When listening to the radio in the morning, would you rather hear a syndicated morning radio show or a local one and why?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Syndicated Vs. Local
- Thread starter toddjammin
- Start date
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
When listening to the radio in the morning, I want to hear an entertaining show. Whether it is local or coming in from out of town is only one very small factor in determining whether a show is entertaining or not. I think the majority of radio listeners feel the exact same way, even though everyone has a different opinion about what they find entertaining.
Sure, it's great to have local traffic reports, but syndicated shows can have such reports dropped in by the local station the same way the local station drops in commercials. It's great to have really funny local jokes, but a lame local joke isn't as good as a really funny national themed joke. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough, you could find some people who think any local joke is automatically funnier than a joke with no local flavor. But I don't think such people constitute a majority of those who listen to the radio.
Many, many people in here have listed things program elements that can only be done locally. But, if the local hosts don't do a very good and entertaining job of providing local flavor, then being local won't make a boring bit funny.
The 'DVE Morning Show is both local and funny, even if it's not nearly as funny as I remember it being before Krenn got bored with it all. I'd pick it ahead of a syndicated show that wasn't as funny, like the Bob & Tom show that WRRK carried after Quinn left them. But, after listening to the morning shows on 100.7 and 3WS, I'd take the Bob and Tom shows over either of them. Most of the people in my office agree with me, which is why the office radio is usually on 'DVE in the morning.
And, there are some people who simply want music in the morning, and those people would prefer a station in which the DJ's mostly kept quiet and only opened the mic a few times an hour. To those people who only tune in for the music, whether those few words spoken between songs were local or syndicated is probably irrelevant.
Sure, it's great to have local traffic reports, but syndicated shows can have such reports dropped in by the local station the same way the local station drops in commercials. It's great to have really funny local jokes, but a lame local joke isn't as good as a really funny national themed joke. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough, you could find some people who think any local joke is automatically funnier than a joke with no local flavor. But I don't think such people constitute a majority of those who listen to the radio.
Many, many people in here have listed things program elements that can only be done locally. But, if the local hosts don't do a very good and entertaining job of providing local flavor, then being local won't make a boring bit funny.
The 'DVE Morning Show is both local and funny, even if it's not nearly as funny as I remember it being before Krenn got bored with it all. I'd pick it ahead of a syndicated show that wasn't as funny, like the Bob & Tom show that WRRK carried after Quinn left them. But, after listening to the morning shows on 100.7 and 3WS, I'd take the Bob and Tom shows over either of them. Most of the people in my office agree with me, which is why the office radio is usually on 'DVE in the morning.
And, there are some people who simply want music in the morning, and those people would prefer a station in which the DJ's mostly kept quiet and only opened the mic a few times an hour. To those people who only tune in for the music, whether those few words spoken between songs were local or syndicated is probably irrelevant.
Todd said:When listening to the radio in the morning, would you rather hear a syndicated morning radio show or a local one and why?
Not a good question. If syndicated is Bob Dearborn and local is Rob Pratte, guess which one I pick?
There was a point in time where I thought local was the most important thing to be in radio, but a fellow named Howard Stern proved me wrong. Being entertaining/compelling is the most important thing to be.
Having said that, I still think that local radio has its place, I think there are plenty of mediocre and non-entertaining syndicated radio shows, and I have no place for any voice-tracked radio stations that try to fool the listeners into thinking they're live and local.
Having said that, I still think that local radio has its place, I think there are plenty of mediocre and non-entertaining syndicated radio shows, and I have no place for any voice-tracked radio stations that try to fool the listeners into thinking they're live and local.
L
lash
Guest
Voicetracking sure beats plainly automated! While it sounds tight in Greensburg, it also sounds generic.
I don't mind automation, as long as it's honest automation. Much of what plays on 620 at night (some of it at a whopping 50 watts) is filling time. I could voice-track it, but if the listeners are going to hear Clarke Ingram, I'm going to be there, live. Not some taped version. Did that once about five years ago at WJJJ. Exactly once. Hated the results. Never did it again.
P.S. We left Greensburg behind as a studio location and city of license four years ago. I realize old habits die hard. I'm sure we'll always be HJB to some people, especially those over a certain age, in Westmoreland County.
P.S. We left Greensburg behind as a studio location and city of license four years ago. I realize old habits die hard. I'm sure we'll always be HJB to some people, especially those over a certain age, in Westmoreland County.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Did that once about five years ago at WJJJ. Exactly once. Hated the results. Never did it again.
But did the audience hate the result? Isn't it the audience's opinion that should matter the most?
But did the audience hate the result? Isn't it the audience's opinion that should matter the most?
Having said that, I still think that local radio has its place, I think there are plenty of mediocre and non-entertaining syndicated radio shows, and I have no place for any voice-tracked radio stations that try to fool the listeners into thinking they're live and local.
I'd say don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, Clarke. When I had worked at the Indiana stations, we had been using satellite for years. But the bottom line was, the Bob and Lori morning show on 1160 WCCS was a very entertaining show to a lot of people. Yes, when you mix the buffers in at the beginning and end of each talk break, listeners were fooled into thinking they were broadcasting from the studios in Center Township. They made money with it then, and they're still making money with it now (with Richard Stevens in Bob Leonard's place), although they're turning in mostly for the news. But I say that bringing in something syndicated that's at least entertaining is much better than doing nothing at all between songs and commercials. We'd all love to be able to still do that locally, but we're not in a position revenue-wise to do that anymore.
I'd say don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, Clarke. When I had worked at the Indiana stations, we had been using satellite for years. But the bottom line was, the Bob and Lori morning show on 1160 WCCS was a very entertaining show to a lot of people. Yes, when you mix the buffers in at the beginning and end of each talk break, listeners were fooled into thinking they were broadcasting from the studios in Center Township. They made money with it then, and they're still making money with it now (with Richard Stevens in Bob Leonard's place), although they're turning in mostly for the news. But I say that bringing in something syndicated that's at least entertaining is much better than doing nothing at all between songs and commercials. We'd all love to be able to still do that locally, but we're not in a position revenue-wise to do that anymore.
Radio_Realist said:Did that once about five years ago at WJJJ. Exactly once. Hated the results. Never did it again.
But did the audience hate the result? Isn't it the audience's opinion that should matter the most?
Yes, probably. No idea of the audience's opinion, since I only voice-tracked my show for one day (I believe it was Thanksgiving) but it was so obvious to me that I was not live that I did not do it again.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
it was so obvious to me that I was not live that I did not do it again.
It must be great to be the boss and have the luxury of choosing to be live even if it wouldn't be economically feasible if you had to pay someone else to do the shift.
It must be great to be the boss and have the luxury of choosing to be live even if it wouldn't be economically feasible if you had to pay someone else to do the shift.
Radio_Realist said:it was so obvious to me that I was not live that I did not do it again.
It must be great to be the boss and have the luxury of choosing to be live even if it wouldn't be economically feasible if you had to pay someone else to do the shift.
The irony of it all is that we had a board-op on duty, in the studio, to make sure the voice tracks played as scheduled and who could jump on the air if they didn't. The next time we ran into that situation, we brought in a part-timer to do the show (which we should have done to begin with).
L
lash
Guest
The technology today is amazing on voice tracking. As one of the greatest jocks of all time, Jackson Armstrong did in Buffalo, his voice tracking was just as outstanding as him being there live.
I'll go on record again, voicetracking sounding local is ten times better than an automated jukebox. And you don't have to put up with their egos either.
I'll go on record again, voicetracking sounding local is ten times better than an automated jukebox. And you don't have to put up with their egos either.
G
garnet
Guest
i was listening to 'dve this morning, and heard the bit about "the creepy parents"...no kidding, got to work today, word for word from the complete sheet...the only thing they did was add a donald trump bit at the end about him and his daughter...an imitation...which was actually news about 4 or 6 months ago...it was an ok bit...for an afternoon or night show...but...'dve...morning drive...don't get it...Radio_Realist said:When listening to the radio in the morning, I want to hear an entertaining show. Whether it is local or coming in from out of town is only one very small factor in determining whether a show is entertaining or not. I think the majority of radio listeners feel the exact same way, even though everyone has a different opinion about what they find entertaining.
Sure, it's great to have local traffic reports, but syndicated shows can have such reports dropped in by the local station the same way the local station drops in commercials. It's great to have really funny local jokes, but a lame local joke isn't as good as a really funny national themed joke. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough, you could find some people who think any local joke is automatically funnier than a joke with no local flavor. But I don't think such people constitute a majority of those who listen to the radio.
Many, many people in here have listed things program elements that can only be done locally. But, if the local hosts don't do a very good and entertaining job of providing local flavor, then being local won't make a boring bit funny.
The 'DVE Morning Show is both local and funny, even if it's not nearly as funny as I remember it being before Krenn got bored with it all. I'd pick it ahead of a syndicated show that wasn't as funny, like the Bob & Tom show that WRRK carried after Quinn left them. But, after listening to the morning shows on 100.7 and 3WS, I'd take the Bob and Tom shows over either of them. Most of the people in my office agree with me, which is why the office radio is usually on 'DVE in the morning.
And, there are some people who simply want music in the morning, and those people would prefer a station in which the DJ's mostly kept quiet and only opened the mic a few times an hour. To those people who only tune in for the music, whether those few words spoken between songs were local or syndicated is probably irrelevant.
lash said:The technology today is amazing on voice tracking. As one of the greatest jocks of all time, Jackson Armstrong did in Buffalo, his voice tracking was just as outstanding as him being there live.
I'll go on record again, voicetracking sounding local is ten times better than an automated jukebox. And you don't have to put up with their egos either.
So, do you think I should voice-track my Saturday-afternoon shift on 620? That would not be much fun for the listeners, and it would be even less fun for me.
Jackson Armstrong, as I understand it, did his voice-tracking with the producer from 'KB on the phone at the same time allowing him to be cued and to talk up the intros as if he were actually there. I'll go on record as saying that his voice-tracking was the best I've ever heard on radio. Special case, though. In general I find voice-tracking to be painfully obvious and I don't like it much. One great exception doesn't make it a good idea.
Voice-tracking is better than automation, but voice-tracking that pretends to be live and local happens to be a lie and misleads the audience, and I wonder if the FCC should look into it as a matter of deceptive broadcast practices (which they tend to frown upon).
It's a budget-cutting strategem for the big boys, IMHO, and nothing more.
And by the way, if you have good talent you're going to deal with some big egos. Some find it easier to deal with, or at least worth dealing with if you're going to have good talent on the air. Yep, real live jocks are sometimes a pain in the ass. I've always thought it was worth the pain. No pain, no (ratings) gain. Voice-tracked stations rarely do very well in the ratings, and this is even truer as the markets get bigger.
P.S. I wonder what they did in Buffalo when clients/listeners wanted Jackson Armstrong for an appearance.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
cingram said:The irony of it all is that we had a board-op on duty, in the studio, to make sure the voice tracks played as scheduled and who could jump on the air if they didn't. The next time we ran into that situation, we brought in a part-timer to do the show (which we should have done to begin with).
I was referring to being in a situation where you had to pay a qualified entertainer/DJ. Presumeably, a board op doesn't command the same salary as a good DJ, except on smaller stations run on a shoe-string budget. It's one thing to let a kid who you have to pay minimum wage learn to be a DJ on your air instead of using something voice-tracked or canned. I was referring to stations higher up in the food chain where giving the board op a crack at playing DJ isn't an option.
That would not be much fun for the listeners, and it would be even less fun for me
I think the latter drives your decision far more than the former. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful to find yourself in a position where you can indulge yourself in doing a live airshift because you find it fun. But if it was a situation where the preserving the bottom line was the difference between keeping your job or getting fired, and voice-tracking and canned programming would enable you to achieve the profitability goals set by the station owners while live DJ's would cost you your job, what would you do?
"P.S. I wonder what they did in Buffalo when clients/listeners wanted Jackson Armstrong for an appearance."
They said "Sorry".
I'll go on record again, voicetracking sounding local is ten times better than an automated jukebox. And you don't have to put up with their egos either.
I don't think that voicetracking, when done properly, sounds any different than being there, other than the absence of time and temperature checks. I hear backselling, I hear local PSA's being given during breaks, that kind of thing. If a voice-tracked personality is taking requests and someone else answers the phone, and all they're doing is simply dropping in the song, yes, that's a little tacky. But I stand by my statement that voicetracking a shift as opposed to simply music, liners and commercials, with NO human element at all sounds worse.
Cary Simpson once said in a Radio Ink interview that a common reason why people listen to radio is that they don't want to feel alone. When you have that human element, you don't feel alone. Let's face it...we'd all like to have big budgets and be able to have live talent in our studios like the good old days. But that's not possible anymore. This is what we have to do in order to stay competitive these days.
Voice-tracking is better than automation, but voice-tracking that pretends to be live and local happens to be a lie and misleads the audience.
See my point about the requests in the above paragraph, Clarke. You've got to have that human element there. This is how stations like the ones in Latrobe, Uniontown, Indiana, and Homer City (all of which are satellite) survive. I find that a jukebox that does nothing but play songs back to back with little if anything in between for 15 minutes an absolute bore. John Longo said in a Trib interview that with his WCNS "you can pop in an oldies CD and listen to that. It's what we do in between the music that makes us unique." He took not one, but TWO radio stations that were literally a joke in their own communities and turned them into real profitable operations...while MAINTAINING a very local image.
I don't think that voicetracking, when done properly, sounds any different than being there, other than the absence of time and temperature checks. I hear backselling, I hear local PSA's being given during breaks, that kind of thing. If a voice-tracked personality is taking requests and someone else answers the phone, and all they're doing is simply dropping in the song, yes, that's a little tacky. But I stand by my statement that voicetracking a shift as opposed to simply music, liners and commercials, with NO human element at all sounds worse.
Cary Simpson once said in a Radio Ink interview that a common reason why people listen to radio is that they don't want to feel alone. When you have that human element, you don't feel alone. Let's face it...we'd all like to have big budgets and be able to have live talent in our studios like the good old days. But that's not possible anymore. This is what we have to do in order to stay competitive these days.
Voice-tracking is better than automation, but voice-tracking that pretends to be live and local happens to be a lie and misleads the audience.
See my point about the requests in the above paragraph, Clarke. You've got to have that human element there. This is how stations like the ones in Latrobe, Uniontown, Indiana, and Homer City (all of which are satellite) survive. I find that a jukebox that does nothing but play songs back to back with little if anything in between for 15 minutes an absolute bore. John Longo said in a Trib interview that with his WCNS "you can pop in an oldies CD and listen to that. It's what we do in between the music that makes us unique." He took not one, but TWO radio stations that were literally a joke in their own communities and turned them into real profitable operations...while MAINTAINING a very local image.
L
lash
Guest
No, you should do you live show on 620. Gotta be able to hear you hit all those posts. Your there, and Barry Banker should do his live show. I'm not saying replace live jocks already in place with voice tracking, I'm saying add voicetracking if you can afford it in other dayparts.
For smaller market stations, voice tracking is a tremendous, cost saving way to go. Our station has me live to two hours, and the rest is voice tracked. The jocks are fed local information and update their breaks in real time, and it is flawless. You can't tell the difference.
A board op/producer for Jackson Armstrong does not make the much of a difference. The voice tracking done by Sandy Beach on KB also sounded incredible.
For smaller market stations, voice tracking is a tremendous, cost saving way to go. Our station has me live to two hours, and the rest is voice tracked. The jocks are fed local information and update their breaks in real time, and it is flawless. You can't tell the difference.
A board op/producer for Jackson Armstrong does not make the much of a difference. The voice tracking done by Sandy Beach on KB also sounded incredible.
It's funny...I agree with all of you to some extent.
My feeling is that since AM & PM drive times are the most important parts of the day, it's best to fill that with live, local talent. It's easier to cut to the all-important traffic reports, news (if so moved to have such a service) and it will serve the public well. I also feel that the mid-day deserves a live body at the mic rather than someone on tape...syndicated or not.
Now, if you wanted to VT/syndicate during any of the other shifts, then that's fine.
I agree with Clarke that there is something about voice-tracking that makes it sound painfully obvious. 1. If you're accustomed to talking over the music, (intro or outro) it's not easy to do when VT. 2. You're not giving the air temp./wx as normal so there's another difference. 3. You can't be as "on the spot" with your announcing. 4. No interaction with the listeners.
Voicetracking has its place, but it should be strategicly place in dayparts where it's not too important to be in direct touch (by phone, email, IM) with the listener.
My feeling is that since AM & PM drive times are the most important parts of the day, it's best to fill that with live, local talent. It's easier to cut to the all-important traffic reports, news (if so moved to have such a service) and it will serve the public well. I also feel that the mid-day deserves a live body at the mic rather than someone on tape...syndicated or not.
Now, if you wanted to VT/syndicate during any of the other shifts, then that's fine.
I agree with Clarke that there is something about voice-tracking that makes it sound painfully obvious. 1. If you're accustomed to talking over the music, (intro or outro) it's not easy to do when VT. 2. You're not giving the air temp./wx as normal so there's another difference. 3. You can't be as "on the spot" with your announcing. 4. No interaction with the listeners.
Voicetracking has its place, but it should be strategicly place in dayparts where it's not too important to be in direct touch (by phone, email, IM) with the listener.
We could argue this until the cows come home, I suppose, but my point is obvious: I just don't like voice-tracking. Call it a personal preference.
Radio Realist raised some interesting points that should be addressed. Do I do the live shift on 620 on Saturdays because it's fun? Yes. Is it fun for the audience? I try to make it so, but I'm aware that relatively few people are listening compared to the big Pittsburgh stations. Does it add to the profitability of our stations? No, but the owner likes to have somebody "live" on the air when we're playing music on the daytime pattern (which, other than mornings, is not very often). What would I do if an owner insisted on voice-tracking my live-and-local radio station? Walk, probably.
If a station owner can't afford live DJ's, and still be profitable, then they're doing a pretty lousy job of running the station(s). Or they overpaid for the station(s). Or they're in a very small market.
BTW, Chris - having a producer for Jackson Armstrong and Sandy Beach made ALL the difference in the world. 'KB did voice-tracking right. They had OK ratings and they still blew it up. (The Buffalo ratings are embargoed so I can't tell you exactly how they're doing with the liberal-talk format, but I'd bet it's nowhere near the ratings they had with oldies.)
Radio Realist raised some interesting points that should be addressed. Do I do the live shift on 620 on Saturdays because it's fun? Yes. Is it fun for the audience? I try to make it so, but I'm aware that relatively few people are listening compared to the big Pittsburgh stations. Does it add to the profitability of our stations? No, but the owner likes to have somebody "live" on the air when we're playing music on the daytime pattern (which, other than mornings, is not very often). What would I do if an owner insisted on voice-tracking my live-and-local radio station? Walk, probably.
If a station owner can't afford live DJ's, and still be profitable, then they're doing a pretty lousy job of running the station(s). Or they overpaid for the station(s). Or they're in a very small market.
BTW, Chris - having a producer for Jackson Armstrong and Sandy Beach made ALL the difference in the world. 'KB did voice-tracking right. They had OK ratings and they still blew it up. (The Buffalo ratings are embargoed so I can't tell you exactly how they're doing with the liberal-talk format, but I'd bet it's nowhere near the ratings they had with oldies.)
kenhawk1160 said:Cary Simpson once said in a Radio Ink interview that a common reason why people listen to radio is that they don't want to feel alone. When you have that human element, you don't feel alone. Let's face it...we'd all like to have big budgets and be able to have live talent in our studios like the good old days. But that's not possible anymore. This is what we have to do in order to stay competitive these days.
You've got to have that human element there. This is how stations like the ones in Latrobe, Uniontown, Indiana, and Homer City (all of which are satellite) survive. I find that a jukebox that does nothing but play songs back to back with little if anything in between for 15 minutes an absolute bore. John Longo said in a Trib interview that with his WCNS "you can pop in an oldies CD and listen to that. It's what we do in between the music that makes us unique." He took not one, but TWO radio stations that were literally a joke in their own communities and turned them into real profitable operations...while MAINTAINING a very local image.
I don't disagree with any of this. What I disagree with is fooling the audience into thinking they're listening to a live and local personality when they're not. I'm sure some operators do this well and perhaps slap each other on the back for their cleverness but it's MISLEADING THE AUDIENCE and I find I can't condone it. (I also find it hard to believe that Renda is not making enough money with his group of stations, particularly that dominant cluster in Indiana PA - for all intents and purposes it appears to own the market - to hire live personalities.)
By the way, Uniontown - if you're speaking of WMBS - is live and local most of the time.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.