Standards Listeners Are Such Spoiled Brats

[Famous56guy]

News flash Fred Flinstone, Your opinion is just that "an opinion" You are clearly a wannabe know it all with a chip on his shoulder. I enjoy reading the post on this board, but when I see your name it makes me wanna puke!

 

[fred flintstone]

News flash Fred Flinstone, Your opinion is just that "an opinion" You are clearly a wannabe know it all with a chip on his shoulder. I enjoy reading the post on this board, but when I see your name it makes me wanna puke!

And the theory of evolution is just "a theory."

If it's just an opinion, interesting you are not able to provide a rebuttal (beyond a grade school level jibe about wanting to puke).

I'm sorry your stomach can't handle having your illusions shattered.

Radio is a job. You want to think we are having fun and we work out of a puppy-dog type urge to please you. Our fault really. This is show business and that's part of the illusion we have created. We aren't much different than anybody else. We do the work we chose to do and do it as well as we can. In the process we accept poor pay, poor working conditions and bad management - and listeners who do not respect our time, who only want to bitch or vent or ask questions we can't answer, and who are often rude in the process.

Do listeners have a right to complain? Sure, this is America. But please, complain to somebody who can do something about it. Not to someone who picks up a phone or stands at a counter. Will complaining do any good? Almost certainly not? Few businesses of any size pay attention to the bitching of unhappy, disgruntled people. Rightly or wrongly, they are not considered typical or representative. Businesses rely on research to determine customers' opinions (and on sales figures).

If a station decides to change format, it is assumed that the people who have been listening will be unhappy. Management knew that going in. They make these changes anyway.

And - to repeat - if a listener calls with a legitimate question or concern - which I can address - and if I have the time or opportunity to address it - I will try to help. But that's not good enough those wanting to vent (which may include some people on this board).

That's the truth. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.
Now go puke.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Do listeners have a right to complain? Sure, this is America. But please, complain to somebody who can do something about it. Not to someone who picks up a phone or stands at a counter. Will complaining do any good? Almost certainly not? Few businesses of any size pay attention to the bitching of unhappy, disgruntled people.

This is why I say that every radio person should be required to work in retail before going into the business. That's the profession that gets more customer feedback than any other. I find that when a listener calls to complain, it's best to just sit back, let them vent, and don't interrupt or cut them off. Let them say their peace, and thank them for calling. If they persist, then have them direct their questions to management.

 

[TowerLamp]

The Seattle situation, KIXI-AM was unique. The station was "adult standards" in music content only. Beyond that the station was programmed much like a mainstream A/C station. Topical, co-hosted morning show with live local news, airborne traffic reporter, full service in every sense of the word with real local personalities in EVERY daypart. All the jocks were heritage names in the market and all still sounding sharp. Much more energy than MOYL. Great contests and lots of street presence with contests, concerts, sposonsorship of Seattle's biggest July 4th fireworks show. The station was the market's last bastion of personality radio.

The backlash was not about the music it was the loss of who the audience grew to think of as their friends. The media columnist for Seattle Times, Bill Virgin, wrote in his column that in his 8 years of covering radio (and dozens of format flips) it was the biggest public outcry he'd ever heard. The music is not the issue, its the stuff that happens between the records that made that station great. Its now an empty shell of it's former self. It was actually a great case study of personality radio's value. The music from MOYL is scarcely different from what the station had been programming, but there was a HUGE public outcry...because of the loss of personalities...

Whadda-ya know, program a station correctly and people feel loyalty to it. That's supposed to be a good thing in radio last time I looked. It's to the credit of KIXI's former PD that he created such a station with such great listener loyalty. That's what the GM hires PD's to do. So don't bitch when he and his staff get blown out and the audience complains. It's what's supposed to happen! It's not spoiled brats, it's P1 listener loyalty. If more stations were programmed that well in more vital formats radio wouldn't be in the death spiral its currently in.

 

[fred flintstone]

Yes, the PD did his job and did it well.
But the audience for the format is too old to sell profitably.
Management could have (1) Kept the format and cut costs or (2) Changed formats.
The management cut costs but kept the music. Seattle still has a standards station on terrestrial radio - unlike most everywhere else.
Do the spoiled brats appreciate that? No.

Listeners are not the customers.
This is reality.
Radio is a business.
The goal is making money; not having happy people call on the phone.
And people on this board call it "corporate greed" when a station owner wants to see black ink at the end of a quarter.
These same people would take a job that pays better, switch retailers to save a few bucks or sell a stock that doesn't keep increasing in price and paying dividends. They care about money, but God forbid a station owner should.
A station owner should only care about keeping the brats happy.
Grow up, people!

Retail experience is probably a good thing for ad salesmen.
It's totally irrelevant for talent or programmers, who don't deal with customers.
Advertisers are the customers.

 

[GaryOmaha]

>>The backlash was not about the music it was the loss of who the audience grew to think of as their friends.
<snip>
The music is not the issue, its the stuff that happens between the records that made that station great.<<

Precisely! Which is why I simply do not understand why stations don't present personality-based formats. Virtually any music could be used (not just standards) but the emphasis would be on your friend on the radio. Not some automaton sounding like every other station.

>>Advertisers are the customers<<

Why, then, do stations run up to 7 minutes of spots in a row? Makes no sense to me. The listeners either tune out or turn down or simply do not hear that much. How is having a spot in the 4th slot of 7 minutes helping the "customer" -- whether the customer is the listener or the advertiser?

I submit that the customer is the stockholder. Behold how much we've earned for you this quarter!

If you just play more music and the same limited playlists as everyone else, nothing is unique about your station. If you run a zillion spots in a row, the messages do not stand out. If you don't offer local news, weather, and sports, why should someone listen? This is sending all listeners directly to XM, Sirius, or iPods.

It's all upside down to me. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[TowerLamp]

Yes, the PD did his job and did it well.
But the audience for the format is too old to sell profitably.
Management could have (1) Kept the format and cut costs or (2) Changed formats.
The management cut costs but kept the music. Seattle still has a standards station on terrestrial radio - unlike most everywhere else.
Do the spoiled brats appreciate that? No.

Listeners are not the customers.


Advertisers are the customers.

I think Seattle listeners are sophicticated enough to know that if they want Adult Standards they can get them from XM, CD,s iPods, webcasts, etc. They mourned/protested the loss of the personalities they had come to regard as friends. The point is not that standards are still on radio. It's that the personality is not. If radio is to survive it has to stp thinking of itself as a music box. The audience can get that music from a dozen other sources, but the personality they can not. THAT'S what they were upset about. That's the proof that the station was unique in that it still had personality beyond the music it played. That's good radio. It may be bad XM or Sirius or bad iPod, but the audience tuned in to hear what their friends were up to and the tunes they played were only part of the mix.

As for who is the customer, it's an old debate. Tail wagging dog, chicken or egg. No Audience, no advertisers, no advertisers, no programming budget. It has to start somewhere. Let it begin with a radio station that's programmed to be in touch with the local community and it's audience.

 

[GaryOmaha]

TowerLamp, can I please come work for you? ;D

 

[fred flintstone]

Precisely! Which is why I simply do not understand why stations don't present personality-based formats. Virtually any music could be used (not just standards) but the emphasis would be on your friend on the radio. Not some automaton sounding like every other station.

Personalities don't work for free. Air talent costs money.

Why, then, do stations run up to 7 minutes of spots in a row? Makes no sense to me. The listeners either tune out or turn down or simply do not hear that much. How is having a spot in the 4th slot of 7 minutes helping the "customer" -- whether the customer is the listener or the advertiser?

That is a misguided and short-sighted practice. The real mystery is why advertisers put up with it. Of course, stations can get some advertisers to pay a premium rate for being first in a break (or close to first).
Part of the answer is mixing music and spots requires a DJ personality, Part is the belief that listeners tune out when a spot comes on, so build TSL (time spent listening) by having long "commercial-free" segments.

I submit that the customer is the stockholder. Behold how much we've earned for you this quarter!

If you just play more music and the same limited playlists as everyone else, nothing is unique about your station. If you run a zillion spots in a row, the messages do not stand out. If you don't offer local news, weather, and sports, why should someone listen? This is sending all listeners directly to XM, Sirius, or iPods.

It's all upside down to me. Makes no sense whatsoever.

No, the listener is the stock (the product, the inventory), not the the stockholder. Stations sell listeners. Listeners have no equity interest in a station. Management is not obliged to act toward them in a fiduciary capacity. What's the difference between shrinks, lawyer or hookers and radio listeners? Shrinks, lawyers and hookers sell their time and attention. Radio listeners give it away so somebody else can re-sell it. Listeners are marks.

The case can be made that music radio is obsolete, so is the practice of mixing local news, weather and sports with music. Local content is radio's only remaining selling point. But people want music when they want music and local news, weather and sports when they want that. If a station wants to emphasize local news, weather and sports, they need to drop music and go with a talk format. But here again, personalities cost money. Which is why most talk stations are also mostly (or completely) syndicated.

 

[GaryOmaha]

Personalities don't work for free. Air talent costs money.

That of course is accurate. But, then, is your belief that station owners should not spend money on air talent? How, then, is a terrestrial station any better than satellite (or an iPod)? My point was, to return radio to its uniqueness and attractiveness, bring back the personalities. Yes, that will cost money -- but it could save the medium.

Why, then, do stations run up to 7 minutes of spots in a row?
<snip>
That is a misguided and short-sighted practice.
<snip>
Part of the answer is mixing music and spots requires a DJ personality, Part is the belief that listeners tune out when a spot comes on, so build TSL (time spent listening) by having long "commercial-free" segments.

I agree that it's misguided, but many stations have done it for years and are still doing it. One friend in the industry refers to the last half of each hour as "the dark side" due to all the spots there.

"Mixing music and spots requires a DJ personality." WHAT A CONCEPT!!

No, the listener is the stock (the product, the inventory), not the the stockholder.

You misunderstood me -- I wasn't making myself clear. You said the customer was not the listener, it was the advertiser. I'm saying neither the listener nor the advertiser is important anymore to radio -- it's the corporate stockholder. (see previous examples and reasoning)

The case can be made that music radio is obsolete, so is the practice of mixing local news, weather and sports with music.

Certainly that's one theory, but I was proposing a return to the mix of personality, news, weather, sports, and music -- or so-called "full service radio" -- as a way of saving the beast.

Local content is radio's only remaining selling point. But people want music when they want music and local news, weather and sports when they want that.

I don't believe that's necessarily true -- I believe that's what radio has shoved into our ears. I believe many listeners would prefer "a friend on the radio" and all the trappings of that. That is precisely how radio can be different than any other medium. Sure, it's going to cost money. There's nothing wrong with spending money to make money...unless one's primary goal is satisfying the stockholders, which is the problem in many cases.

 

[kenhawk1160]

But, then, is your belief that station owners should not spend money on air talent? How, then, is a terrestrial station any better than satellite (or an iPod)? My point was, to return radio to its uniqueness and attractiveness, bring back the personalities. Yes, that will cost money -- but it could save the medium.

The problem with that concept is that many stations is surviving on a very thin thread as it stands right now, thus the money isn't available to pay a full contingency of on-air people. This is why a format like Music Of Your Life works. Most of the on-air talent on the air are already household names...Wink Martindale, Gary Owens, Pat Boone, etc., thus making for a very relatable format.

Another option could be to offer some retired professionals in the community a chance to be on the air with their own show. Someone who did a lot of public speaking while they were working, and if they sound half decent on the air, maybe this could be a chance for them to shine. Money wouldn't be an issue since they're only allowed to make so much under Social Security regs. Even if it's only for drive periods.

 

[fred flintstone]

Ken, please use the "quote" button (lower row - second from the right).
Keep it simple; make it easy. Thanks.

There's nothing wrong with spending money to make money...unless one's primary goal is satisfying the stockholders, which is the problem in many cases.

I'd like to know of any commercial enterprise in which that is NOT the primary goal (even in a sole proprietorship in which the guy behind the counter is the one and only "stockholder").

Personalities may make some listeners happier but they don't necessary translate into greater station income. If the costs of air talent had a good return on investment, you'd have a lot more local-live air talent. Most business people are reluctant to spend money when they don't make money.

And while we are speaking hypothetically, the station manager in question was looking at a spreadsheet. In all likelihood, the money was NOT rolling in, and he was not the greedy SOB some imagine. Those who get their shots in a knot because somebody is trying to keep his head above water and stay in the black appear unconcerned about anyone but themselves and qualify as spoiled brats.

In addition, outside of major stations in major markets, satellite delivered formats have improved radio quality with better talent, better programming and music selection, and better production. Most local radio in this country was terrible. And there is considerable evidence that most people don't know when programming comes off a satellite, is voice-tracked or is local - and don't care. On top of that, Standards is about the only music format left in which announcers/jocks have been allowed to be "personalities" since the late 60s. Outside of a few news-talk morning hosts, the "friend in the radio" is long gone. This station's personalities were operating on borrowed time. The audience should appreciate having them for as long as they did.

People talk about how you don't get service like you used to from local merchants and the old-line department stores. But those people stopped going to those stars and started going to Wal-Mart because they don't want to pay more for service (and service costs money). Radio isn't much different - except the audience is not asked to pay.

 

[kenhawk1160]

In addition, outside of major stations in major markets, satellite delivered formats have improved radio quality with better talent, better programming and music selection, and better production. Most local radio in this country was terrible. And there is considerable evidence that most people don't know when programming comes off a satellite, is voice-tracked or is local - and don't care. On top of that, Standards is about the only music format left in which announcers/jocks have been allowed to be "personalities" since the late 60s. Outside of a few news-talk morning hosts, the "friend in the radio" is long gone. This station's personalities were operating on borrowed time. The audience should appreciate having them for as long as they did.

Fred, this is probably one of the very few times that I will agree with you. I've said before that if all radio is, is local, it's going to get beat by a competitor. Local also has to be either informative or entertaining, or both to survive. We haven't had this for some time, and this is just one reason why the role of the DJ as we know it has fallen by the wayside. Too many people were promoted over their heads to the rank of PD, without having the ability to do that job well. I know of very few people with that title that sit down and actually have aircheck sessions with their talent.

You can still have a local radio station that fulfills its obligations as a public trustee while being on the bird or voice-tracked. If you're still offering the full-service elements to your community, that's enough. You must have local news, sports, weather, high school sporting events, and such in order to survive. Those who saw those elements as 'hokey' back in the day, are revisiting that same philosophy and realize "hey, we can offer that" if they can sell it. But base your programming on those elements, rather than just the music. Build the music around the full-service element of the station, and 'they will come'.

 

[fred flintstone]

Fred, this is probably one of the very few times that I will agree with you.

I've read your posts. You and I agree more than you might think, although I can see that you might not appreciate the tone of some of my more critical posts. About the only things I can see on which we disagree are: (1) The appropriateness of certain consulting using another board on this site to promote himself and (2) Proper formatting of posts (I find the way you do it not attractive and harder to read).

Small town newspapers and small town radio have a lot in common.

• Both generally practice the "and-a-good-time-was-had-by-all" style of coverage.
• Both publishers/managers with social relationships with people being covered.
• Both mention as many local people, places and things as often as they can, getting readers/listeners who want to see if they or someone they know got mentioned.
• Coverage is generally favorable and almost never critical.
• And, in their desire, to puff everybody's "thing," the devote a lot of space/time to stuff most people don't care about. This is less of a problem for newspapers, where the reader can turn the page; in radio, a bored listener twists the dial.

High school sports is a great blessing for these stations. Local merchants buy unquestioningly. The games air in time periods they can't sell any way.

Full service is dead as a format. Radio (terrestrial and other) is music OR news - not music and news. The trend is for the audience to select the content they want; not one-size-fits-all, something-for-everyone programming in which the station selects content (and people wait for what they want). I remember some of those full service morning shows; they got in maybe two to four songs an hour. They finally admitted they had slid into news-talk and took out the turntables. It's sort of like how radio sitcoms used to have live bands and singers and the plot would stop for a band number. Just before TV came in somebody finally figured out that people tuned to sitcoms to hear a sitcom and that sitcoms were not variety shows (another dead programming form in which people have to sit through what they don't want to hear what they want; they have to put up with the bear act, Russian ballet, an old vaudevillian and some guy who made a puppet by putting lipstick on his hand in order to hear the Beatles).

 

[kenhawk1160]

Full service is dead as a format.

I half-agree with that. In a major market, yes. In small market, definitely not. I have found that as people get older, their listening needs change. They may have started as FM listeners, but gradually become AM listeners because as they age, they become closer to their community. They do a lot more volunteering, using retirees as an example. Those who are closer to their communities learn mostly by word-of-mouth things like 'they're adopting the budget tonight with a tax hike...I heard it on the radio this morning.' They might not always remember the name of the person doing that newscast, but they sure don't forget the content.

Because a smaller station is more in tune with the community, and AM will likely generate an older audience by default (regardless of the intended target), the need will always be there. As an example, the borough of Huntingdon (in Huntingdon County, east of Altoona), their council is trying to get a LPFM license because the three stations licensed to that community now operate out of Altoona. Other than an EAS message, there was literally no local emergency radio coverage when that town was underwater a few years back. This should never fail to be the mission of local radio: be there for your community.

 

[fred flintstone]

I have found that as people get older, their listening needs change. They may have started as FM listeners, but gradually become AM listeners because as they age, they become closer to their community. They do a lot more volunteering, using retirees as an example. Those who are closer to their communities learn mostly by word-of-mouth things like 'they're adopting the budget tonight with a tax hike...I heard it on the radio this morning.' They might not always remember the name of the person doing that newscast, but they sure don't forget the content.

Good point.

One other thing, which I don't think has been studied much. Not only did people over 50 start out listening to AM radio, people in that age group may not be able to tell the difference between AM and FM, CDs, mp3 or satellite radio. Studies show our ability to hear higher sound frequencies declines with age and older people may not be able to hear sounds outside the range AM radio can reproduce. Assuming a reasonably static free signal, AM may suit them just fine - even for music. And older recordings don't have the very high and very low frequencies anyway and often they were optimized for AM radio back then.

Of course, local stations sell local merchants, who are not so worried about age-target marketing. Of course, this thread started out being about a station in Seattle, where they have to play by major market rules: (1) Sell to ad agencies and (2) Compete with very good local news and news-talk stations which do offer local information.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Of course, this thread started out being about a station in Seattle, where they have to play by major market rules: (1) Sell to ad agencies and (2) Compete with very good local news and news-talk stations which do offer local information.

True, you do have to stay competitive. However, you have to keep some of your expectations realistic, and not enough of these owner/operators are doing this. It's too common to sink thousands of dollars in promoting a station in the very beginning, then quit after a couple of months. Then they're disappointed when it doesn't produce the results that they want. Cary Simpson once said "In a city a 3 share can generate a lot of dollars, but in a town of 5,000, a 3 share doesn't generate much of anything."

Let's face it...we all want our station to be the top-rated outfit in the market. But that's not always possible. If you're not able to achieve that due to budget, then do what you can with what you have. The technology is there for that to be possible. But don't keep it a secret or try to sweep it under the rug. You can't make chicken salad out of...well, you know the rest.

In a major market, if you're an AM station that's part of an FM cluster, you need a sales force that's dedicated to selling that AM station and that station only. If your sales force is selling FM combo, then naturally that rep is going to put more emphasis on selling the FM. More than that, your programming staff is going to have to show some allegiance of some kind to it. Like both are on par with each other...one's not a bastard child, or whatever label you choose. I have seen AM/FM combos in big cities where all the money was sunk into the FM and the AM, while having separate programming, was treated no better than an albatross.

I'm going to use as an example one of the very first full-time All-sports stations in the nation...AM 1130 in Detroit. This was in 1995. That station had simulcast its then-country FM, W4. One day, Shamrock dropped the simulcast and started a full-time sports outlet. They sank real money into this thing and strongly promoted it. It was not number one then and it's not number one now. But in time, it did manage to generate a very impressive share. That's because management stayed the course and remained committed to it. Much of the programming was syndicated, mind you, but they marketed and promoted themselves very well. If that's possible in Detroit, it's definitely possible in Seattle.

 

[fred flintstone]

Ken, which of these is easier for you to read?

All very true.
Although sports talk has a younger, male audience that advertisers want to buy. You can sell sports talk without impressive shares because the demos are in demand. That's why a lot of former Standards (and Oldies) stations are now sports talk - despite lower shares than they had with their old formats.


All very true.
Although sports talk has a younger, male audience that advertisers want to buy. You can sell sports talk without impressive shares because the demos are in demand. That's why a lot of former Standards (and Oldies) stations are now sports talk - despite lower shares than they had with their old formats.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Ken, which of these is easier for you to read?

Whatsa matter, the eyes aren't what they used to be? Are you trying to tell me you're having a hard time reading my postings?

 

[Chuck]

Ken, which of these is easier for you to read?

Whatsa matter, the eyes aren't what they used to be? Are you trying to tell me you're having a hard time reading my postings?

This a pretty interesting discussion with good points made by all, but the red letters, especially when they are against the gray background really are hard to read.