The Community

[TheBigA]

Okay, to the eight people in your community that care, perhaps it's important. But after a while, doesn't the novelty wear off?

You brought up the concept of community. Not everything one does in a community is meant to be monetized. The community is as much about the jock as it is the station. The jock is building his or her community off the air, and that community will be there even if the jock gets fired. I talk about this all the time. DJs need to think of themselves as artists building fan bases, not employees with airshifts.

So yes, the novelty of Twitter will wear off, just as MySpace seems top have waned. And it's up to you to discover the next big thing and use it to build your so-called community. Radio has become more complicated than it used to be. Don't wait for your boss to tell you what to do. It's your life and your career. No one cares more about it than you.

 

[TheBigA]

Here is what radio could do to change my habits. Shorter commercial sets (I'd rather have more frequent shorter sets), bigger play lists, and personalities outside of morning drive.

OK...no problem. In order to pay for the things you want, radio needs to either add commercials, or charge you a subscription fee. Which do you prefer?

Everyone wants something for nothing. I'm not blaming you for that. We live at a time when there is no value for content. So you're probably not willing to pay for radio (as in a satellite subscription, where you'd get bigger playlists and no commercials), But everything is a trade-off. People want customization for free. Radio that reflects their interests and lifetsyle. You want big playlists, but our research says the majority of people don't. So we aim free radio at the majority. Our studies say shorter commercial sets are viewed as more interruptions, and more clutter. The majority would prefer three songs in a row without interruption. So that's what we do. Everything you want costs money. Costs for everything have skyrocketed. That money has to come from somewhere. Unless employees are willing to volunteer.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, what you're saying is ignore the boss, insert your personality, build yourself as a brand, and try not to get fired by the PD, corporate PD, and/or consultant? Gee, that sounds suspiciously like what radio USED TO SOUND LIKE BEFORE CORPORATE TOOK OVER.

Good Luck with that - especially now that there are LOTS of decent unemployed jocks out there willing to work cheap and do what they're told.

For the most part, the only people left on the air LIVE are people who have already established themselves as personalities and will adversely affect both ratings and revenue if they get fired. Sometimes, even THAT'S not enough. How many great jocks have been replaced by a voice-track from an overworked production guy, morning-show sidekick, or promotions person "getting their big break" - especially in mid-days or 7-midnight.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Here is what radio could do to change my habits. Shorter commercial sets (I'd rather have more frequent shorter sets), bigger play lists, and personalities outside of morning drive.

OK...no problem. In order to pay for the things you want, radio needs to either add commercials, or charge you a subscription fee. Which do you prefer?

How about "NONE OF THE ABOVE". How about if the "geniuses" who created the mountain of debt that's killing radio as an industry stop collecting their multi-million dollar paychecks and file corporate bankruptcy instead of stalling for as long as they can in order to collect their fat paychecks for as long as they can?

If the oversized debt load goes away, radio can again afford programming that builds audiences instead of shrinking them. The longer that sub-standard programming goes on, the more damage is done to THE AUDIENCE. Oh, remember them? Without them, there are no sponsors, no revenue, no profit, no paycheck. It's about time that corporate radio put THEM back into the equation. Voice-tracks and syndication - especially from out-of-market - DO NOT build a feeling of "community".

 

[heydaybegone]

he more damage is done to THE AUDIENCE. Oh, remember them?

Excellent point!! Alot can be learned from NASCAR regarding this. Observation will show that in most if not all interviews, there is some form of acknowledgment to their FAN BASE. Most seem heartfelt, some are obligitory, but at least it's there. They realize that without the fans..there is no payoff! Maybe that's a stretch..but there it is. Also, apologies to any anti-Cup posters out there.

 

[TheBigA]

How about "NONE OF THE ABOVE". How about if the "geniuses" who created the mountain of debt that's killing radio as an industry stop collecting their multi-million dollar paychecks and file corporate bankruptcy instead of stalling for as long as they can in order to collect their fat paychecks for as long as they can?

Ah, here we go again, your kneejerk solution to all the problems: Fire the CEO and go bankrupt.

I promise you that none of them care about collecting their paychecks as long as they can. That is not their motivation.

But here's the deal that GM workers accepted, and we'll see if you'd do the same:

The CEO goes, the company goes bankrupt, and the employees pick up the debt in exchange for equity in the company.

So you would dedicate a portion of your salary to paying off the debt, but you get stock in your company. And so YOU become an owner in the company, which makes you liable for the decisions the company makes. You get to see the books, and find out that things aren't quite as simple as you think.

Would you accept that? Workers may be asked to do that in the next few months.

 

[Shakin84]

No matter what format, be it radio, TV, Podcast, I think people are looking to be entertained. Although it's great to program your own tracks, I get bored real fast living inside my headphones. If I find a great song, or show, I want to share it with someone else. More often than not I want that shared experience that the media can provide. Those Pop explosions in music and television created a chain reaction of inspiration that continues to this day. Granted, the second half of the 20th century were the golden years for this, with the media being controlled by a relative few, but I still think it's possible today if managent would let their talent entertain (wether it be talk, music or comedy), I think it would be successful. How successful......I don't know....

 

[TheBigA]

Alot can be learned from NASCAR regarding this. Observation will show that in most if not all interviews, there is some form of acknowledgment to their FAN BASE.

Interesting that you brought up NASCAR because they're in huge financial trouble right now, due to the crisis in the car industry. It used to be that car companies spent loads of money on racing, assuming it would build brand loyalty. Now the car companies are all in the toilet, so NASCAR is struggling for sponsors. Even with a huge fan base, and drivers dedicated to keeping them happy, the money has dried up, and some of the biggest names in racing are without sponsors.

So "the community" isn't always enough to keep the industry going. That's the problem in NASCAR and it's also the problem in radio.

 

[TheBigA]

No matter what format, be it radio, TV, Podcast, I think people are looking to be entertained.

I think that's true, but one thing that's changed is that what they consider "entertainment" has become more fractionalized. It used to be that if you played The Beatles, that entertained a lot of people. Now there aren't many artists that can command that kind of fan base. It used to be that you told a joke, and people laughed. Now, with political correctness, a joke for some becomes an insult to others. Comedians have trouble finding their audience. The Comedy Channel constantly struggles with that.

Some people like chatty DJs, other people find them annoying. The problem is the advertisers want large audiences. They don't care how they get them. It's easier to attract large audiences with non-offensive programming than by taking risks. As long as media is ad-supported, and advertising is based on audience size, stations have to be careful with what their people say on the radio. Ask Imus.

 

[TheBigA]

If the oversized debt load goes away, radio can again afford programming that builds audiences instead of shrinking them.

You keep saying that as though it's true. It's not.

The local stations aren't really paying for the debt. They're paying for increased local costs. Increases in rent, ultilities, salaries and benefits, etc. Combined with the losses in advertising revenue. Those two things won't change if the debt goes away.

You also make this assumption that more expensive programming will attract larger audiences. That's obviously not true. The best and most obvious answer was Blink in NYC. They spent millions on local staff and talent. The whole thing was a bomb. Expensive programming doesn't attract audiences. Giving them what they want does. And typically, that isn't lots of chatty local DJs. If you study the ratings around the country, there is NO CORROLATION between the amount of money a station spend on programming and the size of its audience. This is becoming even more true in the PPM world.

 

[Element9]

If the oversized debt load goes away, radio can again afford programming that builds audiences instead of shrinking them.

You keep saying that as though it's true. It's not.

Sez you. I'd concur with SirRoxalot and say it's quite true.

The local stations aren't really paying for the debt. They're paying for increased local costs. Increases in rent, ultilities, salaries and benefits, etc. Combined with the losses in advertising revenue. Those two things won't change if the debt goes away.

Bwah??? The local stations are cutting salaries. One cluster cut employee's vacation time to two weeks, regardless of years of service. It cut salaries 5 to 10%. Health care premiums increased (to be fair, the premiums are increasing in all sectors) and in many cases, there are larger deductibles and restrictions on coverage for individuals and families. I could go off on a tangent and make a case for the need for Universal Health Care, but that's another thread.

From everything you've posted over the years, you appear to be an academic (certainly nothing wrong with that), a corporate manager or a consultant. What you don't appear to be is a guy (or woman) who stands behind the micrphone each day. And, you are adamant that you're always right.

As well-informed and extensively read as you appear, you are not always right. Join the club, neither am I. But in this particular case, the opinions and observations which I hold are closer to reality than what you profess to be true.

The revenue the local clusters bring in would normally support the local cluster and then some. The cluster (at one time) might have been working on a 35% margin. But as much as the local clusters are billing and as much as the billing might sustain year to date or in some cases, increase, it's never enough because the overall corporation (e.g., Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel) is treading water in an attempt to stay alive.

Wasn't the small and medium market stations that brought Citadel to its knees. No sir! Syracuse, Binghamton and Buffalo were billing quite well, as were Providence and other medium markets. It wasn't until Fraid Suleman and billionaire speculator Ted Forstmann decided to become kings of the radio mountain and buy ABC that Citadel turned into radio's version of the Titanic.

Despite what some people might argue, all radio companies aren't in the crapper. Certainly, the business is hurting across the board and Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel are the poster children for all that's wrong with the business. But there are companies like Entercom and Saga have debt levels that are, at least by today's standards, serviceable.

You also make this assumption that more expensive programming will attract larger audiences. That's obviously not true. The best and most obvious answer was Blink in NYC. They spent millions on local staff and talent. The whole thing was a bomb. Expensive programming doesn't attract audiences. Giving them what they want does.

Here I'm reminded of the Tubes, "What Do You Want From Life."

We're not trying to justify "expensive programming." Stop trying to re-frame the issue. We're talking about localism, good, live jocks who are reasonably paid and creating programming that benefits the listener what it seeks and gives the company a good return on its investment.

And typically, that isn't lots of chatty local DJs.

Admittedly, the syndicated and chatty Tom Joyner has huge ratings on WBLK and from what I've seen, chatty and sappy Delilah does well at night, beating syndicated AC competitors, chatty and lame Kim Iverness and chatty and boring John Tesh. However, on a well-programmed, well-promoted radio station, articulate, local jocks out-perform voice tracked drones, witness: 97 Rock, Star 102.5, Kiss 98.5; Q-107 Toronto which just smoked Toronto's Jack.

If you study the ratings around the country, there is NO CORROLATION between the amount of money a station spend on programming and the size of its audience. This is becoming even more true in the PPM world.

We're in Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Rochester. PPM won't get here until 2011, but that being said, it's likely the good programmers (and there a few) will be ready.

Blink in NYC is a perfect example of inept corporate decision making and horribly bad programming in the mold of another brilliant corporate decision called Free FM, to say nothing of WCBS-FM flipping to Jack. Give Dan Mason, also a corprorate guy, some credit for turning those major market disasters around by going back to the locals and giving them a voice in the decision making process, as well as holding them responsible for their decisions.

 

[TheBigA]

Sez you. I'd concur with SirRoxalot and say it's quite true.

Then you're both wrong. Craig Fox has no debt. How much money did he spend on programming when he bought WWDG? I rest my case. Having the ability to spend money doesn't mean an owner will.

Bwah??? The local stations are cutting salaries. One cluster cut employee's vacation time to two weeks, regardless of years of service. It cut salaries 5 to 10%.

So what? My brother in law works for the state, and he got stuck with the same thing. Times are tough. Teachers and firemen being furloughed. Lots of others getting fired. Why is radio exempt from bad news?

What you don't appear to be is a guy (or woman) who stands behind the micrphone each day. And, you are adamant that you're always right.

Not always, but in this case I am. And I can prove it.

The revenue the local clusters bring in would normally support the local cluster and then some. The cluster (at one time) might have been working on a 35% margin. But as much as the local clusters are billing and as much as the billing might sustain year to date or in some cases, increase, it's never enough because the overall corporation (e.g., Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel) is treading water in an attempt to stay alive.

Once again, you're ignoring the substantial, almost double digit increases in costs. And it's obvious from what you wrote that you don't know how the corporation makes money from its stations.

It wasn't until Fraid Suleman and billionaire speculator Ted Forstmann decided to become kings of the radio mountain and buy ABC that Citadel turned into radio's version of the Titanic.

If that was the ONLY thing that changed, you might have a point. But it wasn't.

The real pain and suffering at Citadel isn't taking place at the stations, but at ABC Radio. Their employees were used to TV money and Disney benefits. They went away. That's where the blood-letting really happened.

But there are companies like Entercom and Saga have debt levels that are, at least by today's standards, serviceable.

Yep and they're also feeling the pinch of high costs and lower revenues, and are passing that on to their employees. That's why I say the debt isn't the issue. Two years ago, Entercom stations fired their 7-midnight staffers at country stations and replaced them with company-owned syndication by Alan Kabel. They also require their stations to carry Howie Carr and Kim Iverson. So once again, syndication isn't a function of debt.

We're not trying to justify "expensive programming." Stop trying to re-frame the issue. We're talking about localism, good, live jocks who are reasonably paid and creating programming that benefits the listener what it seeks and gives the company a good return on its investment.

As I've said, there's no connection between what YOU want and what LISTENERS want. Clearly, listeners aren't motivated by the same interests and desires they had ten years ago. That's the point of this thread.

Blink in NYC is a perfect example of inept corporate decision making and horribly bad programming in the mold of another brilliant corporate decision called Free FM, to say nothing of WCBS-FM flipping to Jack.

I know the guy who came up with Blink, and he didn't work for corporate. He was a life long New Yorker. It wasn't a national concept, but just at one station. They spent boatloads of money, all of it on live and local programming, and it was all a waste. Same with Free. Lots of the money was for LOCAL hosts. They are a perfect example that spending money on local programming won't increase audience size, and THAT is what Rox was saying.

 

[Element9]

It's very impressive that you know the "native New Yorker" that came up with the legacy we now know as Blink. Too bad he didn't allow you to consult; no doubt the station would have a 10 share because you have all the right answers and you can prove it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sez you. I'd concur with SirRoxalot and say it's quite true.

Then you're both wrong. Craig Fox has no debt. How much money did he spend on programming when he bought WWDG? I rest my case. Having the ability to spend money doesn't mean an owner will.

The best you can come up with is a perennial fringe-player in Syracuse? The station has NEVER made money, and is signal-impaired. It is - and always will be - a bit player in a shrinking market.

The local stations aren't really paying for the debt. They're paying for increased local costs. Increases in rent, ultilities, salaries and benefits, etc. Combined with the losses in advertising revenue. Those two things won't change if the debt goes away.

Huh? Just who do you think IS paying for the debt? Profit goes to corporate, corporate pays the debt. ALL stations are local in some market. Yes, local costs have gone up, but most clusters are still quite profitable. They may be down to 25% profit instead of 35% profit, but they're making money.

The stations that are losing money are the major-market stations that have taken a huge cut in national advertising. Network programming is taking a huge hit.

To pay for it all, small and medium market stations are being decimated in order to pump more money to corporate headquarters. The debt is what's sinking the company because revenues aren't meeting the projections that corporate promised the banks when the banks forked over buckets of cash so they could buy stations and build clusters. You know this. Don't pretend you don't.

What you don't appear to be is a guy (or woman) who stands behind the micrphone each day. And, you are adamant that you're always right.

Not always, but in this case I am. And I can prove it.

Post it. Let's see your proof. While you're at it, please inform us as to how corporations make money if it's not based on the profits from the stations and other properties they own.

The real pain and suffering at Citadel isn't taking place at the stations, but at ABC Radio. Their employees were used to TV money and Disney benefits. They went away. That's where the blood-letting really happened.

But there are companies like Entercom and Saga have debt levels that are, at least by today's standards, serviceable.

Yep and they're also feeling the pinch of high costs and lower revenues, and are passing that on to their employees. That's why I say the debt isn't the issue. Two years ago, Entercom stations fired their 7-midnight staffers at country stations and replaced them with company-owned syndication by Alan Kabel. They also require their stations to carry Howie Carr and Kim Iverson. So once again, syndication isn't a function of debt.

Entercom and Saga don't have nearly the percentage of debt compared to enterprise value that Clear Channel, Citadel, and Cumulus have. Everybody's made cuts, but some have been less injurious to the enterprise than others.

Blink in NYC is a perfect example of inept corporate decision making and horribly bad programming in the mold of another brilliant corporate decision called Free FM, to say nothing of WCBS-FM flipping to Jack.

I know the guy who came up with Blink, and he didn't work for corporate. He was a life long New Yorker. It wasn't a national concept, but just at one station. They spent boatloads of money, all of it on live and local programming, and it was all a waste. Same with Free. Lots of the money was for LOCAL hosts. They are a perfect example that spending money on local programming won't increase audience size, and THAT is what Rox was saying.

So, what you're really saying is that corporate really doesn't know what works, and they throw money at people based on personal relationship? Maybe they'd be better off supporting the stations that DO bring in cash, and the people who make them successful.

 

[majicrockstar]

nice

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What is it the comedian said? I went to watch a boxing match, and a hockey game broke out.

This thread started out sifting through the philosophy of community.... and then the usual hockey game broke out.

1. Study the words introvert and extrovert. We often boil them down to bashful people vs. gregarious people. But actually... they really refer to people who thrive on community and people who have no need of community. If we're going to talk radio: I have NEVER head someone discussing programming who ever mentioned whether they were targeting introverts or targeting extroverts. Hmmmmmm.

2. I came across a short report somewhere the other day which I meant to get back to and now I'm having to think where I saw it. If the man is right, then a lot of what we project is going to happen in radio may be in for an adjustment. A quote from Barry Diller (did I spell his last name right?). He says the current model of free usage of the Internet is temporary. As soon as they figure out how to handle the billing, everything on the Internet is going to be billable. I read that as I sat here fuming about policy change at my cable company and what they charge me. Fuming about what my phone company charges me. And a lot of other services. All of the discussion about moving much of what radio does over to the Internet may play out differently than currently projected if suddenly we all find the Internet costing us not $30 or $40 per month... but maybe $125 to $200 a month or more.

Now. Let me get back to my business plan for a radio station for introverts. ;D

 

[TheBigA]

The best you can come up with is a perennial fringe-player in Syracuse?

No, but it's a local example. You made a blanket statement: If the oversized debt load goes away, radio can again afford programming that builds audiences instead of shrinking them. I called you on it, and you have no response.

The stations that are losing money are the major-market stations that have taken a huge cut in national advertising. Network programming is taking a huge hit.

Show me how you came up with that.

Post it. Let's see your proof.

Sure. Remind me exactly what specifically you want me to prove.

While you're at it, please inform us as to how corporations make money if it's not based on the profits from the stations and other properties they own.

Depends on the corporation. Some sell national spots that the local stations have to run. They're not all run the same.

Entercom and Saga don't have nearly the percentage of debt compared to enterprise value that Clear Channel, Citadel, and Cumulus have. Everybody's made cuts, but some have been less injurious to the enterprise than others.

Once again, I'm addressing your blanket statement: If the oversized debt load goes away, radio can again afford programming that builds audiences instead of shrinking them. As I demonstrated with Entercom, what you said is not correct.

So, what you're really saying is that corporate really doesn't know what works, and they throw money at people based on personal relationship? Maybe they'd be better off supporting the stations that DO bring in cash, and the people who make them successful.

I don't know what you're talking about. The person who was made in charge of Blink WAS successful, and responsible for several very successful stations in the NY market. That's how he got the gig. Not because of some "personal relationship." Ten years later, Opie & Anthony, who were hired for Blink, are still successful air talents, and CBS rehired them for K-Rock. My assessment of Blink was that it was a hot talk station that was ahead of its time, and the audience was angry about blowing up WNEW-FM. I think the concept could work today, although I wouldn't recommend spending so much money on talent.

 

[TheBigA]

A quote from Barry Diller (did I spell his last name right?). He says the current model of free usage of the Internet is temporary. As soon as they figure out how to handle the billing, everything on the Internet is going to be billable.

Yeah I read that. Barry lives in the cable TV world, where they double dip, charging subscribers and advertisers. That's where the REAL money is. Not radio.

A few days after Barry's interview, I read this: Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson doesn’t see things the same way. “If you don’t do it, someone else will. Because they can. If it’s not zero today, it will be zero tomorrow.”

I agree with Anderson. Content has no value. That's what's killing the media now. Money spent on content creation does NOT translate to revenue. Because there are hobbyists who are happy to create content for free.

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, we live in a world of cyber-communities. Actual communities don't matter, because those who live there give more of their time and attention to the cyber-communities. So radio stations that spend lots of time addressing the needs of real communities, and disregard the action in the cyber-community, will be seen as out of touch.

 

[Element9]

Opie and Anthony were on the precursor to Blink, WNEW, and were quite successful until they drank too much stupid juice and aired a phoner involving a listener who was encouraged to engage in carnal relations in the vestibule of St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC. As a result of the uproar generated by the Catholic League and anybody with a morsel of dignity, WNEW sent O&A to the time out room but continued to pay their salaries. Not long after, WNEW became Blink for a cup of coffee. After the air cleared, CBS, clearly believing that the second time is always better, hired O&A for K-Rock (WXRK) which a few months ago, flipped to CHR and cut ties with O&A. But then again, you knew that because you're always right and you can prove it.

Feh.

 

[TheBigA]

So I made one mistake. Feh.