-
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
WAAF - what a mess!!!
- Thread starter MarkW
- Start date
Yes, it shows how rapidly things change in the industry. With the re-joining of the Redstone empire, and the reported lack of greater synergy of the CBS and Entercom combo under the peculiar trust arrangement that gives the latest Redstone control, the value of lower performing stations is jeopardized.
Doesn't escape that at 4:15 this afternoon, WAAF played an ad for a law office that was advertising services for people who were abused, and they made it a point to identify the clergy as a possible culprit.
All joking aside, I wish they pulled a WBCN and allowed Carrie, Mike Hsu, and Bob Hannah the opportunity to "free form" the station until Friday. What we are hearing is exactly what we will hear on HD Radio come Saturday. It will be a prescribed playlist with voice overs saying that its WAAF, same as the 98.5 HD-2 version of WBCN. I still think that they had the chance to pull the nose up (bring in the morning show and tweak the playlist) but chose not to (Entercom, not the station staff). I don't agree with the whole "it's not marketable" notion of some around here. This obsession with country will become this generation's Disco. Pop will continue to change. Rock will be back. It won't be WAAF or WBCN, but someone will pick up the pieces. When that happens, I'll be waiting.
This is too reminiscent of how CBS killed then automated WBCN.
All joking aside, I wish they pulled a WBCN and allowed Carrie, Mike Hsu, and Bob Hannah the opportunity to "free form" the station until Friday. What we are hearing is exactly what we will hear on HD Radio come Saturday. It will be a prescribed playlist with voice overs saying that its WAAF, same as the 98.5 HD-2 version of WBCN. I still think that they had the chance to pull the nose up (bring in the morning show and tweak the playlist) but chose not to (Entercom, not the station staff). I don't agree with the whole "it's not marketable" notion of some around here. This obsession with country will become this generation's Disco. Pop will continue to change. Rock will be back. It won't be WAAF or WBCN, but someone will pick up the pieces. When that happens, I'll be waiting.
This is too reminiscent of how CBS killed then automated WBCN.
I believe David has told us that EMF was ticked off with the way WCCC Hartford transitioned. Its airstaff played all sorts of music with the devil, hell, evil, etc. as their theme and got in a few jabs at the music the new owners would be playing -- kind of poisoning the well for any future listeners. If that was true, I'd imagine Entercom agreed to silence the airstaff well before the ownership change takes place.
That's just wrong. EMF had no right to complain about what is on the frequency before they take over. Even more reason to troll their toll free number. Out of respect of laws and the right to ownership of the frequency, I won't even go any further. Just know that there are (wrongful) ways to get retribution for said complaints. Until Saturday, that frequency is for WAAF isteners and not K-Love listeners. And, quite frankly, anyone listening right now is 99.9% likely to not listen come Saturday.
Last edited:
Rock will not be back. There is a whole generation plus much of the prior one that has little interest. Over half the younger population is now ethnic in many cities due to low non-Hispanic birth rates. The 18-34 listening to rock is decreasing, with no future hope.
And rock is now fragmented and radio is not the best option for split formats.
The buyer has the right to ask for any kind of term in the sale they want, and the seller can agree or not.
if EMF wants to avoid negative comments, they should definitely put those conditions in the deal.
When the company I was with bought a rock station to go Spanish in 1994, the rock jocks got horribly insulting. The owner was told to take the mikes out of the studio or no deal and a defamation lawsuit. The seller complied within an hour!
Calling EMF on the phone is childish and makes rock listeners see even less attractive to station owners and
advertisers.
Last edited:
It's a childish move to complain what is on the station that you are about to replace. I will be calling them to request highway to hell and say my name is Dave. Hahaha.
It's not childish to express your disdain for what's on their station. In fact, isn't that what special interest groups do everytime something is aired that they don't like. It's called freedom of speech. Now, what makes it childish is if I'm calling to call them names. But, it's far from childish to call and state that I disagreed with their tactic of silencing the air personalities of what was on the station, just because they didn't want to hear criticism. It was a (whimp) move. I'm always one for freedom of speech. I let Big A and others criticize my perspective all the time. You say it's in their right, and I say they have frail egos. Completely un-Aemrican and babyish on EMF and your company's part. Again, most rock fans aren't sticking around to listen to Christian Pop, nor would many be listing to traditional Spanish music. Me, I would listen to Spanish music. I would listen to Hip-Hop. I would listen to Jazz, Blues, Electro, Oldies, just not Modern Pop, Country, Sports Talk or Evangelism (K-Love). I'm religious, but not TBN religious.
And if any one of those stations were flipped to rock, I would lose respect for the rock station if they were silenced because of criticism of the rock format.
Last edited:
Says who? The reason these generations "dont listen" is because your industry stopped playing new songs after 2005. Now, all things come around. At some point, all this rhythmic music will too become mom and Dad's boring music, and something will replace it. Its just like how in the early 2000s they said the sitcom was dead, and that reality television was here to stay. What happened? Everyone got tired of reality television and there has been a resurgance of the sitcom. I find your perspective to be short sighted.
I have to disagree, that doing so is very childish. You have no ownership stake and are not a party to the sale but just a listener. You also don't listen to much radio. I know many stations playing songs beyond 2005. You are clueless about the research that goes in to determining what gets aired in just the right way to attract the most listeners. I am not saying you are of the group that actually believes the successful business model for radio is to make sure you do exactly what your listeners don't want. I am truly amazed by that line of thinking. In addition I know the sales end and understand what it takes to get those agencies to buy. You'd think it is all about sales ability but it's all about the right demographics, a sizable audience that matters and a cost per thousand the agency will pay. In short the commercial broadcasters in many major markets are public companies who face the scrutiny of stockholders who want to know what they get for their share...and you better deliver because radio is a business.
Interesting point you make on reality shows. I was told long ago that with the expanding number of TV options (before people started cutting the cord) meant the high cost of producing a sitcom forced the reality TV concept to take off because of the low production costs. I have no evidence that is the case. I've noticed some networks have simply become one or two TV shows rotating through every episode 24/7 likely because the budget for buying syndication rights won't allow for much more. People might watch lots of TV in real time and time altered on all devices but the actual number per channel nationwide can be pretty small.
I grew up on rock and roll. It had a nice long time in the forefront musically. longer than most. It seems today many youth prefer indy bands, many of whom sound very DIY in production values. I hear some talent in most buy nothing really grabs me and demands my focused attention. Too many sound like their second release might not be as inspired as the first. I heard an interview by a member of the Eagles when they were topping the charts who claimed all your songs were narrowed to 10 or 12 for that first album and you have to go on tour and somehow write another 10 or 12 better than the 10 or 12 on that first release. They said any group that made it to album 3 had already pulled off the impossible twice in as many years.
Interesting point you make on reality shows. I was told long ago that with the expanding number of TV options (before people started cutting the cord) meant the high cost of producing a sitcom forced the reality TV concept to take off because of the low production costs. I have no evidence that is the case. I've noticed some networks have simply become one or two TV shows rotating through every episode 24/7 likely because the budget for buying syndication rights won't allow for much more. People might watch lots of TV in real time and time altered on all devices but the actual number per channel nationwide can be pretty small.
I grew up on rock and roll. It had a nice long time in the forefront musically. longer than most. It seems today many youth prefer indy bands, many of whom sound very DIY in production values. I hear some talent in most buy nothing really grabs me and demands my focused attention. Too many sound like their second release might not be as inspired as the first. I heard an interview by a member of the Eagles when they were topping the charts who claimed all your songs were narrowed to 10 or 12 for that first album and you have to go on tour and somehow write another 10 or 12 better than the 10 or 12 on that first release. They said any group that made it to album 3 had already pulled off the impossible twice in as many years.
Huh? We play lots of currents. It depends on the format. Country, Urban, and CHR play mostly currents.
But yes, rock is fragmented and there are only a few consensus current acts. The problem is the music, not radio.
You're mistaken if you think that you're not part of the problem. You agreed with my sentiment about new music. Why are those formats thriving? Because they have new music playing on them. Country isn't playing 90s Billy Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks. Someone, somewhere finally made a decision to go with a set sound. That's what they aren't doing with rock. "Its too fragmented." Its always been fragmented, and radio went with a specific sound. Some went Grunge, others went hard rock/metal. At some point, if a station ownership went with a modern sound that suited one type of rock, eventually people would come. But that's not happening because you all are bowing to an algorithm. In the meantime, the young audience is gone because you relied too much on classic rock. I love classic rock, but it doesn't bring in younger audiences.
I have been in rock based music test projects, and there is a very obvious problem:
Among younger rock partisans, there are multiple subsets. There is no consensus.
Let's say that there are three major groups of music. One big part of rock partisans under 40 will like group A, tolerate group B and hate Group C. Another big part will Hate group A of songs, tolerate group C and...
You get the picture. There is a fragmented audience that will hate about one in every 3 broadly popular songs. And if you only play for one of the groups, the audience will be too small to make a profit. So stations can't easily do a more contemporary rock format in nearly all US markets. And the young audience can get custom services of the music the like online.
You need to check your facts. Reality shows are cheap and popular, and continue. Comedies that are hits are few, and every year 2/3 or more of the new comedies are cancelled and never make money as they end before the 4 to 5 years needed for syndication in order to make money.
That is not funny. It is juvenile.
What makes it childish is to think that the current owner has not evaluated the future of the station and opted to cash out now based on declining radio revenue, lack of viable formats... and in this case, a very inferior signal.
No, it is a good business practice to make sure your name is not presented negatively.
A radio station is private property. There is only limited "freedom of speech" there.
EMF does not want their network and their philosophy insulted by a property they are paying to buy. If I purchase a house, and find the owner is breaking all the windows, I'll either cancel the deal or sue for reparations.
In my case, our culture, language, music and talent were being insulted by a bunch of out of control acid rock DJs who were using lies or distorted facts to create insults. We had every right to protect our company, image, culture and staff. In fact, we told the licensee that we were concerned that the license could be lost over the ethnic insults being made.
Our format was not music from Spain. It was Banda from Mexico, and nearly 100% current. You are engaging in the same unfounded conclusions that that the soon-to-be-gone station employees were guilty of.
Businesses protect their reputations. Allowing a station you have bought to tarnish it is going to be a deal breaker, and the things that may be said by the soon-to-be-gone employees could endanger the license. This is a business, not Friday night High School Football.
You have the right to disagree. I still see it as a frail ego. I see it as childish. You mean to tell me that someone being critical should be silenced? If someone came in and took over my job, forcing me out of work, I find I have the right to express my displeasure with that. They are childish for thinking that they can buy a herstige station like WCCC, put everyone out of work, flip the format, yet everyone should just be at peace with this? All in the name of Jesus, right? People do some crappy things in the name of most religions, and although this doesn't hold a candle to other actions over the last millennia, it's still crappy and (in my opinion) childish.
2005 wasn't meant to be taken as an exact year. It was an exaggeration of my point that new rock isn't really played much in this market. Its reference the year before Stern went to satellite and nationally we began to see a number of legondary rock stations systematically be flipped. Free FM, Sports Talk, and so on. Also, it's when we started noticing the rise of Jack FM and other variants of Classic Hits (I personally have no issue with Classic Hits) Around 2005 somewhat marks the surgence of an emphasis on Classic vs Modern. That's what happened specifically with WAAF and many other rock stations. To survive in those days, they brought back Classic Rock. That was fine for 15 to 10 years ago. But, time changed and classic ran its course with the new generation. Where other formats continued to change with the times, your industry left modern rock stations on a 2005ish autopilot, then threw up your hands when listenership went down.
As for your taste in current musical sound, what's the quote from WKRP? If that's what they like, perhaps they'll listen if you play it. It's not about what you like, just as much as I'm told that it's not about what I like. I don't take any stock in your statement when we have how many stations playing the same Katy Perry mindnumbing (what I call) garbage. Yet, more people like it, so it can be sustainable. But, because you don't like that "indy sound" that the kids like, you'll say it isn't worthy of being played. How about the playlists found on satellite? Does that all sound indy?
The point of the sitcom is that the TV industry deemed it dead. The same as you all in the radio industry deem rock to be dead. Funny thing is, your algorithms don't catch everything. Rock, as a style that involves playing instruments instead of using beats, will have a resurgence. Will it be hair metal, grunge, Nu-metal? No. It may adopt elements from those eras, but it won't be exactly that. Enough people will catch on to a particular sound of rock, and it will be enough to bring it back to the public eye.
Telling me I'm clueless about research is a flawed statement, about as flawed as your research in my opinion. Cliche time, you don't know me, where I've been, and what I've done (outside the snippets that I give you here). Maybe, just maybe, I have conducted some research for formal "recognition" in the past. Maybe it wasn't in radio. Still, maybe I am trained to spot flawed research. Maybe I've been grilled by some recognized professionals in my field, just for training purposes. How do you triangulate your findings? Are your methods strictly quantitative or qualitative? If they are quantitative, how can you be sure that you know why this phenomenon is happening the way that it is? If its qualitative, how can you tell that its generalizable to the entire listening audience? In other words, you could have 20 years of data, and it can still be flawed. As far as I know, you conduct phone calls and listeners willing to answer you tell you what they like. That's what they did with me, until I moved. Although that gets answers, it's still not generalizable to an entire listening market. As I said, your using an algorithm to tell you things that an algorithm can't tell you. Such as why you people stopped listening. You're taking the "what" and inserting an implied "why" to justify your business decisions. In other words, if you can sleep well at night, then take my criticism for whatever worth you find. But, I'm still entitled to share my observations.
For some if it's not to their liking, the rest of the world is wrong. Can you validate any radio experience whatsoever? If I had to guess I'd say no but I could be wrong.
I've been in the business about 42 years and for over a quarter of a century a GM at a top 10 market station. I had no idea how deep radio got during my first gig at a small town station (top 40 days/rock nights). I've survived format flips when I was living paycheck to paycheck. Oh the stories I could tell. In short, I have to produce to earn a paycheck. I sure won't claim to be the best or even among the best but I earn my paycheck every day in the business and I still do today so I must be doing something right (and no, I have never worked for a big boy and only one had more than an AM/FM combo). I believe we tried to offer some perspective from our side of the business but in your interpretation we're just a bunch of people trying to destroy radio. That's pretty insulting.
Don't you realize if rock was a viable and profitable format in it's present form (even in the three variants David described), there would be rockers all over the dial representing all those three segments? The issue is the audience has splintered to the point amassing enough listeners for any of those 3 variants does not equal a number that can justify the cost of operation. Radio is a business.
In my time in the GM chair I had to face trends and redirect the station in a new format. Luckily for me it worked but I took a very calculated risk based on all the research I could get. When it means your paycheck, you make very sure it will work. That is not just programming but finding the advertising dollars wanting my audience.
You make a point on how the indy stuff doesn't really do it for me. As a programmer I could care less. I program stations based on what the target demographic wants, not what I personally like. Radio is a business not my personal toy. I can hate every song with a passion but if it is what delivers the right listeners then I'm playing those songs. I might not have the radio cranked up in my office. I don't wear the format on my sleeve. I'm not hired to like it. I'm paid to deliver an audience that can be monetized properly.
I've been in the business about 42 years and for over a quarter of a century a GM at a top 10 market station. I had no idea how deep radio got during my first gig at a small town station (top 40 days/rock nights). I've survived format flips when I was living paycheck to paycheck. Oh the stories I could tell. In short, I have to produce to earn a paycheck. I sure won't claim to be the best or even among the best but I earn my paycheck every day in the business and I still do today so I must be doing something right (and no, I have never worked for a big boy and only one had more than an AM/FM combo). I believe we tried to offer some perspective from our side of the business but in your interpretation we're just a bunch of people trying to destroy radio. That's pretty insulting.
Don't you realize if rock was a viable and profitable format in it's present form (even in the three variants David described), there would be rockers all over the dial representing all those three segments? The issue is the audience has splintered to the point amassing enough listeners for any of those 3 variants does not equal a number that can justify the cost of operation. Radio is a business.
In my time in the GM chair I had to face trends and redirect the station in a new format. Luckily for me it worked but I took a very calculated risk based on all the research I could get. When it means your paycheck, you make very sure it will work. That is not just programming but finding the advertising dollars wanting my audience.
You make a point on how the indy stuff doesn't really do it for me. As a programmer I could care less. I program stations based on what the target demographic wants, not what I personally like. Radio is a business not my personal toy. I can hate every song with a passion but if it is what delivers the right listeners then I'm playing those songs. I might not have the radio cranked up in my office. I don't wear the format on my sleeve. I'm not hired to like it. I'm paid to deliver an audience that can be monetized properly.
To answer your question before the tangent, no. My background in radio is strictly that it a listener. Now, that doesn't make my point invalid. The point is you, Dave, and others (as of collective group of insiders) take a hypocritical stance at times. Part of the problem whether you will ever admit to it or not, is that your industry (in this market) made some errors in programming rock music. I'm not invalidating your point. I'm asking what you as an industry did to "right the ship." The answer is that you didn't do anything. You went with a formula in relatively around the same time Stern went to satellite that emphasized 90s hits. You stayed with that formula, rarely adding true new acts. You didn't try a damn thing. New was mostly from acts out of th 90s and early 2000s with new music. In 2005, that worked. In 2019, it went stale. Nobody in Boston did anything to fix it.
It is partially the fragmentation. It is partially what the record companies push. And, its partially how your industry programmed the format. Look at country. New country would not be where it was, if someone didn't say "hey this Florida Georgia Line is good" and start giving these new acts playtime on their country stations. Your industry barely did that for the last 15 years, in this market. Love them or hate them, iHeart with WGIR and WHEB at least played new songs. Many are not ones I like, but they still play them. That didn't happen in Boston. Both BCN and AAF in the end relied on tired old songs. No matter how many focus groups you and Dave hold, you didn't seem to pick up on that.
Your years experience give you a lot of knowledge. But, it doesn't make you 100% correct in every discussion. What you tell me is that your a boat on the water without an oar. You just flow wherever the water takes you.
The implied statement that I'm upset because you aren't programming to suit to my likings is a simple defense mechanism to devalue my point. You'd be surprised with the many formats that I like and don't like. The only true format where I feel should be removed is Sports Talk. I love sports, love watching sports, love talking about sports, yet hate Sports Talk. I don't care what some writer who never could make the team in High School has to say about sports. Other than that, I'm for a much variation as possible on the radio. K-Love will be unique, and my issue isn't that AAF is being flipped. My issue is the excuses that I read from your industry all while burying your heads in the sand when the criticism comes your way. Your industry ruined modern rock. You ruined it when you stopped playing it. So, younger kids went elsewhere. Logically so, I must add. But when I'm hearing "My Hero" for millionth time (I love that song actully) many people are going to flip the dial.
- Status