TheBigA said:
musichead1029 said:
Content rules. The forum is secondary. Pros create more compelling content than callers. Hence, the professional host will be the focus of successful talk shows for the foreseeable future, the nature of the delivery technology notwithstanding.
We have several threads in this section where the general consensus is that the current crop of talks host have peaked. And we've also noted how talk radio tends to appeal to an older demographic. So that leads me to believe that talk radio as we know it needs to reinvent itself for a younger, more interactive generation.
I think talk radio needs to discover what content mix attracts a younger demographic, but I don't think that interactivity is what's missing. The basic dynamics of talk are sound (no pun intended, I think), independent of the audience or type of topics presented. I don't think real-time audience control of the primary media channel is desirable. On-demand audience interaction via social media and chat rooms associated with the main media channel may enhance the experience for some consumers, but more importantly, it doesn't detract from the main channel host-driven content.
As I mentioned earlier, this multimedia approach is used by Leo Laporte on his tech show. But political talkers also make use of their web sites, through dedicated forums, news sites (like Townhall.com) and links to social media, often behind premium paywalls (Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt are examples). The interaction networks are supplemental to the main media channel. Though technology will continue to make interraction easier, is it desirable? Will it enhance the media experience for young consumers? I don't believe so. (Maybe you guys have discussed this in other threads.)
Where are we at now? The 'hot' flavor of talk attempts to relate to younger media consumers by emphasizing frat-boy/edgy lifestyle chat with less reliance on heavy topics like politics. This is probably as good an approach as any, but hot talk hasn't yet found a content mix that works consistently. CBS and other affiliates have certainly tried in the wake of Howard Stern's departure from terrestrial radio. (It's worth noting that Howard didn't work everywhere he was syndicated either, though he was successful in most of his markets, remarkably so in many. I find it hard to believe that Howard is 'one of a kind', but there has yet to appear an heir to Stern's audience. Such individuals likely exist, but they may not see radio as a desirable industry in which to invest a career. Who could blame them?)
Political-driven talk radio, currently the most popular strain of the talk format, is always going to primarily attract an older demographic. (If younger-aimed talk formats are successful, some of those listeners could graduate to political talk later in life.) There are up and coming hosts who will step into the shoes of Limbaugh and Savage when they retire. Bob Grant, still doing a weekly show at 83, God bless him, is often considered one of the fathers of modern attitude-driven issues talk. And he had to operate under the constraints of the 'Fairness' Doctrine for much of his career, yet he still was able to present a dynamic show based on his personality and the strength of his topic selections. Limbaugh and Hannity have cited Grant as one of their influences. There will be successors to the current crop of talkers given the profitability of the format. Some of the successors will have to find their own way into the industry however, seeing as most radio operators don't appear to be cultivating much of a farm team beyond music voice-trackers.
And as you point out, some callers are dull. That's why some shows use phone screeners. That's why Premiere offers professional callers.
Premiere says it uses rent-a-callers only on morning zoo shows, not issue driven programs. Only remarkably weak hosts would need scripted callers to prop them up. I won't say it's never been done, but I can't imagine Premiere's stable of top-tier talkers would have any need for artificial callers.
I'm not saying a call-in show is better than a good strong host. But we seem to have a shortage of good strong hosts who can do more besides lecture. The goal here is to eliminate the single talking head, and create something more interactive. A conversation is more compelling than a lecture. Ask any college kid.
Not on radio. Radio is a consumption medium, as is TV. Radio has survived in the wake of TV because you can do other things while listening. As with interaction, watching requires at least a partial immersion exclusive of other activities. But radio isn't interactive, nor do most people wish it to be. Call in radio provides a limited interaction which spices up the content. But it doesn''t change the basic dynamic: people listen to radio because they want to do just that. Listen. This applies to all age groups. It applies to webstreams. It even applies to file players. The content is downloaded and playlists are set up with one end in mind: to consume. Younger consumers may want more choices, and media can provide them. Some want an occasional talk back channel, and media can provide them. But the ultimate audience desire is to consume. And that's the capability that radio already offers.
