VOA To Do Propaganda?

[FredLeonard]

A symphony orchestra is really not a good use of visual medium. Cable does offer Brit Coms and documentaries, previously the two main public television staples. And there are at least three country music channels. I wouldn't be surprised if public television stopped offering symphonies and operas for the same reason public radio did; people like that stuff don't pledge. The can do better with oldies/nostalgia, financial advice and how to fight high blood sugar.

I keep seeing programs on public television in which the subject has a direct connection with the corporate sponsor. And, by "sponsor" I mean the so-called underwriters. Maybe these underwriters put up money and commission a program from the producers. Maybe the producers pick subjects knowing they will appeal to corporations with big bucks and a history of seeing public television as useful PR tool. Makes little difference.

 

[TheBigA]

And there are at least three country music channels.

All of which are filled with reality shows. Do you actually watch? I know producers who do shows for those channels, and they ALL tell me that none of the cable channels are buying music shows. It doesn't matter what genre. It's all reality.

I keep seeing programs on public television in which the subject has a direct connection with the corporate sponsor.

Maybe you can be specific. What I've found is that every show is different. But the key thing you need to know is that the FCC is very serious about enforcing funding laws, and if they see anything that looks like a commercial, they impose a fine. Commercial broadcasters are also watching carefully, and if they feel they're losing money to a PBS show, and the sponsor is getting something not allowed, they'll inform the FCC, and fines will follow.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Depends on what you mean by "commercially viable." Both A&E and Bravo were begun as channels designed to provide programming similar to PBS. Both have replaced that programming with reality shows. So obviously it wasn't "commercially viable." Or maybe you can say they found something that was MORE viable. I don't see symphony orchestras or opera on cable anymore. I don't see folk music or Austin City Limits. Even the cable music channels have become vehicles for reality TV.

You can't force people to like what you think is highbrow enough for them. People like stupid reality shows. That's not going to change. There are more ways than ever for people who do enjoy the higher quality stuff to get it. Public radio formats that stick to classical or jazz are even more obsolete than some talk formats.

 

[TheBigA]

You can't force people to like what you think is highbrow enough for them. People like stupid reality shows. That's not going to change.

OK, then respond to this guy:

I believe those who run the industry "by the numbers" as nothing but a cash cow have ruined it. I believe that radio can be turned around and once again can be a mass communications media worth listening to, but not as long as those with a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo continue to defend their practices that turned an art form into a "vast wasteland" that panders to the lowest common denominators.

He thinks we can do radio as art, and lots of people will listen. I've actually tried, and found the opposite to be true. But then again, what do I know?

 

[JeffM]

David Sarnoff ... was also a nasty, reprehensible human being.

So was Henry Ford, so is Bill Gates. But we all live in a world shaped by their creations. (And had there been no Sarnoff or Gates, there would probably be no radio business, nor web sites to discuss it on...)

 

[davideduardo]

A symphony orchestra is really not a good use of visual medium. .

That is absurd. There is nothing comparable to seeing a great orchestra play. At one point, I had a very large collection of classical music, but nothing recorded could match having the visual experience of following the conductor and the musicians play the music. Live is best, but TV comes in at a good second place.

Obviously, you are speaking about an area of music with which you have either no familiarity or limited appreciations.

 

[FredLeonard]

That is absurd. There is nothing comparable to seeing a great orchestra play. At one point, I had a very large collection of classical music, but nothing recorded could match having the visual experience of following the conductor and the musicians play the music. Live is best, but TV comes in at a good second place.

Obviously, you are speaking about an area of music with which you have either no familiarity or limited appreciations.

You like watching a guy wave a stick. Fine. You still watch Lawrence Welk on public television.

 

[Avid Listener]

He thinks we can do radio as art, and lots of people will listen. I've actually tried, and found the opposite to be true. But then again, what do I know?

Don't make false accusations about what I think. I think that there is room in the radio spectrum for some commercial stations that raise the bar in terms of programming, as well as other stations that are the broadcast equivalent of fast food restaurants. Every station on the air doesn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator 24/7. There is room for some quality, even if only on a few stations, and not necessarily all day long.

You also overlook the fact that just because some have made bad attempts at higher quality radio content, that doesn't mean they succeeded at producing higher quality product. Trying is not the same as succeeding. Stations that try but fail only prove that they didn't succeed. Their failures don't prove that someone else who did a better job might not have succeeded.

 

[TheBigA]

I think that there is room in the radio spectrum for some commercial stations that raise the bar in terms of programming, as well as other stations that are the broadcast equivalent of fast food restaurants.

Great. What's your proposal to make it happen?

 

[Avid Listener]

Great. What's your proposal to make it happen?

You'll have to buy my book.

 

[TheBigA]

You'll have to buy my book.

I can't wait.

 

[flybynight]

That is absurd. There is nothing comparable to seeing a great orchestra play.

You obviously didn't see the episode where Kourtney shaved Khloe.

She actually did. Lamar was pleased.

 

[davideduardo]

You obviously didn't see the episode where Kourtney shaved Khloe.

She actually did. Lamar was pleased.

I don't generally watch shows where words that begin with a "C" are spelled with a "K" instead.

 

[davideduardo]

You'll have to buy my book.

Oh, so instead of doing it... building a business plan, selling it to investors and lenders and then executing the concept... you will just talk it to death.

 

[davideduardo]

Don't make false accusations about what I think. I think that there is room in the radio spectrum for some commercial stations that raise the bar in terms of programming, as well as other stations that are the broadcast equivalent of fast food restaurants. Every station on the air doesn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator 24/7. There is room for some quality, even if only on a few stations, and not necessarily all day long.

Since the dawn of the TV era, about half of all radio stations in the US have not made money. Don't you think that one out of the 6 or 7 thousand unprofitable stations might try some variant of what you describe were it such a good idea?

Or do you think you are the only perceptive intelligent person thinking about radio?

 

[Avid Listener]

Most business start-ups, in almost all industries, fail. That's a sad fact of life. Starting any new business is a gamble. I submit that many businesses fail for things like lack of vision, lack of originality, or lack of creativity. Then there's the fact that far too many businesses, including radio stations, are started without sufficient capitalization. Businesses started on a shoe-string often fail. Businesses that need to attract patrons often devote so much attention to the product that they ignore the promotion, then wonder why no one patronizes them (ie. tunes them in) when the truth is no one even knows the business is in operation.

I have advocated quality programming that is well-advertised and promoted. The fact that many radio stations do nothing but set up an automation system or plug into a satellite feed and hope for the best eventually fail doesn't prove that quality programming, well advertised and promoted, is destined to fail. It only proves that attempting to operate a radio station on the cheap, without imagination or creativity and most of all, without advertising and promotion, will fail.

 

[davideduardo]

Most business start-ups, in almost all industries, fail. That's a sad fact of life. Starting any new business is a gamble. I submit that many businesses fail for things like lack of vision, lack of originality, or lack of creativity. Then there's the fact that far too many businesses, including radio stations, are started without sufficient capitalization. Businesses started on a shoe-string often fail. Businesses that need to attract patrons often devote so much attention to the product that they ignore the promotion, then wonder why no one patronizes them (ie. tunes them in) when the truth is no one even knows the business is in operation.

But most of the unprofitable radio stations are ones that have either fallen into the red ink or have been losing for many years. Some change hands, with the new owner thinking they have better ideas... often to find profits equally elusive.

If you look at how many station that are unprofitable are also relatively new, you will find very few.

There are startups, uncapitalized or not, that fail and others that have enormous success. In many cases, the difference involves the tolerance for risk as much as the burn capital. There is nothing worse than spending every cent you have to start a station, and finding that you are going to be out of money in a month... it takes courage (plus maybe selling your car and moving in with your in-laws) to stay the course in what seems to be a perfect storm.

 

[TheBigA]

The fact that many radio stations do nothing but set up an automation system or plug into a satellite feed and hope for the best eventually fail doesn't prove that quality programming, well advertised and promoted, is destined to fail.

Actually, a lot of the stations that run on automation or satellite feed make a lot of money. That's why they do it.

Maybe you need to explain what you mean by "quality programming." Because I don't think anyone purposely listens to something because it's crap. I think they listen because they like it. And I don't think Ryan Seacrest aspires to create crap. I think his goal is to create quality programming that will inform and entertain. He just happens to be very successful at it. Does the fact that his show is a success mean that it's crap?

 

[Avid Listener]

In show business, crap is crap because it is crap. Sometimes crap succeeds. Sometimes crap fails. The success or failure of crap has nothing to do with the crap being crap. It has to do with the specific kind of crap it is, how much the lowest common denominator in the audience likes that specific kind of crap, and whether or not the other crap it is competing with is even worse.

 

[JeffM]

How'd we start out with a thread about the VOA and end up with Ryan Seacrest?