• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

This is what Georgia stations need...at least most stations outside of Atlanta

> More full-service radio. Live and local.http://www.kazmradio.com/programming.htm
> Any questions? Comments?

Yes. I have a comment and a question. Other than the fact that this is something you want, why should a station be live and local? People in the business say it over and over and over without backing it up with anything. It sounds <u>great</u>, like motherhood and apple pie but where are the listeners? I hear no clamor from them. Meanwhile, internet radio continues to grow while the hand-wringing over "live and local" continues.

I am not familiar with KAZM, but if I understand correctly, they are in Sedona, Arizona and Sedona is unrated, right? Nearby Flagstaff is rated and KAZM is not in the Top 10... I think... Arbitron.com lists a 12+ number for them but lists them alphabetically, not in ranking order. It is not a highly rated station as far as I can tell.
 
> > More full-service radio. Live and
> local.http://www.kazmradio.com/programming.htm
> > Any questions? Comments?
>
> Yes. I have a comment and a question. Other than the fact
> that this is something you want, why should a station be
> live and local?

Because a lot of people want to listen to personality, not a machine or jukebox? That includes time and temperature. Have you ever listened to a station that runs on a computer and/or satellite dish for most of the broadcast day?
 
> > > More full-service radio. Live and
> > local.http://www.kazmradio.com/programming.htm
> > > Any questions? Comments?
> >
> > Yes. I have a comment and a question. Other than the fact
> > that this is something you want, why should a station be
> > live and local?
>
> Because a lot of people want to listen to personality, not a
> machine or jukebox? That includes time and temperature.
> Have you ever listened to a station that runs on a computer
> and/or satellite dish for most of the broadcast day?
>

I know "a lot" do but people who own these stations are trying to make a buck. If I really, really strongly beleived in live and local, I'd put together a business plan, present it to investors and run my own station.

Sure I've listened to fully-automated stations. I don't like them either. I just know that there are something like 13,000 commercial radio stations in this country and the big companies don't own or operate most of them. There are plenty of live and local radio stations and most of them are worse than Clear Channel's worst automated station.
 
> I know "a lot" do but people who own these stations are
> trying to make a buck. If I really, really strongly beleived
> in live and local, I'd put together a business plan, present
> it to investors and run my own station.

This so called "trying to make a buck" is part of the reason why terrestrial radio is in trouble to begin with.


> There are
> plenty of live and local radio stations and most of them are
> worse than Clear Channel's worst automated station.

How do you know that? Prove it.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 08/01/05 03:53 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> > There are plenty of live and local radio stations and most of them
> are worse than Clear Channel's worst automated station.


> How do you know that? Prove it.


Listen to small town radio...everytime it goes off the air, or sounds like crapola...there ya go.
 
I'd prefer something live and local, no matetr how bad it might sound over somethign voicetracked or satelitted in........
 
> I'd prefer something live and local, no matetr how bad it
> might sound over somethign voicetracked or satelitted
> in........
>
Our discussion might be more productive if....
we discarded the term "live and local" and replaced it with something like....
"timely and area responsive". (There has to be a good catch phrase that would better say this.)

It doesn't matter if the voice come from the studio live,
or the voice zings in on the internet via an mp3 file from a studio 2000 miles away because an e-mail originated locally went to the studio.

Example: "Folks, we have reports of a bad accident on the four lane at State Road 53. All lanes on 53 are closed. Expect a 15 minute delay if you are on the four lane."

What good is "live and local" if the announcer is on the phone with his girlfriend and the listeners and the police have not been encouraged and trained to call in "timely and area responsive" reports like this.

It is not rocket science to equip the owner and key staff people with the ability to dial in, record a timely report, put in the magic PIN, and have the automation machine work the report in seamlessly.
 
> I'd prefer something live and local, no matter how bad it
> might sound over somethign voicetracked or satelitted
> in........
>

Agreed.
 
> I'd prefer something live and local, no matetr how bad it
> might sound over somethign voicetracked or satelitted
> in........

I can appreciate that. Just like a cattle farmer would rather eat bad hamburger than good fish.
 
> This so called "trying to make a buck" is part of the reason
> why terrestrial radio is in trouble to begin with.

The only way that terrestial radio is "in trouble" is in the arena of profitability. I don't have a problem with Clear Channel trying to make a buck. My bitch is that they aren't making more of them.

> > There are plenty of live and local radio stations and most of them
> are worse than Clear Channel's worst automated station.
>
> How do you know that? Prove it.

It's an opinion and by its nature is not provable. Not any more than you can prove that listeners prefer live and local over distant and voicetracked.

I have a confession to make: I am being purposely provocative. I don't have any more love of Clear Channel or voicetracked radio stations than you do. I am railing against the tendency of people in radio to make unsubstantiated claims. "It's gotta be live and local" sounds good but I've never heard it from anyone without a vested interest. The listener apparenly hasn't gotten the message. Lots of syndicated shows get great ratings and those damn iPods are flying off the shelves (6 million in just the last three months).
 
> The only way that terrestial radio is "in trouble" is in the
> arena of profitability. I don't have a problem with Clear
> Channel trying to make a buck. My bitch is that they aren't
> making more of them.

That's the point exactly. The lack of "profitability" is partly why terrestrial radio stinks.
 
> > I'd prefer something live and local, no matetr how bad it
> > might sound over somethign voicetracked or satelitted
> > in........
> >

You know I agree... in fact TV should be live and local too! Heck with those pre-recorded national shows, like '24' and 'Six Feet Under.' They suck.

Bring back cable-access ala Wayne's World.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by russ973 on 08/02/05 09:46 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> It doesn't matter if the voice come from the studio live,
> or the voice zings in on the internet via an mp3 file from a
> studio 2000 miles away because an e-mail originated locally
> went to the studio.

While I defend the stations that voicetrack, I personally don't like it. I don't pretend that it's rational, I just can't feel "connected" when I know I'm listening to an audio file.

And those of us in radio can hardly be considered objective. I don't imagine bank employees were too crazy about ATMs when they first came out. Many, many people swore they'd never use them. Too impersonal. Now I bet most people would seek out an ATM rather than a teller. Sure some people still don't use them, but they are the most part very old people.

What I don't get is that some critics constantly harangue station owners about "live and local" as if their opinion were law, and they were violating some code of conduct. If I don't like it, I don't listen and more often lately, I pick my mp3 player for music. It has no jocks either but doesn't try to convince me that it does.
 
> You know I agree... in fact TV should be live and local too!
> Heck with those pre-recorded national shows, like '24' and
> 'Six Feet Under.' They suck.
>
> Bring back cable-access ala Wayne's World.
>

And those millions of XM/Sirius don't know whats good for 'em! Newspapers too! It'll be a cold day in hell before a nationwide rag does better than a local edition. Screw you USA Today...give me the Pembroke Times (I like the editions where they mis-spell things).
 
Huh?

> This so called "trying to make a buck" is part of the reason
> why terrestrial radio is in trouble to begin with.

Okay, I give up. I think we are talking about "commercial" radio here, not non-com. If commercial broadcasters DON'T try to make a buck (and actually succeed), where is the money to pay salaries, utilities, rent, engineering, the note down at the bank (and let's not forget ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and FCC Spectrum Fees) and such going to come from?

For cryin' out loud...radio IS a business, and should be operated to make a REASONABLE profit for the owners. If that means "all satellite, all the time", so be it.

The government, in all its wisdom, is going to keep on, until they legislate small-market broadcasters out of business. First, there was Docket 80-90, which created all these FM stations licensed to micro-communities (like Talking Rock Georgia, population 26), which were nothing but a way to back door into larger towns. 80-90 also allowed many stations to upgrade their power, creating more competition and move-ins. Then, the 1997 bill that created all the mega-groups, which brought the stock market, the lawyers and the CPA's into broadcasting, in a big way. After that, they mandated LPFM, creating interference to established broadcasters, not to mention additional competition for listeners. And let's not forget Sirius and XM...even more competition for listeners.

I once worked for a fellow that said that radio started going downhill when all the small markets got FM, and had to operate them at night, as opposed to the daytime AM's. Like it or not, those daytime AM's (and those small fulltimers that operated with specified hours...essentially daytimers) served their communities very well, and made a pretty good living for the owners.

Sometimes (many times?), "More Is Less".<P ID="signature">______________
Jay Braswell - Moderator
Atlanta/North Florida/South Carolina/Georgia Boards</P>
 
Re: Huh?

> Like it or not, those daytime AM's (and those small fulltimers
> that operated with specified hours...essentially daytimers)
> served their communities very well, and made a pretty good
> living for the owners.

I think we probably disagree on how well those communities were served, and we seem very likely to disagree on whether they'd still be capable of providing any meaningful service at all today.

Sometimes, the more things change the more they stay the same ... but sometimes they really do change. Like lifestyles of today's consumer.

In just the past decade or so (1990 census vs 2000 census) we've watched the increase in commute times to work, and people leaving earlier for work. Over 17% of employed persons 16+ leave for work between midnight & 5 a.m., another 19% leave between 6a-7a. That's 36% who faced little to no radio service from those limited hours AM's.

The average trip to work is now 25+ minutes, over 30% of workers have a trip of 30 minutes or more. That's ample time for them to drive out of the signal of many of these low-powered daytimers even if they're on air.

Combine those two factors alone, never mind anything else, and you're talking about anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of employed adults (seemingly a rather important demographic) being underserved or unserved completely by the sort of stations you're describing so fondly.

> Sometimes (many times?), "More Is Less".

Sometimes, I'd probably agree with you ... this definitely isn't one of them.
 
Re: Huh?

The problem with small town live and local radio is in fact small towns. Most of the small towns I have been through and know of have little in the way of a business district to support small town radio stations. Most of the small town newspapers wouldn't make it without government mandated legal advertising (subsidy). The business districts in most of these small towns are limited to the fast food joints on the main road on the outskirts of town (I know I have used that line before, forgive me.). Those small stations had to change, move or upgrade to simply survive. Did radio lead the downfall of small town business districts or simply follow the lead? I worked in small town radio just a few years ago and a local new car dealer bragged he spent 20,000-30000 a month in advertising but it was in every community around us (tv, radio and newspaper) because it was in those communities he sold the most cars and saw the greatest potential. Radio is part of the problem but by itself can not be the sole solution. Many of these residents of these communities do nothing in those towns but pay taxes and maybe (stress maybe) vote. They work, worship, bank, etc in the bigger city. Don't hang radio for causing the problem, just like rats, they're jumping from the sinking ship.
 
Re: Huh?

> Sometimes, I'd probably agree with you ... this definitely
> isn't one of them.

I think the point I was trying to make, was that the FCC has licensed far too many stations to smaller markets. The shrinking business base in these smaller markets is being divided into financially insignificant pieces...not enough $$$ for any station to operate like we'd all prefer. That said, satellite and automation is a financial necessity for most of these small market stations.

The big problem is that the FCC didn't use a financial model to allocate radio stations. If they had, the larger markets (the Macons, Augustas, Columbuses) would have been allocated only "A" channels (which could have served the entire market from centrally located transmitters). The "C's" would have been allocated to selected smaller markets, with the idea being that these stations would serve several smaller communities. A careful allocation scheme would've resulted in these market areas having financially solid operations, as opposed to the many "bubble gum & bailing wire" facilities that now exist. Of course, the licensees of these stations would have to have been required to meet a minimum set of operating standards.

Also, there should've been a "level playing field" mentality to allocations, whether AM or FM. Having one small market with a five kilowatter on 970, while an adjacent market has a 500 watter on 1390, gives an unfair advantage to the station on 970. The station on 970 should've been limited to 500 watts, while the station on 1390 should have 5kw. The same with FM. One small market has a full "C", while a neighboring market has an "A". The allocations should've been done with equality in mind.

For those that would say that this would be nothing less than government control of private businesses, isn't that what we've ended up with?

The idea that any "viable" community deserves its own local service, just simply does not work financially. Of course, you cannot un-ring a bell, so the madness continues.<P ID="signature">______________
Jay Braswell - Moderator
Atlanta/North Florida/South Carolina/Georgia Boards</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom