The Community

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

It's going to be hard for me to make this argument.... for you and others have observed that I negotiate my way through the cyber-community with average or better results/skills/comfort. Someone in this conversation who shall go un-named at this point pointed me to a book named "Tribes" for which I am grateful. I have come to realize that I am a member of a particular tribe. There are some events in life that I do not wish to do by auto-pilot or other cyber-means.

I needed a new hot water heater. The old one was leaking. I went to a store with something of a nationwide footprint to purchase a water heater and arrange for them to install it. My neighbor had used them... and seemed happy. Oh, I can't take your order. (There was a phone bolted to the wall within the water heater display.) You must CALL the 800 number. As I explained to him "I don't buy food at McDonalds through the squawk box." he dialed the phone, and shouted at it as he worked his way through the voice-recognition menu tree. Had I been on the phone, I would have hung up and gone down the street looking for another vendor. After three days of unmitigated mental hell, I had a new hot water heater that is working quite well, and two weeks later I still don't know what I paid for the damn thing because the 800 number hasn't provided me paper work yet.

I understand that I at this point am distorting what you mean by cyber-community, but I must debate with you that there will always remain a significant amount of "actual community" in this old world. I don't know if I represent 1% of the population, 8% or maybe 60%..... but radio programming and management concepts that assume the whole of the population has to learn to live with programming based on the cyber-community model may not be the answer broadcasters should be seeking.

My next home purchase will be a new HVAC install. I will milk the cyber-community mechanics to understand the technical aspects of choosing a heating and A/C unit, features that I might find appealing, and brands that might be good choices. But I can assure you there will be no 800 phone number used in setting up that transaction!

Now... as a heavy-duty thinker in the world of broadcasting... cogitate for awhile on what that might mean in guessing what kind of radio I will be listening to Monday morning... and what I will NOT be listening to. And then try and guess the size of my tribe. ;D

 

[SirRoxalot]

ONE mistake? Well, it's a beginning.

Your last post to me was either an exercise in evading the question, or an indication of a lack of understanding. Do you seriously believe that corporations who's debt very nearly equals their corporate value wouldn't be in much better shape if they were investing their profits in better programming instead of pumping major chunks of their cash flow to the lienholders?

WWDG in Syracuse has a much better chance of success if they invest in programming that appeals to a local audience than if they send the money to a bank, paying off old notes. Clear Channel sold it for pennies on the dollar because they couldn't even turn enough revenue to pay both the operating costs and the notes. They lost money on the deal, but they at least stopped the bleeding. Let's see what Fox & Co. does over the next year.

Check the RAB numbers. They'll verify that national advertising is dropping a lot faster than local. Local advertising is still the backbone of radio. If you don't create a sense of community among radio stations, advertisers, and listeners, you put the major source of your revenue in danger. What's corporate's response been? Fewer salespeople, offering less service to advertisers, and cuts in programming that reduce audience interest. Check the TSL numbers. Smart advertisers sure do.

You neither demonstrated nor proved anything with your reference to Entercom - other than the fact that Entercom is feeling the pinch of a high debt burden and shrinking revenue. Entercom opted for syndication because is was cheaper, not better, and they've had significantly fewer cuts than Citadel, Clear Channel, or Cumulus. Why? Because they've got less debt compared to the value of the enterprise than any of the Terrible Trio. In Buffalo, Entercom has arguably the weakest group of stations from a technical standpoint, yet they're the #1 biller in the market. Tell me that TALENT doesn't have something to do with that.

Most cyber-communities are made up of people who know each other because they know each other in a real-life community. Cyber-communities help us keep up with people who have moved away, but the vast majority of "Facebook Friends" or others in any cyber-community live in the same general area, and/or have an interest in a real bricks-and-mortar community. Discussion generally center around shared experiences that are local or regional in nature. Radio can - if programmed correctly - provide that same sense of sharing and community. Unfortunately, syndication and voice-tracking just can't create that same feel, that same vibe, which is why fewer people find radio relatable and important as a primary source of information and entertainment.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Yes, I will agree that the audience is fractionalized. I will also agree that stations need to get big numbers to stay in the game. They also have to spend more for rent, electricity, salaries, etc. Like radio stations we are all paying more for goods and services.

The big broadcast groups came in and bought up everything in sight at inflated prices due to supply and demand. They borrowed based on what the rate of return might be for these stations, or did they? I think after awhile it became an ego contest, (I own more radio stations than you do).

Then it came time to pay up and they had to cut corners, automate, voice track, cut the news department, stop doing maintenance at the transmitter, etc. The question is why did they buy a station they can't make money with in the first place?

More commercials were suggested. Well I see that chasing away more listeners. My generation tolerates commercials much better than the younger generation. Most music stations are down to two stop set an hour with about 7 units in each set. Give me the days where stations played a couple of songs followed by 2 or commercials. Going through 2 minutes of commercials to get back to program to me is better than waiting through 7 commercial units. I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

As for the employees giving up their salaries to have a stake in the station. That would work well if the money paid had been good in the first place, but it wasn't. So most of us can't afford to work without a paycheck.

Trying to reach the great mass audience many tune outs were eliminated. In the process much of what we tuned IN for was also eliminated. Radio lost it's fan base, the people who were truly interested. They lost them by chasing the mass audience who uses radio very casually, doesn't know one station from the other and doesn't care.

As for my tribe, I too shop local, the closer the better. I could save lots of money by getting prescriptions through my medical plan, but I don't. The reason is I want to keep the druggist at my local Rite Aid employed. I'll spend more to do that because one day I just might need something in a hurry!

 

[TheBigA]

Do you seriously believe that corporations who's debt very nearly equals their corporate value wouldn't be in much better shape if they were investing their profits in better programming instead of pumping major chunks of their cash flow to the lienholders?

That's not the point. The point is it doesn't matter if they have debt or not. They won't put more money into programming. And even if they did, there would not be a corresponding increase in revenue. Why? Because FREE is the new economy.

Check the RAB numbers. They'll verify that national advertising is dropping a lot faster than local. Local advertising is still the backbone of radio.

Here's what you said: The stations that are losing money are the major-market stations that have taken a huge cut in national advertising. What makes you think major market stations get their revenue from national advertising?

You neither demonstrated nor proved anything with your reference to Entercom - other than the fact that Entercom is feeling the pinch of a high debt burden and shrinking revenue.

No, even you said their debt burden wasn't great. My point once again was that the size of the debt burden has nothing to do with programming. So stop saying that it does. Having money to spend doesn't mean they will, and as I've shown, they typically don't, regardless of their ability.

yet they're the #1 biller in the market. Tell me that TALENT doesn't have something to do with that.

Unless the talent goes out and sells advertising, they don't have much to do with it. As you frequently point out, talent does what their bosses tell them to do. So the bosses should get credit when it leads to revenue, just as you like to dish out the blame when it doesn't.

Radio can - if programmed correctly - provide that same sense of sharing and community. Unfortunately, syndication and voice-tracking just can't create that same feel, that same vibe, which is why fewer people find radio relatable and important as a primary source of information and entertainment.

Spoken as a boomer who has no knowledge of the cyber community.

 

[Element9]

So I made one mistake. Feh.

Feh, indeed.

Spoken as a boomer who has no knowledge of the cyber community.

Oy. If only.

_________________________________________________


'Sheridan and 'Cowboy make some interesting observations regarding the role of community in retail. I too have made decisions that benefit the established local retailer over the big box store.

As comfortable as I am doing business on line, I prefer to support the retailer that has been part of my community for years and has handed his store down to his kids or family. Apparently, there are others who feel the same, because there are a number of local businesses in my community that are thriving in the face of big box competition and holding their own in a very challenging economy. I think there's a correlation to radio broadcasting and the web for that matter. Do I shop Home Depot? Yes, regularly. Wal-Mart? Four times last year. Do I listen to Entercom's Big Box stations: WBEN-WTSS-The Lake-Kiss-KB-WWWS? Sometimes.

But I also listen to WECK and WLVL. Because I'm a radio geek? Yes, but also becaus ethese stations offer certain products that I like.

One might point to WXRL, WLVL and WUFO. Certainly, WBTA and WYSL have imbedded their presence in their communities. The ratings may not reflect this, but the response and satisfaction that their advertisers receive will.

 

[TheBigA]

Then it came time to pay up and they had to cut corners, automate, voice track, cut the news department, stop doing maintenance at the transmitter, etc. The question is why did they buy a station they can't make money with in the first place?

You could ask that question of the thousands of homeowners who defaulted on their loans during the past year. They bought homes beyond their means, and when the interest rate went up, they couldn't afford the mortgage. In their case, everyone blames the banks for roping them into bad deals. Why not blame banks and station brokers, and maybe even the previous owners, for the state of radio today? Same thing with credit card debt. The Congress just passed a new law with loads of restrictions on banks. No one blames the consumers who spend beyond their means...why blame radio owners for doing exactly the same thing?

Trying to reach the great mass audience many tune outs were eliminated. In the process much of what we tuned IN for was also eliminated. Radio lost it's fan base, the people who were truly interested. They lost them by chasing the mass audience who uses radio very casually, doesn't know one station from the other and doesn't care.

The fact is that according to Arbitron, terrestrial radio has only lost maybe 3% of its audience in the last ten years. The big difference is that it SHARES that audience with many other devices: Cell phones, satellite radio, mp3 players, video games, cable TV, and anything else people do instead of listening to the radio. Given the level of competition, couple with your criticism of radio, I'd say a 3% drop isn't too bad.

The real problem is the increased competition has driven down the value of content, and the willingness on the part of consumers to PAY for it. So even though independent studies have shown that commercial time, particularly on music stations, has gone down to pre-consolidation levels, the audience still feels there are still too many commercials. In this environment, they may be right, especially when they can get commercial free music radio services. The bad news is it means less money for stations to hire staff. But listeners have demonstrated they'll gladly give up live & local DJs in exchange for fewer commercials. That's the mathematics of it.

You're probably right that the "radio fans" have gone away. But the fact is that they were in the process of going away a long time ago, as radio evolved into a very different thing from what it was in the 60s and 70s. The same thing happened in the 40s when those who were raised on radio drama and original entertainment saw it replaced by DJs playing recorded music. Quite a disappointment after 20 years of radio bands and orchestras, Jack Benny, Bob Hope, and The Green Hornet.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You keep touting "free is the new economy", yet people still SAMPLE radio, looking for something more than they can get from their free music sources.

Let's face it, anybody with half a brain can obtain almost any song they want for free. They can load up their iPod, put it on shuffle, and have 30 Gig of their favorite tunes in decent quality. Yet, they still sample radio. Why? What is it about radio that brings them back - even when they complain that "radio sucks"?

I believe that it's still the remnants of value-added programming that still exist - especially during the dayparts that still offer something more than a jukebox- and the ease of access to entertainment and information.

Sure, your cell-phone can deliver music and traffic and weather and the entire Internet - but it ain't FREE. In fact, it ain't CHEAP. It's expensive. Besides, ever try to look at traffic on your cell phone while you're driving? GPS is a wonderful thing, but most GPS units don't offer timely traffic info without a significant monthly charge.

Radio works, and it's free. Commercial are part of the price you pay, but well done commercials can be as entertaining and informative as any other programming. Unfortunately, creative commercials are a rarity these days. Why? Because the talent that used to write and produce them has either been fired, or stretched so thin that they don't have time to create quality product.

You state that operators wouldn't put money into programming even if they didn't have the burden of overwhelming debt. Bull. The only reason that quality is declining so steeply is that so many consolidators, who own so many stations, are racing each other to the bottom.

Should we blame the consolidators for paying too much, getting in over their heads, racking up enormous debt, and putting their companies in peril? Hey, they're the ones who sold the banks a bill of goods - outrageous revenue projections based on "synergies", and ridiculous "savings" due to consolidation of services. Should the banks have been smarter? Yup. But the guys who sold the banks on the loans were supposed to be "experts". Well, we see how "expert" they were, don't we.

As usual, your earlier response misquotes original statements and bends meanings to support your point of view. In talking about Entercom, I said:

Entercom opted for syndication because is was cheaper, not better, and they've had significantly fewer cuts than Citadel, Clear Channel, or Cumulus. Why? Because they've got less debt compared to the value of the enterprise than any of the Terrible Trio.

Your response?

No, even you said their debt burden wasn't great. My point once again was that the size of the debt burden has nothing to do with programming. So stop saying that it does. Having money to spend doesn't mean they will, and as I've shown, they typically don't, regardless of their ability.

I said that Entercom has relatively less debt that Citadel, Clear Channel, or Cumulus - and that they've cut programming less than the "Big 3". I'm afraid that Entercom doesn't support your contention that "the size of the debt burden has nothing to do with programming." The debt burden, and the downturn in revenue sure is the excuse that the corporations are using for all the downsizing that they've been doing. All those of you who have heard "We'd love to keep you, but we can't afford to" please raise your hands.

These corporate "professionals" are supposed to be smarter than the average homeowner who jumps into a big mortgage figuring that they're income will be going up, and that at worst they can always sell the property they bought because the market is still heading up. What about the bankers who sold mortgages to people who couldn't possibly pay them? Don't they bear some responsibility?

According to Arbitron, cume is down 3% in the last 10 years, but TSL is down considerably more. If you look at demographics, 18-24 or 18-30 are a problem for radio. Why? Because radio hasn't adjusted to that audience. You blame it on other devices. I've got news for you, Bub. Other devices have been around for a very long time. What's different is that radio is not producing content that a generation of listeners finds palatable - let alone compelling.

I'm a boomer, but I'm a LOT more digitally proficient and aware than most people my age - very likely including you. I'm also involved both personally and professionally with a fair number of people in the 18-30 age range. I get a pretty good sense of their response to radio. They don't value the current content. That doesn't mean that content has no value.

The biggest thing that's missing is the very sense of community that this discussion began with. They see most radio as pre-packaged schlock, not a medium that relates to them. Until there's an feeling that radio represents THEM and their view of life, it will be a last resort, not a first choice. Voice-tracking and syndication ain't gonna make that happen.

 

[TheBigA]

You keep touting "free is the new economy", yet people still SAMPLE radio, looking for something more than they can get from their free music sources.

Maybe. Where did you come up with the idea that they're looking for "something more?" Give me facts.

What is it about radio that brings them back - even when they complain that "radio sucks"?

I believe that it's still the remnants of value-added programming that still exist - especially during the dayparts that still offer something more than a jukebox- and the ease of access to entertainment and information.

That may be what you believe, but the facts say otherwise.

You can't make wild generalizations about radio when everything about it is oriented about formats and dayparts. People want different things from different formats, and they want different things at different times of the day.

When you have more than 30 radio stations in a town, all 30 stations can't do the same thing. You have to offer choices and alternatives. Some of those choices are an automated jukebox. There's an audience for that. We know it, and can quantify it. And sure there's an audience for a full service station. We know that and can quantify it. That's the art and the science of programming...seeing the needs of an audience, and quantifying it.

You state that operators wouldn't put money into programming even if they didn't have the burden of overwhelming debt. Bull. The only reason that quality is declining so steeply is that so many consolidators, who own so many stations, are racing each other to the bottom.

OK. Give me examples of companies with no debt that spend lots of money on programming. Don't throw generalities or hypotheticals at me. Give me some specifics. Who is spending money now?

Unfortunately, creative commercials are a rarity these days. Why? Because the talent that used to write and produce them has either been fired, or stretched so thin that they don't have time to create quality product.

Maybe this is news to you, but not all commercials are created within radio stations. There are agencies that hire outside producers, writers, actors, and studios to create commercials. Even in markets the size of Buffalo. Certainly an in-house creative team can be a profit center if there's a lot of local advertisers around. A lot of former radio employees have formed outside ad agencies, marketing their productions on stations where they once worked. It happens every day.

Should we blame the consolidators for paying too much, getting in over their heads, racking up enormous debt, and putting their companies in peril? Hey, they're the ones who sold the banks a bill of goods - outrageous revenue projections based on "synergies", and ridiculous "savings" due to consolidation of services. Should the banks have been smarter? Yup. But the guys who sold the banks on the loans were supposed to be "experts". Well, we see how "expert" they were, don't we.

I don't see any point in playing the blame game. What happened has happened. It's time to move on.

I said that Entercom has relatively less debt that Citadel, Clear Channel, or Cumulus - and that they've cut programming less than the "Big 3". I'm afraid that Entercom doesn't support your contention that "the size of the debt burden has nothing to do with programming."

The bottom line is they're responding the same way. And as I said, there are stations that have ZERO debt, and aren't investing in programming. They run syndication all day, they take the profit, and put it in their pockets. And the people I'm talking about are sole proprietors, not corporations. Some of them are in Central New York State.

According to Arbitron, cume is down 3% in the last 10 years, but TSL is down considerably more.

I know and I addressed that. Radio is sharing its time with a lot of new devices that didn't exist ten years ago. There's nothing radio can do, and no content it can create, that will cause you or anyone to stop using their computer, stop using their cell phone or PDA, stop spending time with their kids, and stop doing what they want outside of listening to the radio. So TSL is down and will stay down. That's a fact of life. Learn to live with it.

As you say, there are "remnants of value-added programming that still exist," and they're suffering from the same losses of TSL as everyone else. In fact, in some formats, value-added programming actually contributes to the TSL losses. You really should look at the break-outs some time.

The biggest thing that's missing is the very sense of community that this discussion began with. They see most radio as pre-packaged schlock, not a medium that relates to them. Until there's an feeling that radio represents THEM and their view of life, it will be a last resort, not a first choice. Voice-tracking and syndication ain't gonna make that happen.

I disagree. I think a lot of them DO feel their station represents them. I think a lot of time is spent in creating stations that know who their audience is, and how to entertain them. I see the growth area for radio in serving the sub-communities that already exist. Some stations are doing it. You can't generalize about community, and you can't generalize about radio. And you can't generalize about the techniques and approaches that are being used. All of them appeal to the diversity that make up all of the communities out there. Otherwise, they wouldn't be used.

 

[Bob1370]

"OK. Give me examples of companies with no debt that spend lots of money on programming. Don't throw generalities or hypotheticals at me. Give me some specifics. Who is spending money now?"

CBS.

And it's still turning a profit and keeping up its employee benefits at latest word, in a way CC, Cumulus and Citadel aren't. The difference...live and local remains their normal MO.

Sorry they're no longer in upstate NY....

 

[aaronread]

FWIW, I think the concept that LOCAL = SUCCESS in radio is a fallacy. The very success of NPR speaks volumes to that; most of what your average NPR station offers is national programming, yet they are often cited as a shining example of "local radio". I don't pretend to entirely understand that, but I'm not above exploiting it! :

Seriously, though...I do think that NPR affiliate stations tend to be viewed as more "local" because they tend to have a "local" presence (a strange concept in statewide networks, yet it's true) and they definitely tend to be more responsive to local input. Of course, since these stations have to fundraise from local listeners, by definition they have to convince their listeners that the listeners have a "stake" in the station. No wonder the listeners tend to feel the station is "local" - it's because there's a feeling of ownership in play there.

I do often wonder if commercial radio stations could do better by drastically reducing their spot load and instead migrating to a listener-donation model. It doesn't help that donations are not tax-deductible, but it can be done. WJIB in Boston is quite a shining example in that regard.

 

[SirRoxalot]

WJIB is lucky to pull a 1 share in Boston.

NPR stations are doing very well. Many of them have considerable local input on top of the NPR programming. Also, much NPR programming is live, timely, and relevant.

BTW, that's an opinion, not a wild generalization. Unlike some posters, I understand the difference. When I post facts, I also post links to the sources - which some people have continually refused to do.

At this point, even the most successful stations are addressing a tiny portion of the available audience. Look at rating points - not shares - and you'll see that a very successful station is lucky to draw a 2 rating. A 3 rating is almost unheard of. 3% of the audience would yield approximately a 15-share these days. Want to be a star? Figure out a format that will attract 3% of the people walking down the street for about 5 hours a week.

 

[TheBigA]

I do often wonder if commercial radio stations could do better by drastically reducing their spot load and instead migrating to a listener-donation model.

How about WFMT Chicago. A commercial radio station owned by the PBS TV station there. They only run live reads, no pre-recorded commercials.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

"OK. Give me examples of companies with no debt that spend lots of money on programming. Don't throw generalities or hypotheticals at me. Give me some specifics. Who is spending money now?"

CBS.

And it's still turning a profit and keeping up its employee benefits at latest word, in a way CC, Cumulus and Citadel aren't. The difference...live and local remains their normal MO.

Sorry they're no longer in upstate NY....

Whoa Bob, I like 99% of your posts but this one was way off. If CBS is an example of doing it right then radio is in worse shape than I thought. Here in market #25 their A/C station runs a tight playlist that hasn't changed in years, tight talk content (about 90 seconds in a typical hour and just about all of it liner cards, and weather) a very boring format with a part-time air staff. People might listen to this station but I doubt many know or care who is on the air. There is no reason to care, zero jock content, no matter if it's VT or live.

The other CBS stations here aren't much better except for maybe the top 40 and Hip Hop stations they run.

Oh and the board I used in the VT studio was the same one I used at a different station (CBS bought them) 20 years ago! After all these years it's pretty ragged out. I was told all the money the station makes goes to CBS headquarters in NYC.

Want to call the request line? Sorry but they're busied out when the station is running VT's. There is a switch under the console for each line. Overnights they don't even care enough to VT. CBS is no better than the others.

 

[TheBigA]

The other CBS stations here aren't much better except for maybe the top 40 and Hip Hop stations they run.

How about WSOC?

 

[Mark Giardina]

I do think that NPR affiliate stations tend to be viewed as more "local" because they tend to have a "local" presence.

I feel that perception is changing, at least from the practical standpoint of what can be determined as a "local presence."

Take local news for example. It's one thing to actually have people in the field with experience and knowledge of a market reporting news, versus someone just reading stories out of the local newspaper or the AP wire service.

Another example is the trend towards either laying off or offering "early retirement" to long-time veterans at some NPR stations. I've always felt one of the major building blocks to maintaining a loyal audience is on-air talent stability.

Public radio at one time was immune to the slash and burn mentality of commercial radio when it came to local announcers and news people. From what I've read in the trades over the past few years, and have witnessed personally, it appears pub radio is catching up with their commercial cousins when it comes to handing out pink slips, in many cases solely because of longevity and the (bizarre)theory that its better for the bottom line to bring in someone with little or no experience who is willing to work for $7.50 an hour versus a long-time employee with knowledge of the market who happens to make twice as much as the minimum wage.

I am no Kreskin, but if this trend continues then I predict that in a few years many pub radio stations will rely solely on network programming while their local staffs are reduced even further in the guise of saving money.

I'll end this post with a true story. Many years ago I was speaking to a top ranking manager at the station I worked for, expressing the concern that our local news product would be negatively impacted by not replacing news people who had left the station for whatever reason. Her response was, and I quote, "well they (the audience) could listen to WHAM for local news, then turn their radio dials back to listen to NPR." A most insightful and brilliant comment from someone in management, don't you think? Especially when talking about the subject of local presence. :

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

It's my observation that much of the NPR non-local network content succeeds because the local content supports and enhances the network content. WNED-AM and WBFO do a very good job, often under challenging conditions, to provide plenty of good local "mortar" between the network "bricks." Another station on NPR station on auto-pilot wpuldn't sound as good, nor be as successful and as much a part of the community as are WNED-AM and WBFO.

 

[Bob1370]

"The other CBS stations here aren't much better except for maybe the top 40 and Hip Hop stations they run."

I don't argue CBS is perfect in all their markets by any means. I doubt even Dan Mason could say that with a straight face.

But I think we also need to remember their group includes some exemplary, community-focused news/talkers and sports/talkers like WCBS, WINS, WFAN, WBBM, WBZ, WCCO, KDKA, KCBS, KNX, KFWB, and KMOX (and I'm sure I'm leaving some out)....as well as personality stations like WCBS-FM or Chicago's B96. They may not do it right everywhere. But I think they've earned props for doing it right in a lot of places in a number of formats (some of them quite expensive to run). That's more than you can really say for most of the other mega-groups.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

The other CBS stations here aren't much better except for maybe the top 40 and Hip Hop stations they run.

How about WSOC?

Good question. I was surprised to discover they are fully automated just about all weekend and overnight. WSOC is one of their top performers. Kiss 95.1 the top 40 station is live all the time.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Bob I think if you look in the Pittsburgh board there are quite a few comments about KDKA being a shadow of it's former greatness. Point taken though.

In my experience a station can run all evening without voice tracks and nobody lifts a finger to fix it and nothing is said. However move one spot to another break because of a problem (operator error or glitch) and they are all over you like fleas on a dog.