Study findings: Listener opinions and use of local radio

[Mike_Saffran]

In 2007, some visitors to this board completed a survey of radio listeners as part of a study conducted at Rochester Institute of Technology.

Select findings and survey results from the study, Effects of Local-Market Radio Ownership Concentration on Radio Localism, the Public Interest, and Listener Opinions and Use of Local Radio, are available in a news release that includes study highlights, and on an audio podcast discussing research findings. Links to the news release and audio podcast, along with a link to the full study, are provided below.

News release:
RIT Study: Many Listeners Unhappy With Local Radio Programming
Or, copy/paste: http://www.rit.edu/news/?r=46578

Audio podcast:
Studio 86: The State of Radio
Or, copy/paste: http://www.rit.edu/news/podcasts

Full study:
Effects of Local-Market Radio Ownership Concentration on Radio Localism, the Public Interest, and Listener Opinions and Use of Local Radio
Or, copy/paste: http://www.rit.edu/news/supp/msaffran_rit.pdf

Thank you for your participation in the survey and for your contribution to this study by sharing your opinions about local radio.

Mike Saffran

 

[Mark Giardina]

Very interesting findings. Not surprising however. Sad, but not surprising.

 

[cee]

I agree with Mark - interesting, but not surprising. The mass layoffs continue(check out this weeks NERW on www.Fybush.com). So the worse the economy gets, the more they layoff, radio becomes all the more boring and non-local. More consumers are driven to non-radio means of audio entertainment and information.

Where does it end and what can be done? Re-regulate the industry? Or will the break up of the mega-casters happen naturally --- that is, will CC, Citadel and the others sell off massive hunks of properties and become shells of their former selves in due time?

 

[bobn]

I think the study is interesting, but Mike seems to be stretching to blame radio in the discussion. His conlusions are not supported by his own research.

This board is always claiming the vt'ing is bad, but the study shows that people don't care, or don't know. In either case, it is not arguement against voicetracking, but the kind or research that companies can use to reinforce this.

The same with news. The research indicates it is a secondary value for radio users. Plus, this study is skewed by the fact that it is all RIT grads(college educated) and one wonders how low the news number would go if you included a representative population sample that included the huge number of lower educational people.

Therein lies the weakness of this work. It does not have data that represents the population as a whole, and is therefore pretty useless from which to make conclusions. It does seem to say that people don't care about voice tracking and news on the radio. It looks like Clear Channel is right.

 

[aaronread]

Where does it end and what can be done? Re-regulate the industry? Or will the break up of the mega-casters happen naturally --- that is, will CC, Citadel and the others sell off massive hunks of properties and become shells of their former selves in due time?

I have heard people wondering if some of these mega-owners will push for re-regulation to a limited degree, in exchange for a government "bailout" to reduce or eliminate their debt loads.

Personally I'm not 100% against the idea, as it could drastically speed up the sales of these stations and provide a framework under which at least some of them could end up with minority ownership and/or community ownership. But I do acknowledge there's tremendous potential for what many would consider "abuse".

Still, more than a few of these stations are actually doing relatively well on the revenue front, it's the huge debt loads at the corporate level that're killing them. After all, it doesn't matter much if you're making millions in gross revenue when you owe hundreds of millions (or billions) in debt. OTOH, as Fybush and I were chatting about this weekend, it does seem like a lot of radio owners have shifted into a mindset of just completely "giving up" and waiting for the proverbial giant asteroid to shove them into extinction. So maybe it's all kinda moot.

 

[Mike_Saffran]

Thanks for your comments. Because I’ve already had my say in a 76-page study (and on an audio podcast), I offer only these follow-up comments:

Though I commend ‘bobn’ for having obviously taken the time to at least peruse the full study (and not merely the news release), I must add that although the main sample was limited, findings are valuable, and indicative of potential trends, I believe, in that my study was a first to examine listener perceptions tied to the influence of ownership consolidation. To quote myself (from the study): “Future research would be enhanced by using randomly drawn samples from larger, controlled populations in similarly sized markets.”

Thus, my study was never intended to be the final word on the subject—but, instead, it is meant to contribute to the larger body of knowledge.

Further, I do not “blame radio” for radio’s current woes. To the contrary, one of the principal points in my study is that those who condemn “consolidation” alone oversimplify the problem. Rather, the current state of radio is the product of a confluence of forces that include:

• Deregulation and unintended consequences (unforeseen, however, by only some policymakers—but likely not unanticipated by many lobbyists and others)
• Varying interpretations of the principles of “the public interest” and “radio localism”
• Advances in technology

Lastly, a primary motivation for my study stemmed from a desire to promote the future relevance and preservation of local radio—which has several distinct advantages beyond those of many forms of new media. Make no mistake, I am firmly pro-radio. Read more:

The state of ‘old media’

Thanks, again, to those who participated in my survey,
Mike

 

[TheBigA]

Not to dispute this study, because it's a fine study, I'm sure many will agree with it's results. But it reaches conclusions that don't make sense in terms of the data it collected. There is an assumption in this study and several others I've read (including one a few years ago from the Future of Music Coalition), that a return to stricter ownership regulations will change radio programming. I have no reason to believe this is true. In the years before deregulation, larger owners were far more experimental with music programming than smaller ones. Rock radio was grown and expanded by several of the largest owners: ABC, MetroMedia, and RKO. These companies took successful formats and expanded them nationally to their other owned stations. Then employees left, formed consulting companies, and took the formats to non-owned stations.

I also am curious how increased news and public affairs, suggested by the report, solves the music problem.

My view is that it's difficult to discuss music on the radio without first discussing changes in music in the last 15 years. The increased fragmentation of audience and format, which began with the emergence of grunge music in the late 80s. This has progressed to the point where there are very few radio formats that can attract an audience large enough to gain sponsorship.

If you want to find the source of the problem, you do as "deep throat" suggested in All The President's Men: You follow the money. You combine the fragmentation of audience with the rise of personal entertainment devices, and you get a perfect storm that attacks the lifeblood of commercial broadcasting, which is advertising. It is clear by the events of the last few years that the system of sponsorship that kept radio alive and vibrant for the last fifty years is now almost dead. It was killed not by ownership or deregulation, but the lack of money. What has to change, in order for the medium to be revived, is to find a new source of funding, or a new way to attract advertising that works with today's new fragmented audiences. In other word, you can't sell a mass audience, so you sell fringe audiences. That's harder to do with the current structures and current sales force. And it makes traditional top-down radio stations, built around gatekeepers and trendsetters, obsolete as listeners can make their own playlists and create their own radio stations.

While new regulations may look attractive on the surface, they didn't create the internet, last.fm, Pandora, or any of the more personalized music applications that have changed the way we hear and discover music. They were created by technology, innovation, and enterprise. What's hurting their growth is regulation and royalties.

One conclusion I agree with is the repeal of the newspaper-broadcasting crossownership ban. A simple study of radio stations owned by newspapers now (due to FCC waivers) will demonstrate clearly that newspapers make the best owners of broadcasting. Prior to the ban in the late 70s, many of the country's most successful radio stations were owned by newspapers. The cross-ownership ban left those newspapers crippled and most of them have since disappeared. The Chicago Tribune's ownership of WGN is one of the biggest successes. But there are many others, and all are worth studying.

The one issue this study fails to address is the contradiction between what listeners say they want, and what they do. Quite often, a listener will say they want something because they're being asked. But if you study their behavior, it shows a completely different response. This might be best seen in terms of localism. Listeners talk about wanting more of it, yet their behavior shows something different. For the most part, they watch national TV, listen to national music, eat at national food chains, shop at national chains, and use the internet, which has no boundaries at all. And when local programming is available, they don't seem to be particularly supportive. Certainly not to the degree the are with non-local.

So overall, it's a nice study. I'd love to go into the data a bit deeper at some point. I'd love to see a study that didn't arrive at its conclusions first. I think that's what makes this a bit flawed in execution.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Advertising-based radio is still nearly a $20-Billion dollar per year industry. The fault doesn't lie with the business model as much as it lies with the management of companies that overspent in an attempt to gain competitive advantage. Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus, Regent, and a host of others aren't in trouble because money isn't coming in. They're in trouble because they projected continued growth in revenue despite increased competition from other forms of entertainment and information, and didn't build any reserve in case of a downturn in the economy. This is what's commonly known as bad management.

The one issue this study fails to address is the contradiction between what listeners say they want, and what they do. Quite often, a listener will say they want something because they're being asked. But if you study their behavior, it shows a completely different response. This might be best seen in terms of localism. Listeners talk about wanting more of it, yet their behavior shows something different. For the most part, they watch national TV, listen to national music, eat at national food chains, shop at national chains, and use the internet, which has no boundaries at all. And when local programming is available, they don't seem to be particularly supportive. Certainly not to the degree the are with non-local.

Please cite some kind of authoritative source for these contentions. You've made these statements before, but have never pointed to a source for what you quote as "facts".

Look at radio listening patterns by market and format prior to the current gutting of programming by cash-strapped consolidators. If you total the number of listeners for stations presenting predominantly local programming, those stations and dayparts have significantly more listeners than nationally syndicated programming. Major radio corporations haven't abandoned local programming because it was ineffective. They abandoned local programming in some dayparts - notably mid-days, nights, and overnights - because it was cheaper to syndicate or voice track. The revenue that they've lost has exceeded the savings in most markets.

Yes, there are exceptions, but when you look at the predominant listening trends, local origination generally outperforms syndicated content.

I do agree that there are problems with this study. On the other hand, I believe that we should take Mr. Saffran at his word when he states:

“Future research would be enhanced by using randomly drawn samples from larger, controlled populations in similarly sized markets.”

Thus, my study was never intended to be the final word on the subject—but, instead, it is meant to contribute to the larger body of knowledge.

 

[TheBigA]

Please cite some kind of authoritative source for these contentions. You've made these statements before, but have never pointed to a source for what you quote as "facts".

I would think it was rather obvious, with regard to the public's love of national TV programming, national music, national movies, national stores and restaurants, and the rest.

Look at radio listening patterns by market and format prior to the current gutting of programming by cash-strapped consolidators. If you total the number of listeners for stations presenting predominantly local programming, those stations and dayparts have significantly more listeners than nationally syndicated programming.

Depends on the show. Steve Harvey, which is a nationally syndicated urban morning show, is one of the most popular shows in most of the markets where he airs. In DC, he is killing two long established live & local shows in the same format. And he is doing it from a station owned by a local college. So local ownership doesn't always mean local programming. NPR's Morning Edition is also extremely popular, and since the majority of the contnt comes from Washington, we can assume that is the main draw. Certainly we all know that Rush Limbaugh gets more listeners than most local talkers. The key fact having to do with your point is that typically, syndicated programming is in fringe time, not drive time, so it won't get as many listeners as morning and afternoon drive.

Yes, there are exceptions, but when you look at the predominant listening trends, local origination generally outperforms syndicated content.

The point of my sentence was that, generally speaking, audience for local content is suffering from the same declines as syndicated programming. And for basically the same reasons, which is the desire for more individualized content, and competition from other entertainment sources. Both of those are issues that have grown in the last 15 years. Therefore, replacing syndicated programming in those dayparts with a local DJ won't necessarily result in an audience increase. Although it depends on the specific show.

 

[TheBigA]

They're in trouble because they projected continued growth in revenue despite increased competition from other forms of entertainment and information, and didn't build any reserve in case of a downturn in the economy. This is what's commonly known as bad management.

I'm pretty sure all of them built in reserves, but I don't think anyone expected the downturn to last this long. For ad-based radio, 2008 is the fourth straight year of advertising declines. You expect a couple of bad years. But this is beyond anything anyone anticipated, and it's affecting ALL ad-based media, including the internet. Couple it with last summer's stock crash, and that's where we are. None of it changes the fact that radio will need to find new sources of revenue (regardless of station ownership) if it expects to become a growth industry again.

 

[Element9]

May I be irreverent. Perhaps irrelevant?

"...radio will need to find new sources of revenue..."

Which really means, "where the hell are we gonna find the money?" Seems sales people every day are doing their best to mine new veins in commercial radio. Public radio is doing the same. As "corporate giving" declines, the non-com sales, er, underwriting reps are looking for different sources of funding too.

Thank goodness individual listeners continue to write checks to NPR and PBS affiliates. But you haver to wonder how long this will continue as more listeners and NPR members lose their jobs. We're all not doctors and lawyers, or professional athletes.

Hmmm, professional athletes....

Did. I. Just. Stumble. On. Something.

Quick, call A-Rod and see if he's a member of a local non-com in NYC or NJ. With his salary, A-Rod might be able to rehabilitate his tarnished image. Maybe the juicer could help supply the juice for a half dozen NPR affiliates and keep the lights on and transmitters operating.

It's a money problem. It's a confidence problem. And the guys at the top who jumped in took all the little guys down with 'em, whether it's banking, finance, Wall Street or radio and the media. Hard to feel sorry for Mel and his cohorts. Hard to feel sorry for con men like Madoff. Thing is, there are so many con men running their rackets.

We got conned. We bought in. What dopes we are.

Americans are struggling to pay their rent and mortgage; buy groceries and maintain their health care. It's a nightmare for so many Americans. Could it be that advertising and under-writing announcements aren't making the (lasting) impression they may have made a year ago.

I dunno. I'm asking. We're yapping about radio theory and it's application to reality. Some GM is looking at his spread sheet and wondering when the hell it's ever gonna end. How many more 5, 10, 20 per cent pay cuts will have to be made... how he can protect his own assets... how many more layoffs... before the whole sh*thouse goes up in flames, if it hasn't already. Has it already gone up in flames? I'm just askin'... Is there water in those hydrants?

Is radio at a disadvantage because it doesn't have pictures like cell phones and the Internet? Not that pictures are always an inducement to buy. The eTrade babies made an impression on me. The knucklehead yelling about his big carpet sale gets muted or turned off completely, if not scanned over when playing back the program on the DVR.

It's a brave new world. I don't have all the answers and over the years, I've found out that the experts with MBA's and PhD's in banking, finance, radio, TV and the media aren't any smarter than me. Not that I'm a genuius. I'm just sayin'...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Thank goodness individual listeners continue to write checks to NPR and PBS affiliates. But you have to wonder how long this will continue as more listeners and NPR members lose their jobs. We're all not doctors and lawyers, or professional athletes.

Interesting that you mention this topic because the new CEO of NPR was quoted as saying that more job and programming cuts may be forthcoming in the near future. This would put NPR in the position it was back in the 1980s when the network almost went down the tubes. How many of you remember that?
The saving grace for public radio is that unlike commercial stations, which offer little or no local news at all, many public radio stations still maintain a local news staff. Also their audience, small in numbers compared to some commercial stations, remains stable. And most of those listeners are college-educated people who desire more than just who's the latest homicide victim or what vacant house burned to the ground.
Now on the flip side of the coin, public stations are going to have to have a change in mindset when it comes to future funding. National underwriting and grants are drying up because of the economy. While more people might be pledging during fund raising drives, those dollars raised will hardly put a dent into the loss of taxpayer dollars from state governments and the feds. One suggestion I've always had is that those stations who have more vice presidents and middle-management than at a bank should start consolidating jobs and eliminate those positions left. Another important issue, which I have raised many times on here is that you can't have a non-com crying the poverty blues when a handful of employees are earning six-figure salaries, bonuses and perks. Maybe someday an enterprising TV or newspaper reporter will take it upon themselves to investigate just how much some of these executives rake in then let's see the reaction from those who donate money to public radio.

 

[Actuallyhavejob]

There's an old saying. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach at RIT and do totally unscientific research to come up with findings they already believe or they work in public radio and pontificate about commercial radio."

 

[SirRoxalot]

Old Sayings...

There's an old saying. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach at RIT and do totally unscientific research to come up with findings they already believe or they work in public radio and pontificate about commercial radio."

I guess it's time for the Mays boys, Farid, Lew Dickey, Bill Stakelin, and a bunch of other "industry leaders" to start applying at RIT, huh? It's pretty obvious that they can't "do", and their "research" seems to keep coming up with the same answers despite declining listening and revenue.

 

[Element9]

There's an old saying. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach at RIT and do totally unscientific research to come up with findings they already believe or they work in public radio and pontificate about commercial radio."

This is where a thread gets close to being sent to the oblivion known as Take It Outside. 'Job could have stated an opinion opposite that of the author of the study in question, but it was easier to play that canard about "them that can do..." and rip on RIT and educators. Glad you have a job, 'Job. If you work in radio, you may not have it next Saturday. Doesn't matter if you're an RVP, GM, SM, PD, traffic person, sales person, production person or air talent. People in the business are getting an education in ineptitude from the mavens in the seventh floor corner offices. I'd wager RIT provides a better education. BTW, ever dig into an Arbitron report? Talk about limitations and variations. Stations pay big money for those ratings. All statistically accurate, of course. Seventeen people accounting for all the listening of 18-24 Men. [/sarcasm]

 

[cee]

Hey Job, assuming your "job" is in radio -- where specifically do you work - station/company? If you're local, I have a suspicion or two as to who you might be(but just a suspicion). We've had these types post on this board before: "I'm gainfully employed in radio and you're not and thus you're a bitter loser who couldn't make it in the rough and tumble world of radio and I was able to make it so I'm great and you're nothing."

First of all, anyone working at R.I.T., including the janitors, are doing better most of the rank and file of the current commercial radio scene. And R.I.T. is a 1st rate college - one of the best around. Unless they're at the very top, who would think an unstable radio gig beats a gig at a prestigious college(actually, being a secretary at Bryant and Stratton beats most radio gigs nowadays). Second, I know Mike Saffran and he's a very smart guy. Commercial radio has degenerated so badly in the last 10 years, if I still worked in radio I'd be almost too ashamed to admit it.

 

[John C]

There's an old saying. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach at RIT and do totally unscientific research to come up with findings they already believe or they work in public radio and pontificate about commercial radio."

Funny, I never heard that saying, job. Next time you have something to actually contribute to this board, please do. In the meantime, keep your snippy, unwarrented insults to yourself.

 

[heydaybegone]

Hey Job, assuming your "job" is in radio -- where specifically do you work - station/company? If you're local, I have a suspicion or two as to who you might be(but just a suspicion). We've had these types post on this board before: "I'm gainfully employed in radio and you're not and thus you're a bitter loser who couldn't make it in the rough and tumble world of radio and I was able to make it so I'm great and you're nothing."

First of all, anyone working at R.I.T., including the janitors, are doing better most of the rank and file of the current commercial radio scene. And R.I.T. is a 1st rate college - one of the best around. Unless they're at the very top, who would think an unstable radio gig beats a gig at a prestigious college(actually, being a secretary at Bryant and Stratton beats most radio gigs nowadays). Second, I know Mike Saffran and he's a very smart guy. Commercial radio has degenerated so badly in the last 10 years, if I still worked in radio I'd be almost too ashamed to admit it.

Wow, hitting on all cylinders! I AM an alumni of RIT - earned a degree while I was IN the radio business - but NOT in broadcasting (heck, I was already there, needed a safety net). And and can't say I ever was comfortable with any research associated with radio, done by anybody. I had the opportunity to go to ARB to see the elusive "diaries". And, OMG, if ya saw what I saw!! I can't imagine what, or how, this other research is about. Reality says there is no way to research this business. Perception is reality to most - so ask a question and they answer with the "correct" answer and not their true feelings. Kind of like giving out your Social Security number. Anyway, cee, your on track.

 

[AndrewLawson]

I had the opportunity to go to ARB to see the elusive "diaries". And, OMG, if ya saw what I saw!! I can't imagine what, or how, this other research is about. Reality says there is no way to research this business. Perception is reality to most - so ask a question and they answer with the "correct" answer and not their true feelings.

This post reminded me that Arbitron called my sister-in-law last November and sent her some booklets to record her listening each day for a week. Her unlisted telephone number was supposedly selected at random by computer. She answered questions about how many people live in her home and their ages. Her brother and his family were temporarily living in the house, waiting to close on their new home, so there were seven people living in the house at the time: my sister in law, her husband, her brother, his wife and their three adult children. They were sent five dollars along with the booklets and each booklet was in a packet and included a few dollars. My sister-in-law and her husband are busy people; her brother and his wife had more urgent matters to attend to than writing about radio (which, ironically, I'm doing now, despite having to get the oil changed in my car and fix the sump pump in my basement on my day off) and it was just before Christmas when things get really hectic. They were supposed to write down their listening every day, but I know they had more important things to take care of. I'll have to ask what became of that situation.

 

[heydaybegone]

I saw several filled out with crayon - oh - and a magic marker! And as far as TSL - the vertical line from morning drive down to midnight was rather dramatic - those folks NEVER turned off their radios? I think that was when I realized my destiny was in the wrong people's hands!