The Valentines Snowstorm and radio response

[nhradiochild]

Duly noted. I realize some folks don't got more than an outhouse and a shotgun for their homestead, but it makes little sense to have a bunch of stations broadcasting the same thing for a relative minority.

So here's what you do. The station that's designated as an EAS headquarters (or relay station) which generally is a pretty powerful signal (if not the most powerful), be assigned the duty of broadcasting cancellations for those that do not have the option of decent TV/cable or internet.

Or plan B, establish a hotline such as a weatherphone with an option to hear cancellations.

Good enough?

 

[Mr. DUBbonet]

I fully realize I'm in the minority on this one but again it's about the listening. I'm not saying stop the music for 15 minutes at a time. I am saying that during a storm scenario, content is king and a station must be in information mode during the breaks. Everyone here brings up Arbitron. Arbitron doesn't determine a survey based on website hits. The survey results are determined by the number of people listening to the radio. During times of weather problems, instances such as 9/11, community emergencies...people want information. Radio can and should provide that. If we don't then we are missing another opportunity. Many of the reasons radio isn't as relevant in 2007 is because of some of the attitudes posted before me. Yes, technology has changed but radio is still radio. We still make our living by people turning the knob to on and listening. If we drive our listeners to other media during an emergency situation we continue to become less and less relevant in their lives. Am I the only person that makes sense to?

 

[Runrigger]

I'm way to the south of you guys & have been in the situation of answering studio phones hearing "is there school today?" many times from people who actually listen to another station but I'm not in the biz now & in the past regardless of which station I woke up to I always switched to one particular AM news & info heavy station for storm info, cancellations, etc. Not any more now. With radio & TV websites & accuweather.com I don't need to hear it on the air & sit through the info I don't need to hear what I do. Now I'll log on & get right to the info I want & not change my listening habits. I try to be pretty rational when I talk radio, combining my experience in the business with my perceptions as a listener. If radio makes information available off the air, there's no need to listen for it. Of course the problem with radio stations encouraging people to get info at their websites is that even if they don't, there are a multitude of websites where you can get it. The station I wake up to is very light when it comes to news & info but that hasn't changed my listening habits one bit as I'll keep them on in the morning while I'm online getting more in depth info. Actually the main thing I listen for during stormy periods is traffic as I don't trust any online reports to be that up to date.

 

[nhradiochild]

No one's saying s**tcan all news and information, nor did I imply that radio shouldn't attempt to cater to the listening public.

What I believe we are saying is "weigh the options". I want (and I believe I speak for others here) for you to understand that cancellations are NOT the audience-getter they used to be, and no amount of aggressive coverage will change that.

It IS important for stations to report viable information in a timely manner, but Arbitron isn't any more likely to account for exclusive snow-day listenership than they are for website hits. There's virtually no one that's going to take a diary and say "I listen to this station regularly because they have the best/most comprehensive cancellations." Surveying doesn't take place that rapidly in the North Country, don't try to tell me otherwise. And until now, I hadn't even brought up Arbitron. Who was it that did?

In closing, a station broadcasts what is of pertinent interest to its listeners. If the mass opinion is that the audience isn't there for that, and you aren't getting many complaints or interest, (as was previously posted), then it's like trying to bring back latin. There's no point to it. It's wasted airtime.

 

[argytunes]

nhradiochild...

I was always under the impression that cancellations weren't intended as an audience getter (your term) as opposed to providing a public service!

Have the rules changed? Isn't radio still a "public trust" and are in some way supposed to provide something more than just song clusters or talk show hosts babbling about how terrible the economy or the war happens to be? ???

Given the number of storms that we have during an average winter in New England, isn't this where a local or regional radio station CAN STAND OUT by providing the necessary information (including school cancellations) to help listeners cope with the weather?

I think it's pretty unusual for any source to offer EVERY SINGLE CANCELLATION FOR EVERY SINGLE EVENT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. But the beauty of radio has always been immediacy...and the fact that you can crank it up while working on a project, eating breakfast or planning your day. With a computer...you capable of getting some of this...but your eyes have to "focus on the screen in order to get the information you're hoping to find!" [This goes for television as well].

"Broadcast antiques" like myself appreciate the fact that we don't have to keep ourselves glued to the tube or to a computer screen...when we can just as easily drive our rv's to work, the market, and continue to listen to weather and cancellation updates...thanks to the radio stations that are willing to provide the information!

argytunes

 

[nhradiochild]

Why don't the TV stations (who have been applauded for their coverage on these pages) say the same thing and drive their viewers to their websites?

You know, I still haven't found who talked about the Arbitrons, but in the meantime, I would like to answer this question I overlooked earlier.

The answer is: because they are already a visual medium. Ever wanted to get that important song title or juicy bit of gossip or punchline or what-have-you and at the crucial moment, something audially distracts your attention and it's lost forever? I know I have, but when you can read it, even as a ticker, that split-second distraction has been taken care of in your mind, and you can still catch what's going across the screen. Not so, for radio. You miss it, it's gone. Sayonara. Which is why it had to be repeated over, and over, and over again. Which is why ads run over, and over, and over again.

There's no reason on this confounded earth that you can't refer your listeners to someplace that might just be more convenient for them and as an added bonus, supports your station's mission. This is what we call the "multimedia" age, where you don't just do one thing at a time. I know it's a leap of faith to ask someone relatively new to the computer world to abandon how they used to do things for the new, but honestly, won't that listener be more impressed that they can trust their station to list something of importance to them that they can access without having to wait for it and listen like there's no tomorrow so as not to miss it? Won't they be more inclined to continue listening to that station just for the call-out for such pertinent information? And maybe, just maybe, with more traffic generated to a station's website, won't that make advertising on it more valuable, which in turn would generate more revenue for the station? Wouldn't that all be good?

 

[nhradiochild]

I was always under the impression that cancellations weren't intended as an audience getter (your term) as opposed to providing a public service!

"Audience getter" was my term, but for an implication made by Mr. Dubbonet.

Have the rules changed? Isn't radio still a "public trust" and are in some way supposed to provide something more than just song clusters or talk show hosts babbling about how terrible the economy or the war happens to be? ???

That depends on public demand. :-\ If there is something that's unsafe, then that should be reported. So why is it we don't have more scrutinizing road reports in the North Country? Sometimes it happens, generally for interstate travel, but on many occasions its simply a guess-timate made by the announcer on duty (or if s/he's REALLY on the ball, s/he's contacted travel authorities and they actually gave him/her good feedback). And as far as public trust is concerned, we owe it to the public (God it's so hard not to use a personal pronoun, lol) not to screw around with their health and general well-being.

Given the number of storms that we have during an average winter in New England, isn't this where a local or regional radio station CAN STAND OUT by providing the necessary information (including school cancellations) to help listeners cope with the weather?

Yes, I believe a station can stand out providing that information. And sure it can be a selling point, if you'd like it to be. But I don't think it's reasonable to believe every station needs to do so.

But the beauty of radio has always been immediacy...and the fact that you can crank it up while working on a project, eating breakfast or planning your day. With a computer...you capable of getting some of this...but your eyes have to "focus on the screen in order to get the information you're hoping to find!" [This goes for television as well].

"Broadcast antiques" like myself appreciate the fact that we don't have to keep ourselves glued to the tube or to a computer screen...when we can just as easily drive our rv's to work, the market, and continue to listen to weather and cancellation updates...thanks to the radio stations that are willing to provide the information!

You see, that's the funny thing about it. There are other mediums that are just as immediate or more so. And I REALLY sympathize with the blind folk. Take my glasses off/contacts out and I can't see 6 inches in front of me. But it's a creature comfort, and I have to ask myself, is this truly something the public needs on all channels?

In light of all this discussion though, I'm willing to say it's more important for afternoon and evening cancellations to be read on the radio where you are unlikely to have access to another medium. Until technology improves again. lol

 

[nhradiochild]

Everyone here brings up Arbitron. Arbitron doesn't determine a survey based on website hits. The survey results are determined by the number of people listening to the radio.

"I've had a look 'round the back and we're right out of [Arbitron mentions]" - paraphrased from Monty Python

I guess you must mean some other postings in reference to radio vs. website which I will not further dispute. However, if there's enough enthusiasm for it, and money can be made, Arbitron undoubtedly will follow.

During times of weather problems, instances such as 9/11, community emergencies...people want information. Radio can and should provide that. If we don't then we are missing another opportunity.

In an exasperated tone: I don't have an argument with you there. It's just the list factor that's tiresome. :'(

Many of the reasons radio isn't as relevant in 2007 is because of some of the attitudes posted before me. Yes, technology has changed but radio is still radio.

Here's where I disagree. Radio is what radio makes of itself. It doesn't have to be the same ol' radio it was, and traditionally never has been. New and creative ideas to market and better position stations and GROUPS of stations (yeah, I said it) are still in its infancy or even yet to be birthed. Don't shoot mom, she's still carrying! (A public service note: one shouldn't shoot mom anyway, but I digress.)

If we drive our listeners to other media during an emergency situation we continue to become less and less relevant in their lives. Am I the only person that makes sense to?

I don't believe we are driving folks to "other media". That's like saying people won't listen to WNTK Talkradio, because the TalkRadio Shopper is so much nicer to read. The point here is to best utilize all avenues of approach to the fullest, and especially those under your umbrella (this could mean a co-op venture with a TV station that has traditionally been done in the past). It would be imprudent for a station to just pass the buck off to a service that doesn't plug them, (unless of course it's a full-blown advertisement). Even then, look at the anti-satellite-radio sentiment that was going on. Don't bash the competition. Make sure your s**t's up to snuff. Nuff said.

 

[dogface]

nhradiochild and jparsons are the only ones that make any sense in this thread. they truly "get it." sending listeners to your website for closings and delays is the single best way to serve them. As a parent or student, if I come in during the middle of the announcers "closing list" then i'm left to wonder if they mentioned my school or event. then i have to turn to another station to find out, or call a station and hope they'll pick up the phone. if they can refer me to a website that i can check myself, or they can text me on my cell, or even send me an e-mail, then not only have they saved me time...they have served my need.

what some fail to realize is that your website is an extension of the radio station. in many cases it is the radio station for those that stream our audio while at work because their radio doesn't work inside the building. if we can utilize the technology available, ie. e-mail or text messeging, etc. then we have extended our brand beyond the confines of box with speakers.

just like the 9-11 disaster most of us didn't go to our favorite music station when we first heard the news. we either turned on tv or went to the news radio station or straight to the internet if the other options weren't available. slowly we went back to our regular stations, who by that time had an opportunity to adjust programming accordingly and dealt with the crisis in their particular way.

had this storm been an all out disaster scenario, i'm quite positve that almost all stations, including music stations would have gone into more of a "news" coverage mode, making sure that the latest information was broadcast to the masses. however, making sure that everyone know that sad 46 is on a 2 hour delay isn't nearly important to the majority of the listeners as getting the info they really needed, and perhaps hearing their favorite song to boot.

embrace the technology, learn to grow with the medium, or else you'll find yourself looking for your lifes work.

 

[therealvoice]

Correct me if I am wrong but in the day and time that we live...the present...I would say that a minimum of 97% of a stations revenue is made from over the air ads and maybe....just maybe (and I think I am even very high at this figure) 3% of revenues are made from a station website...

Arbitron is still determining when people listen to the radio. We still want to drive bodies to our radio stations. Why then, would we want to drive them to our websites at a critical time like this?

Ahh - showing again you're not really sure what's up in the Business, and Radio world. It's a little term we like to call "Cross promotion" or even "bundling" Keep tuned in, you'll hear those words again 'Dan'. Arbitron can include people listening to your streaming radio product. Also - many stations are combining sales by selling ads on terrestrial radio and streaming radio because you don't have to stream the exact same product. If you simply treat it as a simulcast and have the software to do so, you can also sell your clients ads on your website - so not only are they being heard more online (and for less) they are also beinbg seel. It's the radio Tri-fecta.

I also have to say that on more stations than you I heard reports of the storm, besides - there's this trick we Vermonters have to finding out about the weather. It's called a hand. If you stick the hand out and it comes back covered in snow - you know it's snowing. The weather is important, but there does come a point when people will tune out if you report the weather too much. People tune in to be entertained, not just informed.

 

[therealvoice]

The VAB school closings site does a good job. If you have a savy web guy you can easily take that and make look as if your station created it.

CrankyYankee is right - you can't use it the VAB website for posting on a website - you can only broadcast it on Radio or TV. If you do post it, you'll get a notification to cease from Mr Dow to stop using it.

 

[lighten up]

FYI…Radio stations do not get credit with Arbitron for Stream listening unless the main station and the stream are a total simulcast. If the stream plays different commercials, it is considered a different station.
Second, Website and Streaming are part of the branding of a station. The VAB is archaic when it comes to vision. School cancellations should be posted on website because it’s about listener convenience. Pure and Simple. The world has changed and radio must adapt or we will lose to other internet radio and Satellite. Local is key but let’s think outside the box people.

 

[Erie_Lackawanna]

The world has changed and radio must adapt or we will lose to other internet radio and Satellite. Local is key but let’s think outside the box people.

recently, there was an article in the Portland paper and in USA Today about the number of adults (ranging in age from 21 to 50-something) who do not yet have an email account, a cellphone or the desire to have either.

i get numerous inquiries at work from listeners to the radio (you remember - that thing INSIDE the box?) vis a vis on-line registrations or email club entries, stating they feel left out of things because they have neither an ISP nor an email account to get the "direct details" offered either on line or via email. people who take the time to call YOUR radio station are P-1's. they are the ones who deserved to super-served. yes, plenty of P-1's are Net-savvy, but there are more than likely just as many who are not. remember the golden rule of "assuming" anything. if you have to ask - you're up past your bedtime.

drive 'em to the webpage - sure. but some things still deserve our attention on the air. if people want to listen to your format's music, they'll buy an ipod. they are with YOUR station because of the intrinsinc combination of localization, personality and product (formatic/music). if satellite were that good, there would be free and open competition for the countless millions of subscribers scrambling to toss away their old boring "free" radio in exchange for over-priced quality and selection. oh wait, i'm sorry - there's a merger going on so neither company will go belly up this week...

and besides - it's always fun when you get the newest kid on staff to help and listen to them (as we ALL did) fumble through a lenghty list. one of the more memorable, circa 1982 - the women's gynocological associates meeting... poor little Jimmy Fahey couldn't quite get through it on the third pass, so he changed it to "the ladies' doctors meeting."

i'm not a dinosaur or a relic (yet... getting there, but not yet). and before dismissing myself or argy or any other self-professed "seasoned vets," keep in mind that WE are out here on the 'net, too. we know of the possibilities, and i'd be willing to be that most of us could ProTools' most young-whipper-snapper-butts into the ground.

as far as ARB credit for "listening online:" if the call letters or slogans are properly registered, it doesn't matter where you were actually listening - W--- will get credit whether it's a 9-volt transistor, a nice stereo radio (with RDS mode on), a pair of so-so speakers attached to a desktop pc or even by way of a downloaded podcast.

just my .02 on the subject

 

[nhradiochild]

I'd like to remind people that I wasn't calling for stations to cease and desist, merely to point out its importance in broadcast has dwindled some.

For those that "feel out of the loop" regarding internet mentions might consider jumping on the bandwagon. Or they can continue to feel left out, but sorry, times have changed. I sympathize to a degree. My mom tried it and didn't really catch on, but enjoyed playing computer solitaire a lot. Some folks won't change but I don't see how that has to do with radio's general need to adapt.

While I'm inclined to agree with Erie on the Arbitron part, I have to wonder (haven't seen a diary for myself) if they ask you if you listened online or not? Then junk your response if you replied yes? Just a thought.

I reiterate, each station should decide for themselves what their listeners are desiring and (dammit) program it that way. (This sentiment goes beyond the reaches of this topic of conversation.)

 

[argytunes]

argy agrees with erie on this one!

And LOCAL is still the key word when it comes to radio.

WHY?

Because unlike the rest of the aforementioned sources...radio is still the only medium where an announcer, newscaster or reporter talks directly to a listener and gets him (or her) up to speed on important information!

Going to a website for a complete list of cancellations is fine, but if a listener wants immediacy concerning an accident, blizzard or an event that could affect him or her---NOTHING BEATS HEARING IT ON THE AIR WITHIN MINUTES!

Granted...every news story ISN'T going to fall under the header of: "we're gonna break our format because this is urgent!" But incliment weather, a major traffic accident, an international uprising...are ALL SUBJECTS that should be addressed ON THE AIR as it happened....instead of expecting us to reference the event on a webpage! The stories we read on the web can certainly go into more detail, but if there's an issue requiring immediacy, a listener should get the basics of the story IMMEDIATELY!

While ARBITRON (or a similar service) is capable of measuring audience numbers---I still go back to my original argument that the value of a radio station is determined by how well it is serving its listeners. Not how spiffy its website happens to look, nor how many steps their listeners have to take in order to obtain the information they're entitled to know RIGHT NOW!

argytunes

 

[nhradiochild]

Seems to me we have a consensus on this... well most of us. (I cannot speak for Mr. Dubbonet.)

Hot items should always be broadcast with immediacy. Then as a follow up, plunk it down on the website for further instant reference.

Cancellations should be no different. Mention them once on the air, and then plug the site for a repeat of already broadcast information unless there's an update.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me! ;D

 

[Erie_Lackawanna]

Hot items should always be broadcast with immediacy. Then as a follow up, plunk it down on the website for further instant reference.

Cancellations should be no different. Mention them once on the air, and then plug the site for a repeat of already broadcast information unless there's an update.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me! ;D

nobody's winning unless you're going to be responsible for tell ALL of your radio listeners what time to listen to "breaking, hot news items," since you're only looking to "mention them once on the air."

radio is a fluid, always there medium. not everyone uses radio at exactly the same time for an identical length of time.

i will give you this: smaller business who opt to "close early" or "not open" in a snow storm usually get 2 shouts and they're out (moved to web page only). 2 shouts turn into a sales lead in any good radio station.

otherwise, if you can keep 'em 15 minutes, you can give 'em what they need to hear - but that's a lot of quarter-hours in any one daypart - so you've got to pretend you have a brand new audience every 15 minutes - check tsl numbers - not many people are blessed with 4 hours of consecutive tsl.

 

[nhradiochild]

True. I would make a concession to repeat information once an hour at a fixed time if the list didn't get too large. My definition of too large is over :60 for repeats. I would do this because I'm open to negotiation and realize that my approaches might be overbearing or perhaps I just didn't think so clearly through it all. But keep it short. (Listen to me, : like I'm actually programming a station or something. lol)

And of course, news is news. You're going to incorporate what's news at the news breaks that you already have established.

Ah well, that's what these boards are here for... for the backseat programmers who might just stumble across something really good lol.

 

[Mr. DUBbonet]

This has been a good discussion. It even opened my eyes to a few differing points of view. I do think the web will become more and more important to radio. I am a big believer in streaming your audio there now and am making that available on the stations I am responsible for. I guess my passion for the business makes me think the way I do. I think that we in radio, as a whole industry, have given up ground we don't need to. I am very concerned that 12-24's are not spending much (if any) time with our stations. The younger demos always paved the way in our business and it will take some guts to once again try new things to start getting them back. I just think that we cannot afford to give up one inch of ground at this point because radio has already given far too much. I agree with Erie and Argy....one of the few things that makes radio unique IS it's localness. That's one of the reasons radio is where it is now because too many people have thrown that localness out the door in favor of national playlists, 50 minute music hours and less "interruption". We can't out-music the satellite stations...but guess what? They can NEVER be the "local station"...and that's where radio can still be relevant. That's why I believe the little things like storm coverage make a big diference.

 

[JAG]

The web debate is certainly a very interesting one. No doubt the web is an integral tool for radio stations going forward, and a chance to give listeners (including the younger ones that radio is afraid of losing) that instant gratification when they need something quickly - whether its a school closing or a song.

I think its important to promote the web, just not at the expense of your air product. People are still listening to the radio ON radio, so the key is to find a balance between the two.

That's my two cents, for what they're worth.