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

[listener-in]

I believe that fixing radio is such a problem because those who are closest to the audience and could do the best job fixing it are the very people in the industry with the least power to do so. Translation: too many absentee corporate owners. That's why public radio alone seems to have bucked the trend; station managements can sometimes be out of touch with their audience, but they are much closer than most commercial owners. And I have to disagree with BigA, I think media consolidation had much to do with it.

Phil, I thought my exchange with BigA might having the discussion taken outside; however, the economic forces that permeate our society as a whole need to be talked about on these boards because they affect what happens in radio, which doesn't have the luxury of existing in its own bubble. If oligopolies were not smiled upon in general, they would be frowned upon in radio. If the general culture did not treat employees as disposable, neither would radio. If the general culture did not find it acceptable to grossly overpay executives even when they grossly underperform, it wouldn't happen in the media industry.

Folks, it's all about concentration of power in fewer and wealthier hands, and until the Occupy movement came along, this was never discussed in political and (surprise!) media circles.

 

[TheBigA]

And I have to disagree with BigA, I think media consolidation had much to do with it.

And yet public radio is also consolidating, albeit locally, and people are losing their jobs there too. And we all know of at least one person on this board who feels the CEOs of the big public broadcasters are overpaid.

There's a circular nature to this discussion. People hate big business, so they get the government to break it up. Then the broken up companies are too small to compete and get runned over by bigger companies, who then buy them. It just goes around and around. When I worked for a small broadcaster, I had no insurance, and a smaller audience. I couldn't wait to move up to the bigger companies, so I could get benefits and more listeners. Personally, I would never go back to the old days.

 

[SirRoxalot]

First off, public radio (and TV) came into being because many people in the late '60s and early '70s thought that commercial radio (and TV) had abdicated their responsibility to inform and educate in favor of lowest-common-denominator entertainment. The only reason that some people - and not the majority of the public according to surveys - wish to defund public broadcasting is because they consider them to be politically liberal. Most studies have shown that public broadcasting is actually quite centrist, and equally reviled by both extremes. It had nothing to do with the "corporatization" of radio. There was no added "corporatization" in those days because there had been no real change in ownership limits.

Public radio is consolidating, and it's not just local. In NY alone, virtually all public radio from Utica to Westchester is run by a single public broadcaster. Many states have centralized multiple stations and multiple markets under a single public broadcasting corporation. Public broadcasting is going through the same "eat or be eaten" cycle that the consolidators foisted on commercial broadcasting after the LMA floodgates opened in the late '80s. The excuse is because of the need for "cost reductions". The reality is that there's a lot of money being paid to people at the top of the food chain, while people at the bottom have been stuck at the same pay levels for decades.

People don't hate big business. People hate to be abused by businesses, large or small. When businesses stop focusing on the consumer, and start focusing on lining the pockets of a few, people recognize that they're being jobbed. If a business is big enough to drive out competitors through unfair practices, consumers end up with a lack of choices, and poorer quality products. In a free market, competitors can come in and offer a better product or service. In broadcasting, the limited spectrum often prevents that from happening. That's when the government is supposed to protect our interests as consumers, and owner of that spectrum.

 

[TheBigA]

People don't hate big business. People hate to be abused by businesses, large or small. When businesses stop focusing on the consumer, and start focusing on lining the pockets of a few, people recognize that they're being jobbed.

But this conversation hasn't been about consumers, but rather employees. People inside the industry are upset because it's not like the old days. The consumers don't seem to have the same opinion about radio that the employees (or former employees) have.

 

[Bob1370]

"The consumers don't seem to have the same opinion about radio that the employees (or former employees) have. "

Numbers seem to indicate otherwise. While the total cume for all radio stations (commercial and noncomm) has remained high, AQH numbers for all stations have declined, steadily since 1989, showing a fall-off in TSL. People are simply spending fewer hours in a given week listening to radio, with the exception of steadily rising TSL, cume and AQH for the noncomms. As Casey Stengel used to say, "you can look it up" (in the Arbitrons).

 

[TheBigA]

Numbers seem to indicate otherwise. While the total cume for all radio stations (commercial and noncomm) has remained high, AQH numbers for all stations have declined, steadily since 1989, showing a fall-off in TSL.

That fall off began long before consolidation, so one thing had nothing to do with the other. Consumers are satisfied with OTA radio, and see no reason why they should pay for satellite or internet.

Public radio TSL is following that of commercial talk radio. People listen longer to talk programming.

 

[cee]

Consumers are satisfied with OTA radio, and see no reason why they should pay for satellite or internet.

Most people I know think radio stinks. That is, if they actually listen to it. Most younger people I know could care less about it. Many other options. Internet radio is free for the cost of internet connection(which most homes have).

Radio has a very limited future. Maybe 15 years?

 

[TheBigA]

Most people I know think radio stinks. That is, if they actually listen to it.

Radio companies spend lots of money to find out what people think about radio. And so do advertisers. And so do the trades.

Over 240 million people listen to OTA radio. And when people listen to internet radio, they tend to listen to streams of OTA stations. Check the numbers.

 

[Element9]

"But having a few people like Bob Rich establish a big business in a town can be a game changer." A-man: One of the advantages of posting to a board in a town you spent 5 minutes in is knowing everything but the fact that what Bob Rich Sr. built 70 years ago is all but gone from the Buffalo employment marketplace - locals know that the corporate offices are all that is left.

Rick was hungry and drove to Buffalo to buy a Michigan. Checked Ted's, Pat's, even Town. Nothin'. So he drove back to Syracuse.

 

[landtuna]

Most people I know think radio stinks. That is, if they actually listen to it. Most younger people I know could care less about it. Many other options. Internet radio is free for the cost of internet connection(which most homes have).

Of the three people living in my house 1 (me) listens to radio (over the Internet) a lot, 1 listens only in the car and only to 2 godcasters and 1 (20-something male) doesn't listen to radio at all.

After sampling a number of local OTA stations I've come down to two (1 quasi-Oldies and 1 Classic Rock) which I listen to in the car occasionally but of the Internet stations I listen primarily to an OTA station stream. I have not found an Internet-only station that has a quality signal and plays the music I like. There are several .2 and .3 streams that have good signals and great music but they also go quiet during on-air commercial blocks which is irritating. I actually prefer to hear the continuous audio stream, commercials and all, so long as the stop set isn't 20 minutes long.

I think radio will continue to find a place in the information and entertainment spectrum until one of two things happen:

1. Worldwide petroleum shortages, or prices, make commuting impossible.
2. It is possible to "broadcast" Internet radio reliably and at very low or no cost.

I don't see either one of these things happening nationwide in the next 15 years.

 

[TheBigA]

So he drove back to Syracuse.

Where he went to Danzers.

 

[SirRoxalot]

That fall off began long before consolidation, so one thing had nothing to do with the other. Consumers are satisfied with OTA radio, and see no reason why they should pay for satellite or internet.

Public radio TSL is following that of commercial talk radio. People listen longer to talk programming.

You're sort of correct about the falloff beginning before consolidation. The falloff began when out of town consultants started selling GMs on the idea that format was more important than talent. In Buffalo - and a lot of other markets - that happened in the '80s. The decline in TSL began in 1989 - exactly when the first LMAs were allowed by the FCC. That was truly the beginning of consolidation. In a sense, de facto consolidation began earlier as some of the more powerful consultants rolled out canned formats in multiple markets. Burkhart-Abrams, Frank Magid, and others followed the Drake and fake-Drake example into formats other than Top 40.

All of this was predicated on the idea that the talent "got in the way" of the format. What really sold the GMs was the idea that if you could reduce the role of talent, you could reduce costs as well. In some markets it worked. In other markets, not so much. Once consolidation was allowed, corporations simply bought the competition, and they've continued to reduce the role of talent ever since. As that's happened, TSL has also fallen - and that began long before the Internet offered disgruntled consumers another way to discover and obtain music.

 

[TheBigA]

The falloff began when out of town consultants started selling GMs on the idea that format was more important than talent. In Buffalo - and a lot of other markets - that happened in the '80s. The decline in TSL began in 1989 - exactly when the first LMAs were allowed by the FCC.

Anything you don't like is what caused a drop in TSL. Regardless of the facts.

What really was going on was that consumers had other portable devices besides radio. They had Walkman, Discman, and Gameboy. My first Gameboy is what stopped me from listening to the radio. It had nothing to do with consultants or LMAs. I was glued to Tetris that was first available in 1989. I don't care who was on the radio, as long as I could play Tetris.

You can come up with all kinds of BS, but the truth is the only reason people listened to radio was because they had no choice. Not because radio was so great. Choice was bad for DJs, because it made them dispensible. The consultant wasn't the problem. The consultant was the weather man.

 

[Jeff Michaels]

I don't know why a game boy would stop you, I used to listen to music/radio while I played any game system I had.

I will agree though that IPods and internet sites like Pandora are a hindrance to radio. I need good content and songs I never hear mixed in with the hits to keep me gong. Thats why I play alot of non hits/rarely heard gems on my show and why I like my countdown show for a station. Its different, informative and something that isn't pounded into me on a consistant basis.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

It's my observation and experience that before consolidation, there were more people working in all aspects of Buffalo radio, including engineering, on-air, production, promotions, traffic, secretarial and sales. There were more employees that stimulated the local economy in that era. Like so many, I worked for local mom and pops such as Stan Jasinski, small group owners like Hall, Rich Communications, Pyramid, as well as large operators like McLendon, CapCities and Taft. The competition was keen. As a result Buffalo was a very good radio market. The talent level exceptional.

The Buffalo News young writers offer their observations that may indirectly relate to this thread. Read this feature in the Thursday 11-17-11 issue of Next. The comments of Ed Slowinski in particular offer a young person's perspective about his mother's choice of radio stations.

 

[Jeff Michaels]

I will say: To each his and her own. Some like all Christmas early, some hate it. Some want talk and others want music. I know of alot of people who hate radio because of all talk and no music in the mornings. Some say Stern turned off people from radio. All I know is that if a radio grouping whether Clear Channel or whatever could integrate everything people want in different formats, then it'd all be good across the board.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

All of this was predicated on the idea that the talent "got in the way" of the format. What really sold the GMs was the idea that if you could reduce the role of talent, you could reduce costs as well. In some markets it worked. In other markets, not so much. Once consolidation was allowed, corporations simply bought the competition, and they've continued to reduce the role of talent ever since. As that's happened, TSL has also fallen - and that began long before the Internet offered disgruntled consumers another way to discover and obtain music.

Well said! The beginning of the big disconnect between to talent and the listener. I was tired of hearing that I was in the way, so I got out of the way...totally out of the way!

Listeners used to form a bond, a connection with their favorite station and talents. Wait that made the talent too costly. They might start demanding a living wage and we can't have that!

 

[Jeff Michaels]

What I don't getis that is why it doesn't fall on sales to make the station more money. I understand talent that gets greedy, but if you're paying me good enough money, which with me on air keeps listeners who like me, which attracts more sponsors, which brings in more money. Then I dont see the problem. If a talent gets too greedy, replace him with someone else who is just as good at connecting with the listeners.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

It's my observation and experience that before consolidation, there were more people working in all aspects of Buffalo radio, including engineering, on-air, production, promotions, traffic, secretarial and sales. There were more employees that stimulated the local economy in that era. Like so many, I worked for local mom and pops such as Stan Jasinski, small group owners like Hall, Rich Communications, Pyramid, as well as large operators like McLendon, CapCities and Taft. The competition was keen. As a result Buffalo was a very good radio market. The talent level exceptional.

This is a really great thread. All sides are making very good arguments. So, I'd like to add my two cents, for what it's worth. Radio was simply better 30 to 40 years ago. Look at the talent at KB -- 24 hours-a-day -- in the early '70s. Even the all night guys were top flight talents. Little WYSL was giving the giant a run for its money. WBEN and WGR had great personalities. WBUF was an adult contemporary powerhouse with a news department and personalities. WPHD and then 97 Rock were (and in 97 Rock's case, are) legendary operations. Ah, who can ever forget the truly unique presentation of WADV. Even WNIA and then WECK's Music of Your Life was a factor. Accuse me of living in the past. But those were some great days, and we just don't have that today. That's not to say there aren't good announcers today. Surely I would put Carl Russo, Slick Tom, Bill Lacy, Shredd and Ragan, Janet Snyder and a host of others up against anyone from the '70s. But they seem to be the exception when a station like WHTT is voicetracked after 10am, Jack is nothing but a glorified iPod and syndicated pablum fills the evening hours on music stations.

JPB makes a good argument about the greater number of people employed "back then." Many stations had their own news departments. I'd attend a news conference, and you'd have six radio stations there covering it. Each station had its own engineer. Now, with consolidation, one engineer is responsible for as many as seven stations. As late as the 1990s, you had two stations -- WBEN and WGR -- mounting expensive news-talk operations. The competition made both better. What a time it was to be a radio news consumer in Buffalo! Besides the commercial news-talkers, you had an all news (give us 20 minutes and we'll give you the world) public station with WEBR and a growing NPR station at WBFO. Talk about choice! Under consolidation, WBEN and WGR are now owned by the same company -- one is news-talk and the other sports. There's not much competition for either. And now the public radio stations are combining.

So, by any objective analysis, Buffalo radio is just not as good today. Again, there are good things being done -- WBEN's Steve Cichon hosted a one-hour special from the Statler last night. Dave Debo's "Hardline" is perhaps the best locally-produced news program. Pre- and post-game Bills coverage is as good as it's ever been. My public radio colleagues continue to produce award-winning pieces. But taken in totality -- all stations, 24-hours-a-day -- we're a long way from the '70s and early '80s.

 

[TheBigA]

So, by any objective analysis, Buffalo radio is just not as good today. -- we're a long way from the '70s and early '80s.

Yes...it's not the 1970s or 80s any more. Wake up! Lots of things have changed, including, as I pointed out, the loss of 50% of the in city population. You lose that many people in a market and it will affect ad-supported media. Couple that with all the new devices, all the new media sources, and you get more sharing of that audience with other devices, thus lower TSL. Barring a huge sociological change, Buffalo will not be returning to pre-1980s media any time soon. There will be more consolidation. And you'll see it in other areas besides media.

Yes, radio stations used to have large staffs. So did lots of other industries. My station started outsourcing news and engineering in the 80s. Why? Because we could. We used an engineer who was nearby and on 24-hour call. He also did regularly scheduled maintenance once a month. Our physical plant was in great shape. News was outsourced to an in-town news service. They had a full staff of reporters and anchors. Most of them were familiar names that our listeners knew. And we were a market bigger than Buffalo. Buffalo probably hung on to staff longer than it could afford to...still staffing as though it was a Top 30 market. But once the loss of population affected ad rates, it was hard to justify the old staffing levels.

It's easy to blame a convenient thing like "consolidation" for all your woes. But I go to lots of towns where radio stations aren't owned by big national companies, and things aren't a whole lot different.