Tuesday, bloody Tuesday.

[qtpieislit]

Can you guess who will be the first to go? Pick the first to go and win a Clear Channel t-shirt that say’s ‘one feed fits all’. Today is the big day Clear Channel asks the proverbial question do we really need to keep local payrolls, to put the last nail in the terrestrial radio coffin.

 

[bsquared11]

Come on, enough already with these major radio companies. Just go away and never come back. The terrestrial radio industry is finished, done, kaput. It's time to sell the transmitters and the land they sit on and, please, now let's move on to the digital age once and for all. Goodbye AM & FM radio, it was a fun part of U.S. communications history, but now it's over.

 

[DToTheJ]

Locally, the first casualty is the only guy left from Q102's morning shift, Diego, who was supposed to maintain a "local presence" after Booker got the ax in favor of Elvis Duran.

 

[MorningRadio]

Come on, enough already with these major radio companies. Just go away and never come back. The terrestrial radio industry is finished, done, kaput. It's time to sell the transmitters and the land they sit on and, please, now let's move on to the digital age once and for all. Goodbye AM & FM radio, it was a fun part of U.S. communications history, but now it's over.

yeah thats what cable TV said about network TV ... how is that working out for cable? there will always be a place for FREE radio. there is just no place for huge radio companies anymore

 

[Slambang]

It was a sad day for alot of people formerly of the CC empire. Seeing around 10% of your total workforce pinkslipped due to idiot managment and a mantra of voicetracking/syndie is the clear and present danger in this business. For all the folks who were dismissed either on the mic or behind the scenes, I feel for them and I have a feeling most will bounce back. Im thinking about doing this weeks show on the CC cluster-f (see sig below for link), because it needs to be said....

 

[imhomerjay]

yeah thats what cable TV said about network TV ... how is that working out for cable? there will always be a place for FREE radio. there is just no place for huge radio companies anymore

Hmmm, how is it working out for cable? Last I checked, the combined broadcast audience is well, WELL below that of the combined cable audience. There are a handful of buzz-generating broadcast shows to be sure, but cable has been coming up and grabbing higher and higher ratings and more and more buzz (Man Men et al., anyone?). Other than Lost, Desperate Housewives and dancing wit the Stars, for example, is there any show on ABC any significant audience cares about? Come on, Scrubs? Wife Swap? Super Nanny? And then there’s NBC, a joke of epic proportions: a few cult-favorite comedies and….Knight Rider. OK, to be fair, the gradually fading Law & Order, too, but when a 20-year-old show if your high point, you have problems. Fox puts out the number one show in American Idol, yet if you drew that same number of viewers just over a generation back, you’d be finishing towards the bottom of the ratings heap.

Oh, yeah, broadcast is doing just great.

Does it have a place? Sure. That place is changed though, compared to what it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago….and so too, is the place radio can hold. That there may be a place for free radio in the long term is almost certainly true. The all-or-nothing scenarios are silly chest-thumping (newspapers as a whole aren’t dead as many predicted, but clearly they’re struggling to find a new path to viability). But what that place is, and what people expect of it, is going to inevitably change. Clinging to the models of yore won’t cut it. As the audience declines, revenue will decline and you can’t keep spending cash you don’t have on expenses that don’t produce a return on investment.

It’s easy to sit around and spend other folks’ imaginary money, but back in the real world, there comes a time when you need to face often-painful realities and make adjustments.

 

[amfmsw]

IHJ, let's be clear. The SHARE of viewing, of say 8 Philly broadcast channels, vs SHARE of the other 150 cable outlets is massively larger to the over the air stations. If there's 40% share to the 8 over the air, vs, 60% to the other 150, who has more viewers?

There are more viewers tuned to Action News than the top ten cable combined.

 

[imhomerjay]

Yes, and 60% of people, in your example, have left broadcast. The fous of 'cable' networks has been, for the most part, has been on niche audiences. No one expects Lifetime, for instance, to have the largest number of viewers in absolute numbers. The number of channels in each category isn't the issue. The fact is that broadcast viewing is down significantly--whether those viewers migrated to one other channel of 100 of them is largely irrelevant.

And the underlying economics don't change: if there are significantly fewer viewers, advertisers are not going to pay as much. Less income necessitates controlling spending.

Local news remains important, to be sure. And it will for some time to come. But don't pretend there aren't long-term trends that bode ill for local news long term as well. It may well survive, but will need to adapt to changing realities to do so.

 

[amfmsw]

In general, agreed.

However, the second graph statement regarding rates: The incredible shrinking Inquirer has as small a circulation as ever, but rates are as high as ever. TV is the no different. They support the incremental rate raises with value added, like web support, feature/segment sponsorship, closed captioning sponsorship etc.

 

[HarveyBrowning]

Radio will not go away, in fact in these times one can assess that it will only get stronger. The problem is places like CC and MANY, MANY, MANY radio groups get in way over their head and make HORRIBLE decsions.

Does the listener suffer, sure.

But in the end, its not going to drive them to pay for their music and talk. Radio listenership is up right now and the radio stations need to take advantage of that, instead they are cutting people beacuse of poor decsions they made.

We all know radio is about sales. The problem is many times radio sales managers have 3 or 4 different stations in their cluster to sell and dont know enough about all the formats. Recently, a lot of sports talk stations got cut, well maybe times the sales manger might not be a sports fan or be savy enough to know how to sell a sports radio station. Selling sports radio is not the same as selling say a CHR station or a Adult AC.

Stations build their sales staff these days with ANYONE who walks through the door and can sell their main station, therefore, the station that might be 3rd or 4th ratings-wise suffers sales wise.

AM/FM Radio listenership is UP and will continue to go up, can radio PD's take advantge of it and can sales managers figure out a way to sell ALL their formats to save their stations?

My guess is the sales managers will drive away the listeners and the PD will be fired b/c of the sales managers short-comings and the listenrs will be forced to listen to some canned satelite feed. But they will still be tuned in to free radio either way.

 

[qtpieislit]

Can you guess who will be the first to go? Pick the first to go and win a Clear Channel t-shirt that say’s ‘one feed fits all’. Today is the big day Clear Channel asks the proverbial question do we really need to keep local payrolls, to put the last nail in the terrestrial radio coffin.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! WE HAVE A WINNER!!! The First to go will be YOU the listener!

All contestants who participated will be eligible to receive the Ryan Seacrest 'One size fits all' t shirt, with 24 hours to pick up said merchandise at the Clear Channel corporate headquarters in San Antonio Tx., at which time you will be escorted back to your car by local authorities, after the standard fingerprinting.

 

[imhomerjay]

In general, agreed.

However, the second graph statement regarding rates: The incredible shrinking Inquirer has as small a circulation as ever, but rates are as high as ever. TV is the no different. They support the incremental rate raises with value added, like web support, feature/segment sponsorship, closed captioning sponsorship etc.

Sure, they sell the banner on the business section and do all kinds of web value-adds. That, plus general inflation, must also be considered. We're not talking about 'absolute' apples to apples comparisons.

For newspapers who are executing well on a Web presence--and the Inquirer/Daily News appears to be among those on the better end of the spectrum--that may represent the long-term future. And though some TV sites may be viable secondary revenue streams given the content they pack in and the general value of local TV news, the same isn't true for radio. On average (and there are always exceptions), they're not that compelling and aren't going to drive numerous page views. Online listeners will log in, call up the player and minimize it, rendering the banner ads on the site less valuable. Radio by definition is more limited in its alternative sponsorship opportunities, both by the lack of visual elements and the differing expectations of listeners here in 2009. Slapping the Dunkin Donuts logo at the bottom of the channel 6 traffic reports is great for them--it takes little additional time away from the schedule except for a few bumpers going into commercials. On the radio, traffic has become a joke, with multiple sponsorship tags that take longer to sit through than the report itself.

 

[Soon Yi CIV.V]

Firstly, I want to say to IHJ that you have done a very good job in this thread of articulating the broadcast vs. cable situation. A lot of times I tend to forget something very important about it and you brought it right back in crystal-clear fashion: Broadcast TV's share continues to plummet and it is irrelevant whether the viewers have headed to one channel or 100. They're still gone!

But in the end, its not going to drive them to pay for their music and talk. ... But they will still be tuned in to free radio either way.

The two sentences above kinda jumped out at me so I hope Harvey won't mind that I'm isolating them here. And I hope Harvey won't mind that I'm going to respectfully disagree. Now these are just the thoughts that popped into my head; where I stand on the issue. [Results not typical. Mileage may vary.]

I am obviously a huge, long-time fan of radio. I am speaking of terrestrial radio, real radio. I have always been of the mind that I will never pay for radio and how-dare-they-ask-me-to? I want locally-programmed formats with live, local jocks. This is something which has existed forever--and which has been free the whole time. I mean, really: The nerve of them expecting me to pay for something which has no local flavor and as such is completely inferior! But these days "real" radio just isn't holding up its end of the bargain.

The phrase "locally-programmed" is becoming quaint. Cute, if you will. Like a village in the mountains of northeast PA which, when you drive through, makes you say "I can't believe people used to live this way!" And it's only getting worse.

Everyone grumbles when Clear Channel concocts another cost-cutting idea that further bastardizes the medium we all love. But almost exclusive of the results, other companies always try to emulate it. How long before CBS, Beasley, et al are sending logs from corporate out to the O&O's? Unless someone steps in and says "You guys can't have this many stations in single markets. Sell some!", local programming is only going to get more scarce. Centralized programming is the wave of the future, people.

Local jocks: They're becoming even more quaint than the village. Even when they are local, it's always a toss-up as to whether they're live. What's the point?

You know what it looks like to me? It looks like "real" radio is gonna end up sounding just like satellite radio...but with a lot fewer format options. Oh yeah, and commercials.

I have been seriously--very seriously--considering getting satellite installed in my car. Radio has become so frustrating that I am actually considering plopping down $150 a year to get the hundreds of music channels--plus news/talk and instant access to local weather & traffic. I still hate the idea of shelling out that kinda money just so I can have listening options...but I'm also really starting to hate what's been pumping out of the "real" radio!

 

[qtpieislit]

Radio has become so frustrating that I am actually considering plopping down $150 a year to get the hundreds of music channels--plus news/talk and instant access to local weather & traffic. I still hate the idea of shelling out that kinda money just so I can have listening options...but I'm also really starting to hate what's been pumping out of the "real" radio!

Just get a new portable internet protocol cell phone and get 15,000+ stations. Duh.

 

[Soon Yi CIV.V]

Just get a new portable internet protocol cell phone and get 15,000+ stations. Duh.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Ahem.

Trust me, if I go with anything it's not gonna involve streaming and cell phones. It'll be satellite.

 

[bsquared11]

Re: Come on, enough already with these major radio companies. Just go away and never come back. The terrestrial radio industry is finished, done, kaput. It's time to sell the transmitters and the land they sit on and, please, now let's move on to the digital age once and for all. Goodbye AM & FM radio, it was a fun part of U.S. communications history, but now it's over.

"yeah thats (sic) what cable TV said about network TV ... how is that working out for cable? there will always be a place for FREE radio. there is just no place for huge radio companies anymore"

Morning Radio, with all due respect, your analogy about cable and over the air TV does not make sense here, as the cable industry is the next to go down the tubes. There will be no need for the middlemen to send video content into your home, it will come directly from the content providers. Close friends of mine in the cable industry already are lamenting that it's only a matter of time. And, sadly, you are as clueless about terrestrial radio as those in the industry. NO ONE will be listening to the AM/FM bands in the future for entertainment. No one. The frequencies will be used by the govt. and other entities to serve other purposes, and perhaps there will be listeners to that information. We live in the DIGITAL AGE in 2009, transmitters and towers do not make sense. We drive cars. Horses and buggies do not make sense. I know it's hard to get someone like yourself understanding that an industry that's been around since the 1920's is dead, but IT IS! Sorry.

 

[qtpieislit]

Just get a new portable internet protocol cell phone and get 15,000+ stations. Duh.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Ahem.
Trust me, if I go with anything it's not gonna involve streaming and cell phones. It'll be satellite.

Ok. Let’s try to connect the little dots.

Configuration 1:
Internet ready cell phone + battery operated JBL or Bose dock = a whole new universe of sound.

Configuration 2:
Internet ready cell phone + micro FM modulator = listening on any radio.

Configuration 3:
Internet ready cell phone + blue tooth interface = listening on any blue tooth receiving speaker device.


Now, that concludes today’s aptitude lesson. Place your pencils and books under your desk. And you may begin now.

 

[Soon Yi CIV.V]

How silly of me. You're right, Sam. Of course you are. I'll run out and get one of those phones right now. In fact, I'm sure we all will.

 

[qtpieislit]

How silly of me. You're right, Sam. Of course you are. I'll run out and get one of those phones right now. In fact, I'm sure we all will.

No need to be condescending. Stay stuck, and enjoy yourself.

 

[imhomerjay]

Morning Radio, with all due respect, your analogy about cable and over the air TV does not make sense here, as the cable industry is the next to go down the tubes. There will be no need for the middlemen to send video content into your home, it will come directly from the content providers. Close friends of mine in the cable industry already are lamenting that it's only a matter of time. And, sadly, you are as clueless about terrestrial radio as those in the industry. NO ONE will be listening to the AM/FM bands in the future for entertainment. No one. The frequencies will be used by the govt. and other entities to serve other purposes, and perhaps there will be listeners to that information. We live in the DIGITAL AGE in 2009, transmitters and towers do not make sense. We drive cars. Horses and buggies do not make sense. I know it's hard to get someone like yourself understanding that an industry that's been around since the 1920's is dead, but IT IS! Sorry.

Hey, we can all play Nostradamus about the future and how we'll be able to conjure up any content we want with our brainwaves...and who knows, maybe we will. But to be fair, a lot of predictions over the years haven't come to pass yet, so let's not get overly carried away.

Here's where we stand today: broadcast, be it radio or TV, isn't dead by a long shot. It's changing and finding a smaller place in a marketplace full of expanding options. That means more centralization and fewer jobs to be sure. Such is the nature of businesses, but some of those jobs will be replaced elsewhere, so all is not lost if you keep a big picture view.

Consumers (viewers, listeners) don't care about the technology so much as the content. "Watching TV" long ago lost any distinction between whether that meant watching broadcast or cable. Radio is gradually losing that distinction now that satellite is starting to spread. Whether it reaches the level TV has remains to be seen, but just like TV had to shed the countless local kids shows, hosted movies and talk programs, so to will many (not all) radio stations continue down the path they've adopted. It sucked for the people who lost their jobs as local programming consolidated around primarily just newscasts, and it sucks for the folks losing their jobs now. I've been on the unemployment line and have nothing but the greatest empathy, but that doesn't change reality.

The obvious way most content will be delivered directly is via the Internet, and we're miles away from widespread, easy ways to achieve that. Some high-end TVs some with Internet connections, and some gadget gurus set up quite elaborate home networks to funnel content around the house, but that's not the norm in the average living room. Moreover, don't forget the need for the Internet service, which should keep the satellite, telephone and cable companies quite happy. Whether the pipes are carrying Mad Men on a linear AMC channel, and on-demand version or over broadband, the connection to the Web still provides revenue.

Moreover, the cost equation still has to be worked out for that kind of future. Producing Mad Men or Nip/Tuck isn't free, and all of the streaming or iTunes-like models so far are just supplemental income, not enough to cover the cost of good-quality content.

Change doesn't mean death is iminent. It means pain sometimes, it means losing something you enjoyed. But just as radio survived the dawn of TV by adapting, it can survive for quite some time as a smaller niche player, just not the mass medium of some years back.