The Grinch is Stealing Christmas

[secondchoice]

I know this is an “apples to oranges” but if you do not have adequate support people, sooner or later it will cost you.

That would be true, but the fact is that on air radio is no longer a growth area. NBC realized that in 1988. Metromedia agreed a few years later. Disney discovered the same thing five years ago. Radio can drive people to other media. All the big companies are basically transitioning staffing towards new technologies.

Radio was predicted to die in the late 1950’s when TV came along. The AM band does have some problems technically: interference from computers, CFLs, power lines, overcrowded channels etc.

IMHO what has happened the price of radio properties was ran up so high in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s that only major corporations can afford “good” properties. Radio is bad place for the large corporation model to try to operate in two ways. First almost any corporation of any size will hire MBA’s who are very good at numbers but a large number are clueless when it comes to entertainment. Also radio is now a “local” medium. Local decision making is contrary to almost any major corporation. Even 50 KW AM clears do not have a “clean” skywave any more and have to make their money with the local market.

I at one time really thought that cell phone (smart or internet) based technology was the future but even ATT is limiting the free data you get with the I Phone now. [My nephew who WAS a big user got his bill last week. Now on it is back to the walkman for him.] Until there is a major build out of the cellular network’s capacity in this country (which private enterprise may not be able to finance), radio in some form will still be around. As long as people still perform do things that require you eyes to be focused on something else like driving a car, some form of radio will still be around. If it a “growth” industry by Wall Street standards is part of the problem for the corporate model. A large number of radio stations have good cash flow if they were not trying to service a 10 times positive cash flow (or greater) note. You can make more witrh a good radio property that is debt free than that money will earn in CD's at the bank.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio is bad place for the large corporation model to try to operate in two ways. First almost any corporation of any size will hire MBA’s who are very good at numbers but a large number are clueless when it comes to entertainment. Also radio is now a “local” medium. Local decision making is contrary to almost any major corporation.

And yet radio was BUILT by major corporations, like RCA, GE, and Westinghouse. Radio works fine for large corporations. Where the problem comes in is when the large corporation only owns radio stations. A diverse company, like Nationwide Insurance, can handle the ups and downs of the advertising business. But a radio-only company can't. We have invented a lot of things like "radio is local" and "big radio is bad radio," but neither of those things are historically true. And neither of those things matter to the audience.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio can be a life or death issue. That is why there is an EAS system.

If EAS was so important, and radio was so important, it would have been part of the Homeland Security Act. But it wasn't. The government built an entire bureacracy around local emergency officials, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and left radio and EAS out. That's why the system doesn't work.

 

[secondchoice]

Radio can be a life or death issue. That is why there is an EAS system.

If EAS was so important, and radio was so important, it would have been part of the Homeland Security Act. But it wasn't. The government built an entire bureacracy around local emergency officials, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and left radio and EAS out. That's why the system doesn't work.

The Homeland Security Act was a political act. Some of it was good. Example here in Atlanta after 911 almost one third of the people who were working for the private contractor providing security at the airport were automatically disqualified from being hired by TSA (convicted felons or out standing warrants for arrest, not from or allowed to work in USA etc.). EAS is the reworked EBS left over from the cold war. I hope EAS is never used for its original intended use! The Weather Service and local law enforcement can and have used EAS. EAS allowed for unattended operations of a lot of radio stations. The cable companies are required to have EAS. If might not work smoothly but is, the only way to warn a very lagre part of the population.


If radio is not important, why are you on a radio web site?

 

[TheBigA]

The Homeland Security Act was a political act.

So what? All the laws that govern broadcasting are political acts. My point is that radio can't just act like they're in charge when a disaster happens. That responsibility belongs to someone else.

If radio is not important, why are you on a radio web site?

I'm not in Congress.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If EAS weren't important, they wouldn't be revamping it. Ask the people in New Orleans if radio was unimportant during Katrina. Ask people in tornado country if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a blizzard if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a power failure if radio is unimportant.

The Homeland Security Act didn't include broadcast radio because it didn't need to. There were already laws on the books creating a system that, however flawed, generally works. One act can't incorporate EVERYTHING that should be part of Homeland Security.

No other medium has the penetration, portability, and immediacy of radio. Until that changes, it's still vital in case of emergency.

 

[TheBigA]

If EAS weren't important, they wouldn't be revamping it. Ask the people in New Orleans if radio was unimportant during Katrina. Ask people in tornado country if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a blizzard if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a power failure if radio is unimportant.

This isn't about the people. My post very clearly was about a very specific Act. No one asked the people when they wrote this law and left radio out.

The Homeland Security Act didn't include broadcast radio because it didn't need to. There were already laws on the books creating a system that, however flawed, generally works.

Not true. The system doesn't work, and it mainly doesn't work because the people who are responsible for emergency notification don't know how to use the system. That was pointed out in several failures.

 

[MattParker]

Radio was predicted to die in the late 1950’s when TV came along.

It did die. "Radio" meant dramas, sitcoms, variety shows, game shows, soaps, serials ... Those migrated to television. Radio re-invented itself. TV was limited. The boxes were big and expensive; most people had one in their living room (or family room). Radio was available everywhere else. In kitchens and bedrooms. In cars. In the workplace. Thanks to transistors, portable radio became portable. While parents watched TV, baby boomers adopted Top 40 radio as their own to set themselves apart from parental influence. Lots of sports events were still only available on radio. Remote TV equipment was bulky and expensive so most news on TV was some guy reading and showing films of something that happened the day before; radio was faster and more mobile. Radio was local with local personalities people could relate to.

Now radio 2.0 is dying. Young people don't listen (so it has no future). It's no longer local. Most personalities people can relate to are gone. Everything is available on TV. Radio no longer has much of an identifiable inch. This radio is doing absolutely nothing to reinvent itself or to make itself relevant to today's audience.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If EAS weren't important, they wouldn't be revamping it. Ask the people in New Orleans if radio was unimportant during Katrina. Ask people in tornado country if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a blizzard if radio is unimportant. Ask people in a power failure if radio is unimportant.

This isn't about the people. My post very clearly was about a very specific Act. No one asked the people when they wrote this law and left radio out.

I love how you ignore the part of a post that addresses your (erroneous) contention. Once again, the Homeland Security Act didn't need to address EAS because the laws are already on the books, and one Act can't address every aspect of so nebulous a topic.

The Homeland Security Act didn't include broadcast radio because it didn't need to. There were already laws on the books creating a system that, however flawed, generally works.

Not true. The system doesn't work, and it mainly doesn't work because the people who are responsible for emergency notification don't know how to use the system. That was pointed out in several failures.

There have been several failures because the law is flawed, and training is flawed. But, once again, there are literally thousands of examples of EAS warning about tornados and other weather-related emergencies. The NWS understands the procedures and uses the system effectively. Other local authorities are behind the curve. They think that they can actually call a radio station - especially an EAS primary for an area, and speak to a LIVE PERSON. Most of the failures cited are either a failure to enact the system by local authorities, or a failure by broadcasters to maintain equipment correctly.

 

[TVradioguru]

Now radio 2.0 is dying. Young people don't listen (so it has no future). It's no longer local. Most personalities people can relate to are gone. Everything is available on TV. Radio no longer has much of an identifiable inch. This radio is doing absolutely nothing to reinvent itself or to make itself relevant to today's audience.

It's interesting that some on these boards make that statement, when it's clear they have no actual data to back up the claim. So radio is dying? Maybe to you personally perhaps, but the fact is that radio listening is at an all time high. Granted AM listening is aging-out, but FM in particular is seeing a huge increase in listenership. Some would argue that with the new ratings methods, we can accurrately track actual listening habits, while others see the increase caused because of economic reasons.

Regarding your statement about "personalities", I disagree there too. Maybe your local "Uncle Wally in the morning" you supposedly remember as a child, or whomever are gone, they've been replaced with other more relevant talent that give todays listeners what they've been asking for over many years..more music, less talk. It's called giving the public what they want.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, the Homeland Security Act didn't need to address EAS because the laws are already on the books, and one Act can't address every aspect of so nebulous a topic.

If you go back to the Congressional hearings, you will find that is not the case.

 

[TheBigA]

This radio is doing absolutely nothing to reinvent itself or to make itself relevant to today's audience.

I don't know about that. As far as the device itself, there's not a whole lot they can do. Back in the 60s, radio stations were owned by electronics manufacturers like RCA and GE, who controlled things like devices. Not the case any more. So radio can't reinvent itself in terms of the device, and current manufacturers aren't interested in that market. The only new device radio has tried to come up with is HD Radio, but it's been a struggle to get any interest from anyone.

In terms of programming, the music audience has splintered to the point where only a handful of formats are worth doing. Same with talk. I think a lot of companies have tried to reinvent on-air presentation, to a variety of reactions. Radio is still very local, so what works in one place may not work someplace else.

The real area where radio companies are working to reinvent themselves is in the digital platform. Once again because radio is local, it's hard to point to one thing and say this is what radio is doing. Different companies are doing different things, each to different reactions. The localism is what's hurting radio because radio isn't a unified industry that simply says "Today we will do this" and all 14,000 stations do it. The government isn't mandating anything, as it did for HD TV. So it's hard to make any impact on the public that "radio" is doing anything.

The other problem is that other devices, that were too big to be portable, like TV, are now as portable as radio. I can watch a pro football game on my phone. So why do I need a radio? Radio is now seen as the big non-portable device. The advantages that radio had don't exist any more. And I think a lot of people are looking for radio 2.1 or 3.0 or whatever you want to call it, but they haven't found it yet. But the reality is that it won't be like 2.0. That train left the station.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, the Homeland Security Act didn't need to address EAS because the laws are already on the books, and one Act can't address every aspect of so nebulous a topic.

If you go back to the Congressional hearings, you will find that is not the case.

Oh, please do provide us with a link to the Congressional Record or hearing minutes, or some news story, or some kind credible source that supports your statement. I'd be interested to read what was actually discussed.

 

[davideduardo]

No other medium has the penetration, portability, and immediacy of radio. Until that changes, it's still vital in case of emergency.

Cellular phones. Much more portable, better penetration and certainly immediate. Many are also addressable, and all are computer dialable for very localized messages, as was done with some of the SoCal fires of the last two years.

The advantage of a cellular message or call is that unless the phone is off, the message will go through. EAS, at times like 2 AM (thinking of Minot) might reach less than 1% of the population via radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The time required to dial a large number of cell phones is considerably greater than getting a message out using radio, particularly if EAS is activated. And, the detail and immediacy of the message necessarily suffers. Less than 50% of subscribers have data-capable phones. Cell phones may work for a relatively small area, but their effectiveness declines as the area and/or number of recipients rises.

Radio still has greater potential to reach the masses with timely information. Cell phone's best use would be to advise people to turn on the radio for further information.

 

[davideduardo]

The time required to dial a large number of cell phones is considerably greater than getting a message out using radio, particularly if EAS is activated. And, the detail and immediacy of the message necessarily suffers. Less than 50% of subscribers have data-capable phones. Cell phones may work for a relatively small area, but their effectiveness declines as the area and/or number of recipients rises.

Radio still has greater potential to reach the masses with timely information. Cell phone's best use would be to advise people to turn on the radio for further information.

Again, if we look into the immense urban legend that is the Minot chemical spill incident, we see a semi-rural community with no manufacturing base where very few people are up after 11 PM or Midnight. So an EAS activation goes into the category of "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, is there a sound?"

Radio listening in that sort of market is likely below 1% at 2 AM which is, IIRC, about the time that local authorities wanted to activate EAS without knowing how. If we expect that 1% or less to get out of bed and, like Paul Revere, alert all their neighbors, the amount of time needed to get dressed and get out far exceeds the time needed to do landline and cell calls.

At the peak times of the day, radio does NOT reach 87% of the population. At the low points, it does NOT reach 99% or more. For certain emergencies, it is a very poor system even when combined with TV and cable. That is why, as I mentioned, phone contact (both cellular and landline) was used in recent Los Angeles fires to alert residents living near burn areas.

Also keep in mind that about 25% of American homes are cell phone only, and in the under-35 group the percentage approaches 40%.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Most universities these days, after the Virginia Tech shootings, have installed text message alert systems. It is without a doubt more efficient than the EAS. Someone in the university police department sends out the message, and hundreds, if not thousands, of cell phones buzz within a minute. It might take five or ten minutes to distribute 30,000 messages like you'd want at the really large institutions, but within those five or ten minutes, word of mouth can circulate a long way.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, cell phones work for a limited number of people or a limited geographic area, with limited messaging capabilities. They can hardly replace broadcasting as a means of disseminating information in an emergency situation.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

My post was intended to be a counter-example to your claim, just so you know. If you can send 30,000 text messages in five minutes, to students at a major university, you can surely send 15,000 text messages for every household in Minot, ND for a chemical spill.

Will you miss some people? Of course. Will you send alerts to people who aren't in Minot? Probably. But you can say pretty definitely that the EAS box at KIZZ/Minot would miss more people (who aren't plugged in at that particular moment) and alert more people who are listening outside of Minot.

 

[BabyDJ]

Christmas isn't any better knowing that you're going back to a potentially bad situation. Anyone who has worked at this company knows it's an annual affair.

I think that goes for the entire industry. All of these are temp jobs after all. It's less than 5% of workers in radio who stay in one place for 20-30 years in radio. On air talent that number is lower.