• 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

The Businessmen Of Today's Radio

radio has always been a business -- Ltl Boy Blu

--Too often managed these days by people (like those at CBS radio) who are lousy at business, and totally
neglecting
the first half of their livelihood, "Show-biz."

Example: if broadcasting is trying to educate listeners that HD is the next step in its evolution, why
would they publicly utilize that wonderful, shiny, new hybrid signal as a dumping ground? (like the KFRC
music format, minus the DJs, withering, colorless and abandoned on their HD-2 signal)

Now there's a set of mixed messages that shows you exactly that point from which they operate doesn't it? I've
always called it strip mining.
 
skyrocker said:
radio has always been a business -- Ltl Boy Blu

--Too often managed these days by people (like those at CBS radio) who are lousy at business, and totally
neglecting
the first half of their livelihood, "Show-biz."

Example: if broadcasting is trying to educate listeners that HD is the next step in its evolution, why
would they publicly utilize that wonderful, shiny, new hybrid signal as a dumping ground? (like the KFRC
music format, minus the DJs, withering, colorless and abandoned on their HD-2 signal)

Now there's a set of mixed messages that shows you exactly that point from which they operate doesn't it? I've
always called it strip mining.

I wouldn't think of defending either the business practices or the show-biz acumen of today's radio execs - but I'm going to defend the much maligned HD2 signals. First, they don't pretend to be anything other than music streams with an occasional linier thrown in just so people know what they're listening to. I don't think you can expect these corporations to spend money on jocks (voice-tracked or live) when very few people are listening. I'm old enough to remember FM in the late 50s and early 60s. The FMs were operated much like the HD2 signals are now - either simulcasts of the AM or fully automated. The first FM jocks on the stand-alone FMs were the hippie rock jocks on the "free form" FM stations, and I doubt they made much money in their first few years.

Obviously, this changed as FM gained audience share.

Second, the HD2 signals do at least provide music variety. KKSF2 plays real jazz, KDFC2 provides a second classical stream, The Wolf2 plays classic country from the 1940s thru the 90s, MOViN 2 is straight CHR, KOIT2 is 60s Oldies, etc.

All that extra content, and the cost is $0. I bought my HD unit because my car CD player died, and the HD radio was only $20 more than equivalent non-HD units. A real no-brainer.

Why don't I pay for satellite radio? Well - between Netflix, ComCast, high-speed internet, and buying music downloads, I already pay out enough money every month for my family's personal entertainment, thank you. Besides - it's looking increasingly like Satellite may not survive, and it may turn out that terrestrial radio's investment in HD will pay off after a few years.
 
I wouldn't think of defending either the business practices or the show-biz acumen of today's radio execs - but I'm going to defend the much maligned HD2 signals.

We agree completely. Looks like we both support HD and it's growth.

As for satellite radio - been there (survived for nearly 3 great years), done that, had fun.

Unfortunately, even by the time I beamed up, that corporate cost-cut virus had already taken pretty firm hold.
Entertainment lost, (and who won - stockholders?) when the two companies "merged."
 
skyrocker said:
I wouldn't think of defending either the business practices or the show-biz acumen of today's radio execs - but I'm going to defend the much maligned HD2 signals.

We agree completely. Looks like we both support HD and it's growth.

As for satellite radio - been there (survived for nearly 3 great years), done that, had fun.

Unfortunately, even by the time I beamed up, that corporate cost-cut virus had already taken pretty firm hold.
Entertainment lost, (and who won - stockholders?) when the two companies "merged."

Thanks, Skyrocker. I hope I didn't sound like I was lecturing. With all these 'nom-de-posts' people use, I sometimes forget who I'm responding to. I'm sure I know more about radio than you do with your measly 40 years of top-flight professional experience ;D

I'm sorry I missed your contributions on Satellite. I almost sprung for XM in 2005 when it looked like I was going to take a job that required a one-hour commute by car, but I stayed local (BART accessible), instead.

Though I have not personally partaken of satellite radio, all the reviews I've read of the new merged entity have been negative.
 
If the station owners want to convert their HD signals into a viable revenue stream, they should start LMAing or leasing or brokering them out to others.

Let's see ... Skyrocker (and Dave Sholin, along with a few other beached radio stars), their personalities unleashed, a solid programming concept, a robust music library, a salesperson (or two) (or three) and an HD signal (plus an Internet stream) = something worth listening to.

Rather than talking about how swell HD is, the Big Radio Conglomerates should put their signals where their bottom lines are and give it a shot. Let some Real Radio People roll the dice, take a risk, and put some programming on HD that is more than an iPod on shuffle with a few jingles thrown in.

Any takers on either side?
 
...the Big Radio Conglomerates should put their signals where their bottom lines are and give it a shot...Any takers on either side?
I think they're afraid of us, BossRadioDavid. During my most recent walk through
(CBS) corporate hallways, I was treated like the proverbial "loose cannon." And I
haven't been loaded in years.

But that's OK. Having been among the luckiest beings entangled in gravity and
realized most all of my radio ambitions, I feel far too grateful for what has already
come down to get very hung up about what clearly isn't working. For awhile now
I've been inching towards that retirement door.

Last time I was intercepted at the doorknob by KOIT's Director Of Programming,
Mr. Bill Conway. Many listeners have followed or found me and never fail to
call and say hi when they hear me once again (on next: weekend of Dec 13 -
14th)
I'm barely working, but, then again, it's still fun every time. Glad
Bill was there to collect me. I've found "part-time" life with one of the
last true broadcast-owned, number-1 ranked stations in the Bay Area actually
fun again, as well as exhillerating, intelligent and very rewarding.

Oh, and I've put my name in already for any opportunities on the company's
HD band. The thought of getting together with a "...few other beached radio
stars... their personalities unleashed, a solid programming concept, a robust music
library, a salesperson (or two)...
and properly entertaining an audience
--let alone competing-- still sounds mighty tempting. To most of us, I'll bet.

And you know it will happen, sooner or later.
 
skyrocker said:
--Too often managed these days by people (like those at CBS radio) who are lousy at business, and totally
neglecting
the first half of their livelihood, "Show-biz."

Given that today's CBS traces its roots and corporate culture back to Westinghouse, one of the very first broadcasters, I wouldn't be inclined to say they were bad at business. Westinghouse has always been a penny pincher. Today's CBS has a positive cash flow, unlike most other broadcasters these days. So, I think they know at least a little something about business.

What so many people here fail to see is the broader picture. They see their own careers in meltdown or they see their favorite format jettisoned, but CBS can't look at things with such a narrow view.
 
DavidKaye said:
skyrocker said:
--Too often managed these days by people (like those at CBS radio) who are lousy at business, and totally
neglecting
the first half of their livelihood, "Show-biz."

Given that today's CBS traces its roots and corporate culture back to Westinghouse, one of the very first broadcasters, I wouldn't be inclined to say they were bad at business. Westinghouse has always been a penny pincher. Today's CBS has a positive cash flow, unlike most other broadcasters these days. So, I think they know at least a little something about business.

What so many people here fail to see is the broader picture. They see their own careers in meltdown or they see their favorite format jettisoned, but CBS can't look at things with such a narrow view.

Westinghouse? Would that still represent the dominant corporate culture at CBS? I'm not doubting you- just asking. Yes - Westinghouse bought CBS at one point, but Viacom sucked up Westinghouse, and owned the network far longer than Westinghouse ever did, and the current "CBS" corporation is an offshoot of Viacom. There's also some Infinity (the company that brought us Howard Stern) in their corporate DNA. I think it was Viacom that purchased Infinity, not Westinghouse...though my memory on that could be off.
 
Today's CBS has a positive cash flow, unlike most other broadcasters these days...
Ooh. Spoken like a true stockholder!

I'm sure if I were running things, they'd be much worse than they are now,
if that's possible. Who knows where my narrow view would have taken my
people, my station, or worse, my cluster?

My perspective isn't constrained by conflicting interests, however, so actually
I see what most see. We see, not only CBS, of course, but a majority of the
cut-and-paste clusters have stopped listening to their own listeners, and thus
stopped investing in them, years ago.

We may fail to see the broader picture, but we're not blinded by greed.

I think I can differentiate between a career or format change and an entire
industry going from heart to heartless, from Creative to Plug-in. There's a
stark difference between the pinching of a few pennies and mindless,
money-grubbing cold cuts.

And where have these cuts led?

Well, one case I'm familiar with (but sounds like so many others, so it must
be that Broader Vision stuff you're referring to
) happened just a few years
ago. I was brought in on promises and smiles but, once inside, saw a station
so mismanaged it teetered on floundering.

I struggled, even paying for my own jingle sessions and personal novelty
giveaway items, and, despite broken promises, was able to hold up my end for
the longest time. I Made new friends I still have today, and had more than a
little fun with my listeners.

I'd love to finish this story about what a mess mindless cuts can produce,
(and, you're right, who gives a shit?) but - suddenly became a cost-cut statistic
myself and consequently lost touch with "that station that lost touch with its listeners."

Heard they weren't doing that well, tho.
 
Lkeller said:
Westinghouse? Would that still represent the dominant corporate culture at CBS? I'm not doubting you- just asking. Yes - Westinghouse bought CBS at one point, but Viacom sucked up Westinghouse, and owned the network far longer than Westinghouse ever did, and the current "CBS" corporation is an offshoot of Viacom. There's also some Infinity (the company that brought us Howard Stern) in their corporate DNA. I think it was Viacom that purchased Infinity, not Westinghouse...though my memory on that could be off.

Well, okay, it's really come full circle. CBS now owns CBS in a sense, since the current CBS is a split off from Viacom. And Viacom began life in the 1970s as a split off from CBS. But along the way, "CBS", whatever it is, acquired the intellectual assets as well as property assets of Group W (aka the late Donald H. McGannon, longtime chairman), Infinity (aka Mel Karmazin), and Westwood One (aka Norm Pattiz).

None of those folks or the companies they ran can be considered rank amateurs; in fact they were leaders in their particular areas. So, to call CBS management amateur, stupid, ignorant bean counters is to deny a tremendous legacy. Yes, companies do have corporate personalities. No, today's CBS is not the CBS of Bill Paley, the "Tiffany Network" or any of that. That has long gone away. But what exists today is still the legacy of professional broadcasters, not ignorant bean counters.
 
what exists today is still the legacy of professional broadcasters, not ignorant bean counters.
You're right, DK. The CBS of today is NOT the show-biz based network of old.
Times change. It's a new batch of people entirely who call themselves CBS.
So, drawing a distinction between who they are and their behavior, I apologize.

There's no excuse for the childish exercise in name calling --even as they continue
to ACT like
ignorant bean counters.
 
skyrocker said:
Ooh. Spoken like a true stockholder!

I do NOT currenly hold CBS stock, though I made it clear here in an earlier post that I was buying CBS stock. I'm in and out of stock, and in fact I missed the 80% run-up in CBS stock this past week. But regardless of whether I have a pony in this race, I still call things as I see them, regardless of my personal beliefs.

This is why I'll say good things about Michael Savage's radio technique even though I despise his politics and generally think he's scum. This doesn't prevent him from doing a damned good radio show. Likewise, I praised CBS prior to putting in any stock buy orders.

My perspective isn't constrained by conflicting interests, however, so actually
I see what most see. We see, not only CBS, of course, but a majority of the
cut-and-paste clusters have stopped listening to their own listeners, and thus
stopped investing in them, years ago.

You have the most conflicting interest of all: Wanting a job in the business! I don't want a job in the business. I have a job.

PS: As a commercial broadcaster you have lost sight of the fact that the customer is NOT the listener. The customer is the advertiser. If as a station you sell undesirable listeners to your advertisers you're going to fail. I don't know exactly who you are, but I'm sorry to have to report to you that your skills bring in the wrong listener and the advertisers don't want to buy your services.

Or do they? Why not go to advertisers and package a show if you think your skills are so valuable. Do your oldies show or whatever it is and sell spot time to advertisers. Line up some stations. Get a partner if you can't do all this yourself. But I'll give you a clue: The market is very small for doing the kind of radio that people here are wailing about; very small.
 
All I can say as I listen to 92.1 to 107.9 MC and 540 to 1700 KC:

This is entertainment?!?!

P.S. - Skyrocker, aka Mr. Ocean, Bully for you!!! I could NOT have
summed up the vast wasteland that is now economized and
compromised radio any better!
--jay
 
djj said:
All I can say as I listen to 92.1 to 107.9 MC and 540 to 1700 KC:

This is entertainment?!?!

Some people seem to think so. They appear to like to listen to KOIT, KMEL, KQED-FM. And why do you ignore the stations between 88 and 92? If you want your style of entertainment, surely some of those stations must be providing it. Some of those stations have real live DJs and such.
 
It seems that the gentleman who goes by Skyrocker has been known to be a live air personality himself...more than just a DJ. It should be pointed out that he doesn't have a conflict of interest in wanting a job in the business. He has had a very successful voice business for decades...stations have actually called HIM wanting him to come to work for them.
 
SFStatic said:
It seems that the gentleman who goes by Skyrocker has been known to be a live air personality himself...more than just a DJ. It should be pointed out that he doesn't have a conflict of interest in wanting a job in the business. He has had a very successful voice business for decades...stations have actually called HIM wanting him to come to work for them.

Anyone who HAS NOT figured out who Skyrocker is clearly doesn't know the history of Bay Area Radio very well (this person practically gives it away in every post). We love you Skyrocker!!!! Keep on keepin' on!!!
 
DavidKaye said:
djj said:
All I can say as I listen to 92.1 to 107.9 MC and 540 to 1700 KC:

This is entertainment?!?!

Some people seem to think so. They appear to like to listen to KOIT, KMEL, KQED-FM.

Considering the gaggle of other radio channels that get more and more narrowcast, KOIT is
a good example of an alternative to the music repetition elsewhere, but it's the ONLY example,
hence my remark regards stations in general: This is entertainment?!?!

Not to mention, the continued dwindling of air talent, especially "personalities," taking place...

DavidKaye said:
... And why do you ignore the stations between 88 and 92? If you want your style of entertainment, surely some of those stations must be providing it. Some of those stations have real live DJs and such.

The non-comm stations (88.1 to 91.9 MC) are a breed all their own. And yes, David, they are quite entertaining
and/or informational, especially compared to the "commercial" signals. Most of the non-comm signals,
unfortunately, have much lower power compared to the "commercial" stations (91.3 KSVY, Sonoma, for one)...

I did not ignore those stations...they simply cannot be lumped in the same category as the "commercial" signals
(like the owner of such signals seemingly targeted earlier in this particular thread, read CBS)...

How CAN they be? (A possible exception is KQED-FM and its gargantuan ERP of 110,000-watts.)

Mainstream listeners will not head to that end of the FM dial, except for a KQED-FM-type...

I would like very much to see what the total cume of radio listening is like now compared to, say, 1981 or
1992, when the first signs of FCC deregulation started taking place. 1981 was the last year you could get
an FCC First-Class License (aka the "P1"), which used to be mandatory in some cases if you were to be a DJ at
certain AM stations, and 1992 was the first round of newly-created "duopolies," which seem more like "monopolies"...
--jay
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom