on at the top of the heap.

Licensed Operators is a good idea. I remember taking the 3rd class with broadcast endorsement. There were some questions that did not pertain to AM and FM radio at the time, but you knew the rules. I've worked under PDs that did not even know what a legal ID consisted of.

Thanks for your kind words on this very important topic. I have long admired your stances on the future of our industry, and hope that at some point, "Radio as a Stock Option" devolves into "Radio for Listeners" again.

For those who believe that this era of "lowest common denominator programming/squeeze every dime/who needs qualified programmers & talent anyway" Radio, please do note that as I write this, one of the most successful Coast-to-Coast Network Radio broadcasts is the half-hour infomercial for Purity Products Ultimate Prostate Formula.

(When I think of the withering criticism I got for using even one extra word on a break, or missing the boat on a relatable topic when everything I said in a 4-hour airshow telescoped into less than 10 minutes, only to listen to 2 men discussing excretory processes for 30 minutes straight, on 6 different stations 2-3 times per weekend per market...It's a wonder we have an industry at all.)

Now we have an Emergency Alert System in place, that can on a President's political whim, take over the National Radio Airwaves....THAT DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work on 9-11, it won't on the next 9-11 either....or the one after that....

Licensed Operators....Receiving Authenticated Alerts....making the decision to interrupt local broadcasts, "....In the event of a National Emergency..." is Radio for Listeners. Radio for your Neighbors. Radio as a Public Trustee.

Unfortunately, and soon to be tragically, it is not Radio for this quarter's arbitrary budget number.

There will be Radio Corporations what would have to adjust their business plans. They might have to sell a few stations...At some point, there may even be more than 6 Radio Corporations.

But if we do this, we may save a few (million) lives....

....OK, have it your way. A few million ways to reduce the cost per point a little.

J-D
TWR


THIS WAS WHERE IT ALL STARTED (no I'm not yelling, just distinguishing where my post rejoins. Several comments and good ones were posted beyond these entries but, let's pick up here.

I welcome your input for consideration.

 

[TheBigA]

In the early part of the 20th century, the government started mandating staffing and services for passenger rail service. This came after the government had also spent billions in taxpayer money building interstate highways and airports, so people had alternatives to rail transit. So the passenger rail companies simply said: Fine! You do it! And promptly got out of the passenger rail service. That's how we ended up with Amtrak.

Here's a simple fact: EAS isn't designed to turn broadcasters into emergency service providers. The purpose is to make the air signal available to the government for THEM to provide emergency information. Over the last 50 years, the obligations of radio operations have been systematically replaced by government departments and agencies. This is a far cry from what was originally envisioned when the service was proposed. Ten years ago, the Department Of Homeland Security was created, and one of its areas of oversight was EAS. This is their area of responsibility, not the FCC. The broadcast of emergency information is their job. Requiring radio stations to be staffed 24/7 so the government can access the frequencies once in 50 years is the height of wastefulness.

Today, I can control the heat in my house remotely by computer. I don't have to be in the place to turn on the lights or watch for intruders. So to run a radio station as though it's 1926 is just plain dumb. The government doesn't man all of its security services 24/7. Other public utilities, like water or electric, which also have "public interest, convenience, and necessity" in their founding documents, aren't staffed 24/7. I discovered that when my gas went out in the middle of February. Family doctors, bound by the Hippocratic oath, are not available 24/7. So why are we inventing a bunch of new obligations for radio when they're not required for doctors, soldiers, or actual emergency staffers?

There seems to be this need in the minds of some to be control freaks. To tell people what to do. They come up with playlists, and talking points. To act as though they're some sort of elected authority, so that what they say is the law, and must be followed. No one elected radio people to this gig. Radio is a private business, not a public trust. The irony is that the people we've actually elected as public trustees have proven themselves time and again to be unworthy of that trust. But that doesn't mean it's radio's job to be like Mighty Mouse and save the day.

 

[TomT]

Man 24/7? We'll just sign off at 10, come back on at 6. No-one will pay for overnights anyway.
Emergency after 10? Tough. Buy a weather radio.

Always someone willing and ready to spend someone else's money.

 

[SaltyDog]

Man 24/7? We'll just sign off at 10, come back on at 6. No-one will pay for overnights anyway.

When I was in radio, I would include in my proposals commercials that aired late night. I was told from time to time by advertisers: "You know you don't have any listeners after 10pm." To which I would sometimes reply: "Then why am I even on the air? Maybe I should just fire the the jocks and shut it down until 6am." I don't recall anyone ever agreeing that was a good idea.

 

[TheBigA]

It makes even less sense for those stations that are required to drop power at sunset to 1kw or less.

 

[w9wi]

Ironically, this could be the one thing that could save AM...

The vast majority of AM stations would be unable to afford to staff live & local 24/7. If the rules stuck, (uh, right) most AM stations would surrender their licenses & go dark. The remaining outlets would be able to increase power & loosen their directional patterns to the point where they might be able to cover their entire markets with enough signal to get past some of the noise.

A significant proportion of FMs would probably go silent as well. Those AMs that had a business model would have the opportunity to move to FM -- further thinning out the AM dial and making it even more possible for those which remained to improve their signals to the point of possible financial viability.

 

[TheBigA]

The vast majority of AM stations would be unable to afford to staff live & local 24/7. If the rules stuck, (uh, right) most AM stations would surrender their licenses & go dark.

Therein lies the reason why the FCC would oppose this mandate. The 40 year agenda of the FCC has been more more more. More stations, more frequencies, more licenses to further divide the power and impact of individual stations. To the FCC, everyone should have the opportunity to own a piece of the rock. Sure, some folks get Part 15s, and others get WLW. This was the motivation behind LPFM. But the point is everyone should have a shot. This is in part why the FCC hasn't been tougher on licensees in following ownership rules, or forcing CC to turn over the licenses of its Aloha Trust stations. More More More. Not less less less. The funny part is that 70 years ago, the FCC prefered a few very powerful broadcasters rather than a bunch of pea shooters. They felt that was the responsible way to run things. But all that changed after WW2.

 

[12 In a Row]

Subject: SHOULD RADIO BE MANNED 24/7? SHOULD LIVE & LOCAL BE THE WAY?
a.) No and for an assortment of reasons. To name a few, way over half the stations could not financially survive. Now different platforms to receive emergency news, text/social media, etc. Willing to bet the vast majority of people under the age of 50 has never visited the AM dial. We complain the government is over regulating and powerful, except for radio? Should the government step in and ban all automated production lines at Ford, GM, Chrysler?

b.) IMHO, Live & Local are buzz words for Save My Job. Nothing new, listeners want good content, they don't care where it originates. Even in the 50s/60s, kids many miles away would tune in to the big city stations and the pro jocks.

 

[SirRoxalot]

In this age of clusters and hubbing, there's little financial strain to having a live body in control 24/7/365. With call forwarding, silence sensors, and remote technology, responsible broadcasters could easily provide live monitoring of even the smallest stations and have hot lines forwarded to a responsible party. IMO, it should be a requirement of holding a license, under the "public interest, convenenience, and NECESSITY" section.

 

[TheBigA]

In this age of clusters and hubbing, there's little financial strain to having a live body in control 24/7/365.

What about for the hundreds of single station owners in small markets?

The fact is that the national EAS test, which inspired this thread, was done in the middle of the day, at radio stations that were manned at the time, and it still failed. Not because of the radio stations, or because of their staffing, but because of a problem at the government's end. As was pointed out on the Dallas board, when an EAS test occurs, local station control is completely turned over to the feds. There is nothing a local operator could do except watch.

 

[12 In a Row]

I get this trying to justify the 24/7/365 thing. The world has evolved and 99.9% of vital information is available on the smart phone. If my 17 and 25 year old never thinks to tune to radio.

Sadly the EAS test was a disaster. Go back 10 years and radio was ill prepared to cover 9/11. News departments gone and what most of us heard was TV audio on radio. 21st century, it is what it is.

 

[TheBigA]

Go back 10 years and radio was ill prepared to cover 9/11. News departments gone and what most of us heard was TV audio on radio.

Actually, radio did a fine job covering 9/11 given that it was mainly a New York and Washington DC story. There are all news stations in both those markets, and they handled the story extremely well, given the fact that it was a live event and the agencies responsible for providing the information were more focused on the disaster itself than answering journalist questions.

The fact is that on 9/11, the EAS was not activated. The Chairman of the EAS Advisory Committee explained that EAS wasn't activated because the local media was already handling the situation, so the national service wasn't necessary.

 

[Nostalgia]

Go back 10 years and radio was ill prepared to cover 9/11. News departments gone and what most of us heard was TV audio on radio.

The fact is that on 9/11, the EAS was not activated. The Chairman of the EAS Advisory Committee explained that EAS wasn't activated because the local media was already handling the situation, so the national service wasn't necessary.

Using that criteria it would appear to me that the EAS system is obsolete. If the 9/11 attack was being covered adequately and the bombing of Bagdad was wall to wall to every household in America, then it would appear the media is on top of just about anything that could conceivably happen.

Personally, I heard about 9/11 on my car radio and I am sure my grandparents heard about Pearl Harbor on their radio!

 

[TheBigA]

Using that criteria it would appear to me that the EAS system is obsolete.

It depends what the purpose is. I think the point is that if radio goes to a fully automated system (which is unlikely), the government could basically take back the airwaves on demand, without licensee co-operation. So from the government's viewpoint, radio staffing is irrelevant, because EAS allows them to commandeer the airwaves anyway. Except it doesn't work.

At the end of the day, gaining access to licensed radio and TV is obsolete if the public isn't listening or watching. As far as I know, they havent come up with a system that actually turns the radio on in an emergency.

 

[bturner]

About time I chime in here. I think live 24/7 would force many off the air for good. I admit we have way too many stations in some cities and towns. The increased number of stations means there are more that lose versus win. I think live is better but what we think of as live is not the same model it once was.

The Emergency Alert System is only a minor part of an emergency. 9/11 showed the importance of media without EAS being involved. Hurricane Katrina showed the importance of media without EAS. Radio and TV are the follow through of an emergency. Some may argue there are other ways of getting information across but the facts are one needs a clearinghouse of information and a mode of communication that can be effective when the power goes out and phones quit working.

I think radio, especially, has an important role to play in emergencies, by getting information to the general public.

I had a discussion with a fellow broadcaster who said he could know what was going on quicker than radio could get him the information via the internet (Facebook, You Tube, etc.). I contend radio is what Amazon is to music and books. You might be able to stay up on music and books with lots of effort and digging or you can go to Amazon and find everything at one spot quickly and easily. I think radio's strength in emergencies is being Amazon, so to speak.

The problem I see with radio today is we are set up to only do what we do day after day. If you alter our daily routine, there is no plan. We don't have the staff or ability to perform the task. We can cobble together something, mostly using television news departments that somehow find the dollars to fund themselves and the resources of other stations and this is a good thing. But in reality, we couldn't even put enough warm bodies together to be able to fill a 24 hour schedule without begging help from others in media and I'm talking board ops.

Oh yes, I listened to voice tracked stations saying "A flash flood warning, might be a good night to stay inside. Another 10 in a row coming up" at a standard break as the local TV stations showed video of 18 wheelers bobbing in water on I-10 as the freeway looked like a lake (Tropical Storm Allison) and TV stations fielded calls from people looking for help because they were on their bed and water was reaching the top of the bed and 911 was not working.

So, should radio be depended upon to be the source of information when our world turns upside down, when the electricity is out, when cell phones don't work nor do land lines, when an internet connection cannot be made? If not, and we choose to give this up, where does the public turn?

Is it worth hanging on to?

 

[bturner]

Some good EAS thoughts.

The EAS focusing on radio and TV only is not going to get it. Radio and Tv should be part of the mix but it is the internet, phones and such that may reach more people quicker.

I see the EAS as a way to alert virtually everyone instantly. We have police departmenyts and school districts that can make 'mass calls' to all local phone numbers. We have smart phones and such. We have most homes with internet connections. Unless you include all the media people are using, you will never reach the masses.

I proposed to the FCC that for devices that offer multiple options (ie: you car stereo system) that using an easy and old alert system like Weather Radios use to trigger the radio to come on in the invent of an emergency would catch those listening to an ipod, etc. The same could be done with the same technology as call waiting on phones and a small text box could appear in a corner of a computer screen. But if they want to test the system more than once a year I wouldn't think it could be done (weekly and mothly tests over the airwaves only make sure people ignore you...how about off air testing FCC?) . I know this is very intrusive but if we would believe the government we have versus a dictaorship will remain, I doubt it would be abused and if an emergency did occur I doubt you'd complain if the system helped to keep you and your family safe.

I really wonder if we need an EAS system for broadcasters. I question if 9/11 happened again if the government could alert us quicker than media doing their job were able to. My vote is on media. And if I'm right (not saying I am), why is EAS important for broadcasters?

Just some thoughts.

 

[TheBigA]

And if I'm right (not saying I am), why is EAS important for broadcasters?

It's not important for broadcasters. It's important for the government. They need to be able to access the airwaves in an emergency. That's why this system guarantees. If it works. But the rest of the time, the airwaves belong to the licensees to operate as they see fit.

The problem I see with radio today is we are set up to only do what we do day after day. If you alter our daily routine, there is no plan. We don't have the staff or ability to perform the task.

You think that problem only exists in radio? It's been my experience that emergency officials are faced with the same problem. Look at FEMA response to Katrina. How long did it take to mobilize emergency services in that disaster? I'd say radio did a better job of dealing with the unexpected than the people whose job it is to respond. But all the cuts in government that the politicians are talking about will come back and haunt us the next time a disaster strikes.

 

[TomT]

...And have a finger on the EOM (or, in modern units: "Abort") button. In southern Ohio, no EOM sent on the national test--locked one station up for a couple of minutes because the old ES unit got balky. (New Sage had arrived, but no chance to install it before the test)

 

[johnbasalla]

The school district that I'm familiar with can only contact households who have students in the district. Additionally, when households change, drop or otherwise lose their phone numbers, and they don't tell the school district, the number will remain in the system. Eventually that number will be re-assigned. The new person, who usually does not have students in the district, will call the district to have their number removed from the system because they don't want to be bothered with, what is for them, nuisance calls.

It might be better to have the main news/talk station in the market be the go-to station in cases of extreme emergencies. All of the other stations would simulcast the main stations emergency information. That way the government would be responsible for getting access to the main station, and it would be up to the local station- or authorities - to make sure the other stations are properly connected to the main station for emergency purposes only.

 

[TomZ]

And if I'm right (not saying I am), why is EAS important for broadcasters?

It's not important for broadcasters. It's important for the government. They need to be able to access the airwaves in an emergency. That's why this system guarantees. If it works. But the rest of the time, the airwaves belong to the licensees to operate as they see fit.

<snip>

You think that problem only exists in radio? It's been my experience that emergency officials are faced with the same problem. Look at FEMA response to Katrina. How long did it take to mobilize emergency services in that disaster? <snip>

The Federal Government can't inject themselves into any State's problems until the State's Governor specifically writes the Feds asking for assistance.

In President Bush's defense, FEMA offered to fill in the blanks on the form so to help Blanco seal the deal but Blanco was too negro to understand..... (meaning 'in the dark')