The Declining state of radio and your opinion why...

[SirRoxalot]

Oh, we're awake, Bub. If anybody has seen consolidation outside of radio, and had to adapt to new economic realities, it's those of us who are either still in Buffalo, or back in Buffalo after a foray to "new horizons". We also understand that the decline in the quality of media goes far beyond local radio.

Computers have taken the jobs of many people. Computers, as a tool, are wonderful devices. The increase in productivity by skilled people is amazing. In fact, it's so great that the 1% discovered that they could cut a lot of people. What they failed to realize is that the people they cut had skills and knowledge that couldn't be duplicated by a computer. Yes, one programming can crank out playlists for mulitiple stations, and even multiple markets. No, one programming can't be really responsive to mulitple audiences in multiple markets. Yes, one voice-tracker can lay down breaks for multiple stations in multiple markets. No, one voice-tracker can't provide "in the moment" relatability and timeliness in multiple stations in multiple markets - especially when something unusual happens.

Radio has ALWAYS had competition from other devices - from 78s to 45s to 33s, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, and now MP3s. Recent studies indicate that sampling of radio by younger demos is still very strong, and that music radio is still a major force in music discovery. They just don't listen nearly as long because they're turned off by the repetitive and predictable content.

On the news side, there was MUCH more competition in the past. Multiple news staffs, and multiple media - each with a much larger staff than now. WBEN's news department is a shadow of its former self - and they're the only commercial game in town. The local pubcasters have very limited news resources, and I don't expect that the coming consolidation between WNED and WBFO will mean a big increase in shared news staff. TV staffs have been decimated, and the people left have been issued backpacks in too many cases. We're becoming the least informed people in several generations because there's plenty of opinion, but precious little REPORTING. And people wonder why there's so much division in this country?

Engineering is a travesty. Solid state transmitters, improved processing, auto loggers, better (and cheaper) STLs, and a lot of other improvements reduced the amount of time that engineers had to spend on the RF side. Unfortunately, clueless management decided that RF and electronics engineers should also be responsible for IT - an ENTIRELY different skill set, requiring an entirely different knowledge base. The guys who could - and wanted to - adapted. Others moved on, or were forced out as groups consolidated and 1 or 2 guys were asked to do the job formerly performed by 6 or 8. Small stations went to contract engineers, and treated them like firemen. Preventive maintenance is a joke. Physical plant at transmitters is treated like a red-headed stepchild. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." How many times do you have to put tower painting in the budget request before it's granted? It'll be approved about the time the NAL comes from the FCC, or the FAA makes a call. And then, it'll be the engineer's fault.

Is this all because of a decrease in market size? Some, not all. Is it because of better technology? Once again, some, not all. Is it because the information is available from other sources? Rarely. Mostly, it's because some fat cats decided that the 40% profit margin of radio was pretty darn attractive compared to the 4% they were getting on their Walmart stock. They paid stupid amounts of money for broadcast facilities, figuring that they maintain the profit margins while cutting expenses (i.e. talent in programming, sales, and engineering). What they failed to understand is that radio, in particular, is local, and has been for generations. When they cut the quality of the product, people went looking elsewhere. Their time sucked, because the Internet was there waiting to fill the void.

Audiences already lost TV to mostly national programming. They don't want to lose radio. The rating tell the story in market after market after market. The stations with the largest amount of live and local content win in the ratings. CC is trying to change the game, and sell listeners on the idea that "we have better entertainment" because they've got guys from bigger markets syndicated or tracked in smaller markets. I guess we'll see how that pans out. In the past, local talent has beaten syndication when it was allowed to compete. Let's hope some of the broadcasters out there see this as an opportunity to take on Clear Channel and offer listeners a chance to show them the error of their ways.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Greetings from market 24. Our fair City is growing but the budgets and talent base are shrinking as they are in most cities. The big broadcast groups who paid big money to gobble up every station they could suddenly started crying that they couldn't afford to operate them all and had to cut budget by cutting staff. The computer makes automation easy and attractive.

Engineering is quite different, the engineer who really understands RF is quite rare. Just like today's consumer goods the equipment is now difficult to repair on site. These days it's hook up a spare or plug in a module and send the defective unit back to the factory for repair. The engineer has been given the additional headaches of supporting all the computers and associated network devices.

 

[Element9]

Lots of things have changed, including, as I pointed out, the loss of 50% of the in city population.

50%? Let's break it down. The population of Buffalo has declined, especially in the last ten years, but it's not as if everybody in the city has packed up and moved to North Carolina. At least 40% of the city's population loss can be attributed to city residents moving to first and second ring suburbs in Erie and Niagara counties (which make up the Metro), as well as Genesee and Chatauqua counties, which are not part of the Metro. To a lesser extent, part of Buffalo's decline is due to city residents moving to other parts of NY state. And there are those who have sought greener pastures in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Ohio. Conversely, and to a lesser extent, there are those who have moved back to Western New York after discovering that the opportunities and quality of life in Charlotte (no offense Mike), Tampa and Raleigh Durham were lacking.

Arbitron's ranking of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls market has slipped due to a decrease in the population of Erie and Niagara counties, however Arbitron's re-defining some markets, particularly Hudson Valley, also figures in to the drop in market size. If Buffalo adopted a Metro system of government (such as Tampa and Indianapolis), it would very likely gain five to seven places, once again making it a top 50 market.

If the population of the "golden horseshoe" in Canada was included, the market would be top 15. That's not going to happen, of course. The point is, Buffalo radio stations reach homes, cars and offices in the "golden horseshoe" as effectively as Hamilton and Toronto radio stations.

Buffalo, population wise, isn't the city it was in the 50s and early 60s, but it's certainly not a ghost town. There are a number of national urban planners and demographers that point to cities like Buffalo and the benefit of "getting small" and "getting stronger."

 

[TheBigA]

Buffalo, population wise, isn't the city it was in the 50s and early 60s, but it's certainly not a ghost town. There are a number of national urban planners and demographers that point to cities like Buffalo and the benefit of "getting small" and "getting stronger."

There are lots of benefits of getting small, but not for businesses that are based on population. Being a big city was an attraction for entertainers and businesses that are built around them.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Re-setting the table and returning to the topic, I often wonder, while listening to radio while traveling, "where's the differentiation?" The music, positioning and promotion on so many stations is predictable not only to people in the business, but regular paying customers as well.

Live, localism contributes greatly to the differentiation: take, for example, what can be heard on 97 Rock and WYRK, WBEN and WGR. As a P1 listener to WNED-AM and WBFO, I'm clearly aware that the bulk of their programming comes from NPR or PRI. However both stations enhance the national news and information programming with local programming, providing a very strong mortar between the bricks.

I'm not into intra-professional pedantry, so spare me the counter arguments and pontificating. It's 2011. I know the reality is voice-tracking and synergistic programming, two way relationships and social networking. Most of us have a very realistic understanding of how radio is consumed, where it's come from and where it's going. It is what it is but it ain't what it used to be. So be it. Done. And in a dark sense, let it be.

 

[TheBigA]

I often wonder, while listening to radio while traveling, "where's the differentiation?" The music, positioning and promotion on so many stations is predictable not only to people in the business, but regular paying customers as well.

Local people don't see media the way travelers do. To people who live in Buffalo, they have no knowledge that the format or staff they hear there also are on the air in some other place. And truthfully, they don't care. Yes, they want traffic and weather to be local. They want news to be local. But if you're reading bio notes about Neil Diamond or Led Zepplin, it can come from any place. What you're talking about with WNED and WBFO is mostly inside baseball. The general public doesn't focus on NPR or PRI. As far as "intra-professional pedantry," that too is inside baseball. I'm in the business of programming to the public, not other people in radio. If radio professionals don't listen to my station, that's fine with me. Just as long as people carrying PPMs listen.

 

[Element9]

Some people spend five minutes in Buffalo and they know it like the back of their hand. Well, afterall, why not. Buffalo, Milwaukee, Syracuse, Toledo, it's all the same. Parts is parts.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You forgot the [/sarcasm] tag again. BTW, how many of those towns have "Michigans"?

 

[Philip_Airtime]

What you're talking about with WNED and WBFO is mostly inside baseball. The general public doesn't focus on NPR or PRI.

I'm not sure by what you mean, Big A, that the general public doesn't focus on NPR. They most certainly do! That's the whole brand! We have received countless messages through the years from listeners saying they heard this or that on NPR. Often, it's about a local story that is WBFO's or WNED's and not NPR's. But to the listener it's all NPR. They'll even complain to us about a national story that we had nothing to do with. But that's okay. We forward it to NPR. Our goal is always to try and be seamless in going back and forth between Washington and Buffalo so listeners don't perceive any difference. Now, you're right about PRI. No one focuses on that. I do know it causes some consternation at PRI when Ira Glass is referred to as an NPR host rather than the host of a PRI-distributed program. But that's inside baseball kind of stuff. To most listeners public radio equals NPR. That's why the sale of WBFO to WNED will have little impact on listeners since they'll continue to hear such shows as Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Car Talk, etc.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

What you're talking about with WNED and WBFO is mostly inside baseball. The general public doesn't focus on NPR or PRI.

Balderdash! Having over the years read hundreds of (Buffalo) Arbitron diary verbatims, I know factually and firsthand that many an average Western New York listener recognizes and values the NPR brand, as well as other local brands such as WYRK and 97 Rock. It's not "inside baseball" to listeners of those stations. Listeners recognize personalities, too. A national PD for whom I once worked noted how many diary verbatims mentioned personalities. He might have been surprised, but I wasn't. As to reading "Led Zeppelin liner notes" on the air, that's not how 97 Rock (in the case of classic rock) and WYRK (country), nor WBFO's blues programming made and maintain a special connection (there's that word again) with Buffalo radio listeners. I'd offer WDVE Pittsburgh as another example of a radio station that's unique to its market. Listeners notice. And they do care. Passionately. I could tell you what the reaction was like when 97 Rock left the air in '85, and from the other side of the street, what it was like when it returned a few years later. You wouldn't have to be "from here" to truly appreciate it, but it might help.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If the problem were simply because of a declining population in the city of Buffalo, the phenomenon wouldn't also be manifesting itself in growing markets as well. The common factor is increased reliance on asynchronous and/or non-local programming. Radio that doesn't relate to what's happening here and now simply doesn't make the same kind of audience connection. Some content doesn't rely on time and place, which makes it perfect for a podcast. Radio has two strengths in the face of the current competition - timeliness and convenience. Nothing is more convenient than radio. If it also offers timely, locally tailored content, radio still stands up very well to other forms of media. When it doesn't, the numbers suffer.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio that doesn't relate to what's happening here and now simply doesn't make the same kind of audience connection.

But simply providing the "here and now" is not a solution to all the problems radio faces, as the folks discovered at WECK. Good programming is more important than geography.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Well, signal and promotional limitations also factored into the WECK problems. Not that programming wasn't part of the problem. Still, quality live and local is beating syndicated at the top of the ratings in most markets.

 

[Element9]

Signal was a problem, but WECK was like the perfect storm. Who knows.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's a view from Radio Ink about local vs. national:

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2339242&spid=24698

 

[rdcuffpa1]

What is the reason you think radio has gone downhill?

I got through three pages of replies and I apologize if one of the later pages delved into these.


1) Fragmentation of tastes. Driven by cable TV and the Internet. Nowadays the listener has nearly unlimited choices. It is tough for a limited-spectrum radio universe, even with HD alternatives, to compete with this from a user who no longer thinks of radio for "music discovery" or to "hear what's new". They'll use FB for that.

2) 4-minute stopsets at :05, :20, :35, and :50 for advertising. Back in the day, you had a couple of minutes of ads every three songs. Nowadays, fatigue sets in very quickly during an ad set, motivating me to give up on the radio station & switch on my iPhone.

3) Corporations treating radio stations as investments instead of the "labors of love" they had been for their original owners. Also, said corporations overpaying for those investments and needing to squeeze cash out (and diluting the product quality).

4) Rampant voice tracking / syndication / automation. For many owners, it's cheap...and good enough...

5) Corporate clustering and cluster-based competitiveness, though to me that doesn't make economic sense: You'd think Entercom would make more be selling WWKB / 1520 to someone who could *do* something with it, vs. keep it as a loss leader. But perhaps the scary thought is that 50 kW AM signals are worth so little nowadays to everyone outside of the enthusiast crowd that it really isn't in Entercom's best effort.

Richard / Allentown, PA (ex-WNY)

 

[TheBigA]

Back in the day, you had a couple of minutes of ads every three songs.

That may have been at smaller FM stations, but on powerhouse stations like WABC NY, you had several minutes between EVERY song. Lots of studies done on this, and the conclusion is that stop sets are interruptions, so fewer long ones are better than more frequent short ones.

3) Corporations treating radio stations as investments instead of the "labors of love" they had been for their original owners.

Corporations have been owning radio stations since Westinghouse started KDKA. Sure there were hobbyists, and there still are today. But unless you have a source of money, it's hard to hire staff and pay utilities on a radio station. I worked for small owners, and it was an investment for them too.

4) Rampant voice tracking / syndication / automation. For many owners, it's cheap...and good enough...

First of all, I don't think it's that "rampant." Second of all, it's been a part of broadcasting since the network days of the 1920s.

There's a lot of romantic mythology about the way things used to be. I'm sure there were some places where radio was a passion, and money wasn't an issue, and everyone got paid well with great benefits. But that simply hasn't been my experience, and from all the books I've read on the subject, it wasn't very common.

 

[Tom Wells]

What is the reason you think radio has gone downhill?

I got through three pages of replies and I apologize if one of the later pages delved into these.


3) Corporations treating radio stations as investments instead of the "labors of love" they had been for their original owners. Also, said corporations overpaying for those investments and needing to squeeze cash out (and diluting the product quality).

Richard / Allentown, PA (ex-WNY)

Ding Ding Ding ! We have a winner!

Corporations are only designed to make money, the means are immaterial.

If a situation becomes so well defined as to perfectly serve the needs of the corporation, there simply is no room left for Love at any level.

Why would we expect money to leave any room for Love?

 

[TheBigA]

Corporations are only designed to make money, the means are immaterial.
If a situation becomes so well defined as to perfectly serve the needs of the corporation, there simply is no room left for Love at any level.
Why would we expect money to leave any room for Love?

Someone has to pay the employees and the rent. Can't do that with love. The American system of capitalism is built around making money. The alternative is government supported media. The US also has that system, called public broadcasting.

The FRC did away with hobbyists in 1927, and moved them to the Amateur Radio band. I have lots of friends who still are hams. They do what they do for love and friendship.

 

[Tom Wells]

I never did say that money would not exist, or that radio should be devoid of money.

Everything in this "current existence" as we have defined it requires money.

The situation is the same, regardless of application or business.
Radio just happens to have a whole lot more invested in the "service to others" thing since they do not
deliver a physical product to the listener.
Even the advertisers struggle to achieve a meaningful valuation in pricing/markets/ratings/ cume with a product
that is not "purchased".

Because there is no physical purchase by consumers, radio is far more dependent on being of SOME service
to the public, or else it simply need not exist.

When serving money becomes most insanely important, as in a corporation,
those left trying to perform a labor of love are often frustrated as opportunities to do so are systematically defined
as "unprofitable" and not worthy of suporting , or even permitting to be practiced.