The "pouncers"

[gr8oldies]

The problem is twofold with "localism". Do you have an audience that gives a crap, and, how do you write "localism" into law?

 

[amfmxm]

"Localism" has emerged as a hot topic again for two reasons: it is the one thing national/international media (in whatever format) can't do... and it is the key--really a euphamism--for relating to individual listeners.

Localism is being able to give the listener information they can't get from an iPod or Ryan Seacrest: that U.S. 90 is getting flooded between Ocean Springs and Pascagoula... that Rockford East leads Boylan 21-14 in the third quarter... that Representative Thompson voted for the bailout package despite what he promised at Rotary on Monday. And maybe it is playing a cut from Houston's hottest band even though they haven't signed with a label yet. In small-town radio (where most of the stations are) it is mentioning that Jared Smith of the P&R Ford Little League "B" team hit a triple to drive in the winning run--thrilling Uncle Bob listening on his way to work.

Relate, relate, relate, relate. Differentiate from the competition. Branding. All the buzzwords program consultants have been pounding into our heads for 40 years.

So, yeah, "localism" is just another word for radio that works. And, yeah, it might be shorthand for saying that we need to stop being stupid and start being smart again.

 

[TheBigA]

The question is: Is there enough audience demand for localism to attract large audiences?

What other local-focused content is attracting large audiences?

You can't program a 24/7 medium for emergencies that happen once a year.

People can get the local info they want delivered straight to their cell phone. And the data on it isn't very convincing that there's enough of a market to put it on a main channel.

The other question is: Is there enough local information to fill an average of 40 radio stations per town? I think you can find one or two very local stations per town even now. If the goal is to differentiate from the competition, why does every station have to cover the same three local stories?

 

[redneckriviera]

The question is: Is there enough audience demand for localism to attract large audiences?

What other local-focused content is attracting large audiences?

You can't program a 24/7 medium for emergencies that happen once a year.

People can get the local info they want delivered straight to their cell phone. And the data on it isn't very convincing that there's enough of a market to put it on a main channel.

The other question is: Is there enough local information to fill an average of 40 radio stations per town? I think you can find one or two very local stations per town even now. If the goal is to differentiate from the competition, why does every station have to cover the same three local stories?

Couple of quick thoughts here.

The concept of "localism" is one that won't show up in audience research as a desired trait of radio, any more than "relatability"--a little too ethereal for the average guy or gal. Instead it falls into that "I like it when I hear it" category--and it crosses every format.

Careful about the cell phone thing. Radio's reach is much, much, much larger than cell "media" at this point. You may be among those at the cutting edge, but the vast majority of folks are nowhere close to being there with you.

We don't have 40 stations in my town. And towns like mine are where most of the stations are.

 

[TheBigA]

The concept of "localism" is one that won't show up in audience research as a desired trait of radio, any more than "relatability"--

My point is that there ARE stations that promote themselves as local, are local 24/7, cover the local stories, make local appearances, and still get beat by Steve Harvey and other national shows. I'm not talking about research, but actual numbers.

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

The local advertiser/business owner is not the priority and hasn't been for a long time. So much for all that "superserving" of local advertising that was promised when consolidation laws were relaxed and sales forces combined. Remember that? Clients would be superserved because they'd get five station buys and demos instead of one. Instead, they're not served at all.

I think a lot of things have changed in 8 years, don't you? Bringing up so called "promises" from 8 years ago is pretty silly when the entire advertising marketplace has changed. And not just on the radio side.

Right now, the game is staying in business. No one wants to be the next Circuit City. So you make decisions that you wouldn't have made 8 years ago. They don't have to be permanent. They just have to keep you in business long enough to get to the other side.

I hardly think it's silly to point out that the law was changed under a false (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, an unsound) pretext (I can certainly allow for shortsightedness). A deal's a deal. There are many who would argue that the "entire advertising marketplace has changed" because of the changes in the law which allowed megaconglomerate radio companies to abandon the local advertisers in favor of the big national "score." Bottom line is, certain lobbyists for radio ownership groups swore nine ways to Sunday that they could improve the business if only they were allowed these changes in the laws to deregulate the industry. Instead, we're living in an era of penny stocks and private equity companies assuming huge debts and looking for ways to cut $400 million out of stations which are already reduced to skeleton crews.

The law didn't work, and it didn't achieve what it was meant to achieve for the American media industry. For all but a few rich men, it was an unqualified failure. It's time to repeal deregulation and deconsolidate radio once again.

 

[TheBigA]

I hardly think it's silly to point out that the law was changed under a false (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, an unsound) pretext

No it wasn't. Laws reflect the environment of the time. You suggest this was a conspiracy. That's not true.

Bottom line is, certain lobbyists for radio ownership groups swore nine ways to Sunday that they could improve the business if only they were allowed these changes in the laws to deregulate the industry.

So sue them! And sue all the politicians who listened to them. Go ahead. If any politician does something simply because of a promise from a lobbyist, he deserves to be replaced.

The law didn't work, and it didn't achieve what it was meant to achieve for the American media industry. For all but a few rich men, it was an unqualified failure. It's time to repeal deregulation and deconsolidate radio once again.

Sure. Trust the same politicians who believed the lobbyists the last time? You think they've gotten smarter? I can give you proof they haven't.

You can't do a "do over" in the law. We are not at the same place we were at 15 years ago. So putting us back there doesn't fix a thing.

 

[adma]

Without local radio, ZZ Top wouldn't exist. In one of the great shames in our city's musical history, Destiny's Child had to get airplay outside of Houston until they were picked up nationally and fed back to us in the form of a must-play on some format's national chart position.

To reinvoke the "things have changed from 8 years ago" thing, would a ZZ Top or even a Destiny's Child, transcribed into the present day, even feel the cultural motivation to do what they do with radio a first-and-foremost priority?

Maybe just look at them as phenomena of their moment--and it's more than just radio that might explain why a ZZ Top cannot (and, maybe, doesn't need to) be produced today...

 

[TheBigA]

To reinvoke the "things have changed from 8 years ago" thing, would a ZZ Top or even a Destiny's Child, transcribed into the present day, even feel the cultural motivation to do what they do with radio a first-and-foremost priority?

The record labels stopped doing "radio tours" with new acts in most formats over 20 years ago. Ironically, the most popular touring acts today are those who were part of those old radio tours.

 

[amfmxm]

Big A, to get back to your original question/statement/premise, which I think was that "pouncers" waiting to snap up good radio station deals are dolts because you feel that radio is dead (please feel free to clarify)...

The cluster of stations I manage--and the entire radio company for whom I work--finished 2008 up in sales and up in cash flow over 2007--which was a good year. Through 1/16 my cluster is at 98 percent of goal for the month. This is still an extremely viable business and I've continued to make a hell of a good living, so it's a little hard from this vantage point to buy into the notion that we should immediately jump from the nearest tall building.

And from that same vantage point, if a bargain on a good property in a good market presents itself, it would seem to make at least some sense to give it some serious consideration. And, possibly, "pounce."

 

[TheBigA]

Big A, to get back to your original question/statement/premise, which I think was that "pouncers" waiting to snap up good radio station deals are dolts because you feel that radio is dead (please feel free to clarify)...

My view is simple: If a deal sounds to good to be true, it probably is. If you buy at fire sale prices, you better check the foundation. But no, radio is NOT dead. It's just harder now than it was 15 years ago.

This is still an extremely viable business and I've continued to make a hell of a good living, so it's a little hard from this vantage point to buy into the notion that we should immediately jump from the nearest tall building.

I don't think I was suggesting that. Just that the buyer should beware.

 

[amfmxm]

As it always has been, and always will be.

 

[Carmine5]

it would be nice to see some of these station get into the hands of local owners. who could maybe bring some local sound back to the radio.

What is intrinsically better about "local" radio vs. syndicated or network radio? I see so much pursuit of "localism" as if it were the Holy Grail of radio, yet fail to see how just being local for local's sake is of any value to the average listener.

And conversely, what is so freakin' great about Ryan Seacrest? The few times I've heard his show, I'd say he is one of the blandest talents in the business.

And if out-of-touch radio execs think he is going to be the great white hope to capturing the young female demo, they need to think again. Seacrest has long since lost his boy-toy hottie status as these women move on to other, younger fare.

I've sampled a fair amount of syndicated programming and find much of it not very good. It's just cheap and easy. Well produced syndicated shows are a rarity.

Airing mediocre syndicated shows can be a kiss of death for a station. At least with local shows a station has control over the quality of the content.

C5

 

[TheBigA]

At least with local shows a station has control over the quality of the content.

Really? Then why do they put on so much CRAP?

If the stations had done a better job controlling their local content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Define "CRAP"?

At least with local shows a station has control over the quality of the content.

Really? Then why do they put on so much CRAP?

If the stations had done a better job controlling their local content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If CORPORATE had done a better job controlling their DEBT, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Most of the CRAP is the result of cuts mandated by corporate, leaving too few people doing too many jobs in too little time for too little pay.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Define "CRAP"?

Most of the CRAP is the result of cuts mandated by corporate, leaving too few people doing too many jobs in too little time for too little pay.

That's no excuse. If your job is to control what goes on the air, you don't blame others for bad decisions you're supposed to make.

That US Airways pilot in New York City could have complained about how it was the air traffic controller's job to warn him about the geese. He could have complained that he didn't get enough support from corporate. He could have complained that the pilots have been asked to take wage cuts. But he didn't. He did his job and saved 155 lives. That is what being a professional is all about.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: Define "CRAP"?

That US Airways pilot in New York City could have complained about how it was the air traffic controller's job to warn him about the geese. He could have complained that he didn't get enough support from corporate. He could have complained that the pilots have been asked to take wage cuts. But he didn't. He did his job and saved 155 lives. That is what being a professional is all about.

I'm not sure what you wrote here has much to do with what people face in radio today.

Pilots have their own direct relationship with the FAA.... a kind of relationship that NO ONE at a radio station (unless they are the licensee) has with the FCC. (If the FCC is issuing Station Manager's Licenses, I missed the memo. ;D )

There is considerable case law that spells out when a pilot is going to be held responsible personally and will be part of the lawsuit. I don't think there is a comparable legal precedent both protecting the radio station employee and also spelling out in legal language the responsibility of an employee at a radio station.

An airline pilot has a unique and powerful union and a written contract to validate the pilots relationship to that union and to validate the nature of the pilot's relationship with the airline. I am not aware of a comparable Station Manager's Union that wields clout.

May I be so bold as to suggest that for you to try and put a management level person at a radio station on the same level of responsibilities and opportunities to deal with problems as an airline pilot is a significant destruction of logical thinking.

Come to think of it, my PRIVATE PILOT'S LICENSE/CERTIFICATE give ME more relationship with the FAA and the local airport, and the use of airspace than than a hired manager of a radio station has in the way of relationship with the FCC.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Define "CRAP"?

I'm not sure what you wrote here has much to do with what people face in radio today.

I'm not talking about legalities. I'm talking about people taking responsibility, and not pointing the finger all the time.

I don't know if you read Tom Brokaw's book, "The Greatest Generation." But his theme is simple. This is a group who could have thrown up their hands many times and said "It's too tough." And they never did. They rose to the challenge, and they did more than what was expected. I wonder sometimes whatever happened to personal responsibility, and why it's always someone else's fault?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Personal Responsibility

The Greatest Generation had the full support of the American people and the industrial might of the greatest economic power in the world backing them up. They performed heroic deeds, and are justly admired.

Just what kind of support has corporate radio delivered to the people that create their product?

You want to talk about "personal responsibility"? Where's the "personal responsibility" of the Mays family, or Farid Suleman, who have taken MILLIONS out of the businesses that they're responsible for, while shareholders and employees who have put money, time, and talent into their businesses get shafted?

Next you're going to come up with "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". Let me tell you, Bub, that in the day-to-day trenches of broadcasting, there are a lot of tough people trying to hang on in spite of STUPID corporate decisions that have resulted in STOLEN vacation time, reduced pay, and extended working hours, and increased responsibilities.

Chances are very good that many of them will be rewarded tomorrow with a pink slip and a box for their personal effects. Meanwhile, you chime in from the sidelines and question their commitment? How about filling us in on your role in the broadcasting world, and exactly what "expertise" you bring to the table?

 

[aunti-terrestrial]

Re: Define "CRAP"?

Most of the CRAP is the result of cuts mandated by corporate, leaving too few people doing too many jobs in too little time for too little pay.

That's no excuse. If your job is to control what goes on the air, you don't blame others for bad decisions you're supposed to make.

That US Airways pilot in New York City could have complained about how it was the air traffic controller's job to warn him about the geese. He could have complained that he didn't get enough support from corporate. He could have complained that the pilots have been asked to take wage cuts. But he didn't. He did his job and saved 155 lives. That is what being a professional is all about.

Big A, I can appreciate your loyalty to your paycheck. Please, just don't expect any of us to read any more into your answers than that.