The CC Debate

[Talk_Dude]

I guess I hit a nerve with some of you. Sorry, I did not intend to upset any one.

Talk_Dude, much as like a lot of your posts, I have to part company with you. In radio at it's peak, personalities were the product. Two or three stations playing the same music in major markets and what made the difference is personalities. Talk radio's premise is entirely based on personalities (not ideology); the appeal of Rush is Rush. Yes, there were bad DJs and DJs who talked too much. But the claim that the audience rejected DJs is a lie used by management to justify getting rid of air talent (and for reigning them in). The I-man became more popular when he stopped playing records.

I won't dispute that the people who were between the ages of 18 and 35 back in the 1960's did like disc jockeys. But the people who were 18 in 1969 are 59 today. Peoples' attitudes and preferences change over time. The 59 year olds to 80 somethings in 2010 (1) don't care about DJ's like they used to and (2) don't matter anyway. The 18 to 35 year olds of 2010 aren't the same people who were 18 to 35 back in the 1960's. They don't have the same affection for DJ's that their parents and grandparents did.

There are always the occasional isolated exceptions to any trend. One or two isolated exceptions don't disprove a general truth.

 

[gr8oldies]

We seem to be at a point where there is talk radio and there is music radio, and largely the two no longer mix. Even non-political hosts like Gary Burbank stopped playing music years ago. No one wants Rush to play 6 songs an hour, and few music listeners want 2 minute comedy bits, horoscopes, stock market and farm reports mixed into Lady Antebellum and Fergie songs (in a workplace it wouldn't be able to be paid close attention to).
The problem with the theory that the audience was driven away because there weren't chatty local DJs sitting in a chair downtown spinning tunes is belied, as The Big A has pointed out, that those audiences haven't gone online looking for personality DJs talking between songs. If they were, someone would be doing that on the internet,
Bill Drake is praised and vilified for cleaning up the top 40 format. If he had never come along, could you honestly see a 2010 audience listening to a guy ringing a cowbell, minute long jingles and enough reverb to make your ears hurt?

 

[MattParker]

Some DJs were personalities. Many were not; they were bad and they talked too much. But the good ones, and the great ones, are fondly remember by those who made a point to listen to them.

Because people complained about bad DJs doesn't mean people did not respond to personalities.

It may be too late any way. DJs during that period came up from small radio stations. Radio management seems to want only people with name recognition (in some other field) and no radio experience. Part of the problem is there are no small radio stations, just transmitters attached to a computer attached to a dish.

I'm guessing some of you were not around for radio in the 50s, 60s and 70s and are repeating the industry line. Others of you may have grown up in smaller markets where local radio often sounded pretty bad. In some ways, the case can be made that medium and small markets are better served by satellite feeds and voice tracking. Except radio has lost its farm system.

Even Bill Drake recognized a personality when he got one and gave them considerable latitude.

Several shows which started on early TV added radio versions. In part, this was because the FCC had ordered a freeze on new TV licenses through most of the decade and many markets did not get local TV (or multiple channels) until the late 50s or early 60s. Have Gun Will Travel was not the only example but it did show that adapting radio scripts for television (like Gunsmoke) worked better than adapting TV scripts for radio (like HGWT where many of radio scripts were recycled from TV). Not including simulcasts, other examples off the top of my head included I Love Lucy, My Little Margie, Hopalong Cassidy and Howdy Doody. There may be others.

 

[TheBigA]

Except radio has lost its farm system.

No, radio has a different farm system. Radio is being done in lots of places that don't operate through towers and transmitters. And its reaching a lot of people. Look beyond the way things used to be. That era is over.

 

[smedge2006]

Bill Drake is praised and vilified for cleaning up the top 40 format. If he had never come along, could you honestly see a 2010 audience listening to a guy ringing a cowbell, minute long jingles and enough reverb to make your ears hurt?

It's interesting to note that Jamaican and other Caribbean radio DJs (who never had a Bill Drake) talk up to the post, through the post and all over the song. You can also hear this in some Spanish-language formats. Maybe not talking over the song is just an American cultural thing, and if there had not been a Bill Drake, maybe we would have cowbells, or perhaps we would have emulated those cool Jamaican jocks.

No, radio has a different farm system. Radio is being done in lots of places that don't operate through towers and transmitters. And its reaching a lot of people. Look beyond the way things used to be. That era is over.

Yes, there are podcasts and streaming sites. There's also paying $50 an hour to broker time on some small AM. But there are no teachers in these places, no coaches to help talent grow. What does grow in this environment is comparable to the flower that pops up in the middle of a sludge pond at the sewage plant. It's not going to make a big difference, because it's not part of a culture of quality.

 

[TheBigA]

But there are no teachers in these places, no coaches to help talent grow.

There are lots of out-of-work PDs who are now teaching courses at colleges. In fact I work with lots of them. Back in the old days, radio people didn't go to college. Now they do. And in the old days, colleges didn't hire ex-radio people. Now they do. Lots of things have changed. The old ways are done. Small market radio was NEVER a culture of quality, and I never hired anyone from there. It was a culture of working with nothing and no budget and broken down equipment in moldy studios with cigarette burns.

If you want to work in radio, you have to WANT to. No one's going to ask you. And if you WANT to, you have to be willing to invest in yourself. No one's going to just give it to you for nothing. And that applies to any job that's worth doing. You just want to fall into something? That's what fast food is for.

 

[imhomerjay]

In radio at it's peak, personalities were the product.

The listeners were and are the product sold to advertisers. The product is what you sell to the person paying the cash.

Should radio and radio personalities sound the same as thirty years ago? Not necessarily. But the basic principles of personality-driven radio still apply.

Not if a larger piece of the audience doesn’t prefer that style.

Radio was at its most successful when personalities were king.

Or was it when “shows” (be it dramas, comedy, etc.) was king?

That issue aside, you’re talking about a time when the kind of technology that exists today wasn’t so much a glimmer in a nerd’s eye. When you’re pretty much the only choice, um, yeah, you’re going to be king.

Fewer people listen now and they don't listen as long. However you want to define "quality," clearly the audience is not satisfied.

Yet again conveniently ignoring the whole big world out there. Lifestyle changes, technology changes, changes in the rest of the media. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Listeners don't leave because they are drawn away; they leave because they are driven away.

No, they leave for a multitude of reasons. In a world where it’s possible to get essentially anything you want at the touch of a button with effectively no delay, those options become better. A broadcast stream can’t match that, and it’s inevitable that people will wander away because they’re attracted to what’s new, not exclusively because they suddenly develop an aversion to what existed before.
Satisfied listeners don't seek other options. Did people stop listening to soap operas on the radio because TV was available (and better) or because radio stopped offering soap operas? In Britain, BBC Radio 4 still offers dramas, sitcoms, game shows and soaps and they have a substantial following. More of their population listens to radio, they listen longer and radio still has buzz.

Nor did people did not stop using the horse and buggy . They substituted internal combustion engines for horses. The same companies which made horseless carriages had made the buggies.

So if Clear Channel made the iPod—exactly as we know it now—it wouldn’t be a case of people abandoning radio?

How about this—maybe they didn’t abandon “radio” at all. Maybe it was never ABOUT radio. Maybe radio just happened to have a nice long period where it was the most effective form of music distribution to the general public. People flocked to it for the music (or other programming, take your pick). It was a means to an end. Now a better means to said end exists; they simply followed the technology to a new device/method for obtaining music et al, just as you suggest they “didn’t abandon the horse and buggy.”

 

[TheBigA]

It was a means to an end. Now a better means to said end exists; they simply followed the technology to a new device/method for obtaining music et al, just as you suggest they “didn’t abandon the horse and buggy.”

I agree, for the most part, with that view. That's why I recommend an integrated system of radio and internet, with the emphasis placed on internet. The canvas of OTA radio is very small. You use it to reach out. But actual community-building takes place on the internet. The canvas is much larger. Once you have your community, they will follow you anywhere, including the radio.

 

[MattParker]

Many of these posts see radio as synonymous with music distribution. First of all distribution is not the whole of any business. And music is not all there is (or ever has been) to radio. This is a talk radio board, remember. Railroads suffered, as the saying goes, because they thought they in the train business - not the transportation business. Radio was slow to realize the essence of the business is not AM and FM (and those towers many radio people love) but entertainment (yes, I consider news a subset of entertainment but that's another argument).

So if Clear Channel made the iPod—exactly as we know it now—it wouldn’t be a case of people abandoning radio?

The wording of your questions suggests again the essence of the business is distribution technology. Problem is "radio people" tend to see it that way. The motion picture studios thought the essence their business was theaters and it took them about 10 years (and an anti-trust action) for them to realize they could also make movies for people to watch at home. "Radio's" business (whether advertiser-supported or not) is audio programming (not transmitting): Finding what people want to listen to and getting them to listen to it. Barnes & Noble and Borders still have brick and mortar bookstores (distribution) but they now sell more books online than in stores - and electronic readers are coming on fast. Technology lets anybody program their own audio device. Radio's opportunity is to program for those devices better, more conveniently, more easily and more cheaply than people can do it themselves.

Yes, there are people doing Internet Radio today who might have been climbing up through small markets in another era. But radio doesn't use that as a farm system. Radio pretty much ignores them.

If you're in sales or advertising, the listener is the product. If you're a listener, the program is the product. No listeners, no ads. No ads, no money.

Old Time Radio shows were about personalities. Some fictional characters. Some comedians, singers and musicians. Some anthologies, yes, but for the most part fictional radio was "characters welcome" (just like TV today). Often fictional radio encouraged listeners to think of the leading characters as real people who happened to have a radio show (George and Gracie, Fibber McGee and Molly, Johnny Dollar).

Smedge, I don't know how far back you're going but since World War II (at least) colleges have been offering courses in radio and hiring faculty from the industry. Early on, those courses may have been offered in the speech or journalism departments but they were being offered.

 

[TheBigA]

Railroads suffered, as the saying goes, because they thought they in the train business - not the transportation business.

I've read that before, and it's not true. Railroads have always been in the transportantion business. The difference between now and the 19th century is in terms of what the railroads transport. Originally they mainly transported people. Now they mainly transport goods. It's a lot cheaper, there are fewer laws, and the contents they transport complain a lot less. I think radio can learn a lot from that with regards to music.

The wording of your questions suggests again the essence of the business is distribution technology.

There's a big part of it that is simply distribution. Towers, transmitters and licenses aren't cheap. But they are partly what distinguish broadcasting from the other forms of media. Entertainment, music, news, talk, traffic, weather, and other content aren't exclusive to radio. You can do all of it elsewhere, and consumers can get it all elsewhere. But the system of distribution is what's unique. Ignore all of that, and you save a whole lot of money, and can fire a lot of people.

The key thing in understanding all of media is this: You can only sell what you own. Radio doesn't own the internet. It doesn't own Facebook or Google. It doesn't own AT&T or Verizon. So radio can't sell those things or make money from them. The things radio owns is their licensed and exclusive distribution system, such as it is. They own the highway. They may own certain parts of the content, like the on-air people. But not the music, not the sports, and quite often not the news or talk. They license a lot of those things from actual owners. So I read a lot of consultants who say that radio needs to invest more in the internet and mobile. That's fine, but the real serious money in those areas is made by the companies that own them, mainly ISPs and telecom, not content companies. They're the ones who end up giving the content away, and selling cheap web ads.

I agree with imhomerjay who says the product is the audience. The money has to come from somewhere. If all you care about is audio content, that assumes the money part is taken care of. I can't make that assumption. But radio is complicated. It's a lot of things operating on a lot of levels. You can't focus on one and ignore the other. It can't be all about entertaining content without being concerned about distribution or sales. Otherwise it's just a hobby.

 

[imhomerjay]

I used music as an example for two reasons--one, it's most common; two, it's the most prone to being easily imitated elsewhere (much as music went along the way from victrolas to MP3s). Talk is a bit more interesting in that it tends to thrive on the community aspect. If I want musical style X, it doesn't matter much to me if I'm the only lisener or one of thousands. Talk as en echo chamber is not quite so compelling. Not that it won't develop through the new media channels, just that it might take a little more work to make it happen succeessfully.

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: Off course railroads are/were in the transportation business. The key point is they THOUGHT they were in the train business. That thought shaped/limited their actions. Audio broadcasters think they are in the AM/FM radio business and that shapes/limits their actions.

If you are the sales manager, the audience is your product. If you are the PD or air talent, the audience is your customer. If you start seeing listeners as "product," you can't do your job effectively. Maybe part of the problem is the apparent contempt with which many people on the programming side seem to view listeners.

 

[imhomerjay]

Members of the team may have different roles to play and different parts of the mission, but the underlying goal remains the same--deliver audience to advertisers. Delivering an audience advertisers don't want is every bit the failure delivering effectively no audience at all is. If you're the PD, the audience is not your customer, it's simply your job to try, within the realities of your company's situation and business plan, to being the right "product" in so that the sales team can effectively sell it.

It's not unlike retail--from the people who design the floor plans, signage and other physical features to the buyers who pick the merchandise to the store managers who are responsible for executing the company strategy at the individual level, they're all working towards making us spend the most money. Everything else along the path is a means to an end.

 

[TheBigA]

@BigA: Off course railroads are/were in the transportation business. The key point is they THOUGHT they were in the train business. That thought shaped/limited their actions. Audio broadcasters think they are in the AM/FM radio business and that shapes/limits their actions.

It gets back to selling what you own. Radio broadcasters own AM & FM, or at least hold the licenses. They don't own the music, they don't own the internet, and they don't own cellular systems. But I don't know any broadcasting companies of any consequence that have limited their work to AM/FM. Consider CBS. They own C-Net, and they program AOL and Yahoo music. Clear Channel is the second largest audio broadcaster on the internet, behind Pandora. Perhaps some local station people can only see the facilities that surround them. But the big companies are all major players along multiple platforms.

As for railroads, they have never been limited by trains. That is fiction. Railroad companies own right of ways.They are land owners. That shapes what they do. They resold access to those right of ways to other companies, such as telegraph and telephone companies, power companies, and more. Railroad companies are among the biggest shippers in the world, and they control all aspects of shipping, including trucking, planes, and in some cases docks.

So neither of the vast generalizations you make above are correct.

Maybe part of the problem is the apparent contempt with which many people on the programming side seem to view listeners.

Huh? I think there's more contempt from programmers to the sales people. Maybe you don't work in radio, but the programmers I know don't have contempt for listeners. Listeners would like radio to become more personalized, and serve them on an individual basis. Radio can't do that. But not because of any contempt. A mass medium can't be an individual medium at the same time.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This thread has resulted in me offering a new view of the cliche that "the railroads thought they were only in the railroad business."

That is a populist view expressed by citizens not really following the business world. It is expressed by people who like to think that life would be better if we had comfortable and luxurious passenger trains spanning our nation today... and that we would have that if railroad management hadn't been wearing the blinders that used to adorn the heads of horses that used to pull people around in buggies and stage-coaches.

I am personally a supporter of the idea that a good passenger rail service would be nice to have available to me, but I am a loss to explain who should be doing it and whether it would really work. (I am told that Europe has significant passenger rail service but I haven't been there to try it on for size and comfort.

NOW, WE RETURN TO OUR RADIO PROGRAM.

There is a populist view among many people in our country that there should be comfortable radio listening available to us. But as a nation, we don't seem to have a clue who should be doing it and if it would really work.

So here I sit at the grade crossing. The lights are flashing, the crossing arms are blocking me from moving on and the obnoxious bell goes Ding-Ding-Ding. They are hauling commercials in front of me while I sit here, and then they haul music I don't like in front of me but I don't see any freight being hauled that I plan to purchase and enjoy.

 

[Talk_Dude]

The sad and sorry truth is that terrestrial broadcast radio is currently exactly what radio listeners want it to be. Those who want something different are listening to something different.

BTW, as I type this, I am listening to my MP3 player, not to any radio station, even though there is a perfectly functional FM radio within five feet of where I'm sitting. I scanned through the stations, and none of them were playing anything I really wanted to hear.

 

[MattParker]

The observation that railroads thought they were in the train business, not the transportation business comes from Theodore Levitt, a professor of marketing in the Harvard Business School (hardly a populist or someone who does not follow the business world). What he is saying that when the technology available to move freight and passengers changed, the railroads did not change with it. They kept doing what they were doing instead of expanding into trucks, buses and aircraft. Lots of companies have gone out of business by insisting on "selling what they own." Adapt or perish - Charles Darwin.

W. Edwards Demming observed that your "customer" is the person who receives your work. It is not necessarily the end user or the person who pays for the end product. In his view, if you are the assembly line and your job is to mount a tire on a wheel, your "customer" is the next guy wont the line who fastens the bolts. Some of the posts here suggest that some of the radio people here are focused on their industry's or company's own needs, not on needs of the listener or the advertiser. I often see posts where someone, apparently a radio enthusiast or fan, questions some change a station has made. People in the business often reply the the station needs .... (to save money or whatever) and dismisses the listeners' need. Listeners (or advertisers) don't need radio; radio needs listeners and advertisers.

@Talk Dude: You say terrestrial radio is exactly what listeners want. But you are listening to an mp3 player because you can't find what you want to hear on the radio. Contradiction? Or are you saying radio is what those still listening want? That universe keep shrinking.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Contradiction? Or are you saying radio is what those still listening want? That universe keep shrinking.

Bingo! That is what I read into his post.

I am a fan of what Deming left behind for us. I think it would be interesting to a couple dozen people into a work group, a discussion group, and work on trying to extend the thinking of Deming onto the footprint of radio. In a group, there would be opportunity to challenge people who make a thin extension of the logic, forcing them and the group to focus on supportable facets of Demings views.

If I couldn't be a group participant, I would jump at the opportunity to just be on hand to sharpen their pencils, bring them coffee, and carry out their discarded legal tablets to hear the discussion.

 

[TheBigA]

The observation that railroads thought they were in the train business, not the transportation business comes from Theodore Levitt, a professor of marketing in the Harvard Business School

I know. Who said it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. The fact is that some of them DID expand into trucks, planes, and ships, once they became available. They are the ones still in business today.

Lots of companies have gone out of business by insisting on "selling what they own."

You can't sell what you don't own. That is the basic rule of business. If you try to, you will get sued.

Some of the posts here suggest that some of the radio people here are focused on their industry's or company's own needs, not on needs of the listener or the advertiser.

It depends on what they do in the food chain. You sound like someone focused only on the programming. That's fine, but I imagine you also want to get paid. From my seat, everyone in the process needs to understand the bigger picture of how the programming they do affected the pay check they receive. Radio is in trouble because the people at the stations don't work together. Sales doesn't think about programming, and programming doesn't think about sales. That needs to change.

 

[smedge2006]

Radio is in trouble because the people at the stations don't work together. Sales doesn't think about programming, and programming doesn't think about sales.

I'd say radio these days is almost the exact opposite of how you phrased it. Sales runs programming, and programmers act like accountants.