• 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

Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!

And while the current administration feels the need to bail out every company and organization in America,
Bailout started with last administration and continued with this one. Above is a gross exaggeration, of course. Not sure if we, the average saps of the world, were duped by TPTB in Washington on Wall Street bailout. We were/perhaps still are in a unusual crisis(if ya wanna call it that). Orwellian propaganda flies freely from TPTB, to keep us yokels in line, no matter what party is in power.

I agree with VOR on high salaries of pub broadcast execs(not to mention other excesses, like building big studios, etc.). To be fair, I've heard a few stories of highly paid execs elsewhere in the non profit world who treat employees like crap while living high off the hog wining and dining their wealthy benefactors. Human beings - what are ya gonna do?

Take it outside alert :)
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the outrageous salaries your station's CEO and other top executives make?

Taxpayer money is dedicated to specific programming uses, not executive salaries. You should know that already.
 
TheBigA said:
Taxpayer money is dedicated to specific programming uses, not executive salaries. You should know that already.

You are diluting yourself if you believe that.

Like a few individuals on here, you react before reading an entire post.

If you want a bankrupt state and federal governments to continue handing money over to non-profits, be my guest: As long as it's YOUR money. I'd rather keep mine....thank you very much.
 
This has been, for the most part, a collegial discussion with reasoned input, but let's not delude ourselves, it could be heading for TIO. So back to WBFO-WNED-AM and the topic of funding of local stations. As I've observed and read in the trades and the mainstream media, Not-For-Profit Organizations of all types are experiencing shortfalls because of the economy and an official unemployment rate hovering in the range of 9-10% per cent. It appears that local NPR affiliates are listened to by more members of the middle class than previously indicated (by surveys, ratings and research.) Pledge and membership drives have been adversely impacted in many markets, although some major markets (IIRC, San Francisco and Seattle) are said to be holding their own. Buffalo's three public radio stations held their own in the face of a down national economy, but clearly this is changing... rapidly in some cases.
 
More opining from the 'voice of reason'; "LBJ's Great Society Dr. Smith is over with."

And we're worse off as a nation as a result, with higher poverty and more inequitable and unsustainable distribution of income, but that's a discussion best carried on elsewhere...

"And while the current administration feels the need to bail out every company and organization in America, there are people like myself who strongly disagree with tax dollars being spent to prop up non-profits like public broadcasting."

Once again, public RADIO in all areas of the country, except those where state universities or state-funded networks are licensees, goes without public operating assistance already. When New York State gives grants for public broadcasters, these days money is earmarked overwhelmingly to educational and instructional missions carried out on the television side. Of course, losing that money would indirectly impact, adversely, all operations within any licensee's building, including those operations like radio services which don't get any direct public operating $$$ for their own account.

"I would like to keep some of the money I have worked so hard to earn to spend it on me and my family's needs."

Nothing wrong with that, it's a sentiment we all share. However, we're not talking about a service for a favored few. It's a broadly-based public benefit, the kind governments have provided since man invented government at the dawn of civilization, available to all. We're talking about a service which educates and informs everyone, without a partisan agenda, and is best seen as another easily accessible outlet of public education for everyone with a radio or TV set. It's not even remotely comparable with the "bailouts" given to the major for-profit financial institutions at the end of the Bush administration which benefited only stockholders and executives of those firms.

By the way, all the money given to PBS and to its affiliate stations from the public treasury on a state and national level last year amounted to less than 75 cents per person. The TARP bailout to Wall Street? About $2000 in added national debt for every man, woman and child in America. Think of that differential...and ask yourself which appropriation was better spent and helped you more...
 
It's a shame that whenever there is talk about Public Radio the conversation turns to the taxpayer expense. I for one don't mind paying for it. Naturally I don't want to think I'm paying for inflated salaries for a privileged few.

Looking back at some old Broadcasting yearbooks has given me some insight. There was a time when commercial broadcasters took the time to present educational broadcasting that was not tied to the almighty dollar. I'm not sure of the reason, government pressure, image or maybe respect for the medium and what it can do. That as they say is history.

So what if we did away with Public Radio and instead put the burden on commercial radio to devote a substantial part of their daylight programming to educational and informational programming? Not that I really expect that would ever really happen!
 
Mike Sheridan said:
So what if we did away with Public Radio and instead put the burden on commercial radio to devote a substantial part of their daylight programming to educational and informational programming?

I think most would take their licenses, neatly fold them, place them in envelopes, and mail them back to the FCC in bulk. And the government would be stuck trying to find someone to run these expensive towers and transmitters. The trade-off isn't what it once was. The government is itself partly to blame. They've done a bad job preserving value in the public airwaves.
 
Having worked in both commercial and public radio could I be allowed to offer my own personal experience and insight into this conversation?

On the commercial side of the broadcasting spectrum, those people feel that public radio stations are subsidized by the government, which in turn gives these stations the funding to purchase brand new equipment and build state-of-the art radio studios. A number of commercial AM stations have jettisoned their music format and instead now air talk radio; mostly conservative talk.

On the public radio side of the spectrum, those who work in that part of broadcasting feel that they are paid far less than their commercial counterparts. They also feel that commercial stations make a great deal more money by being able to sell spots; even though in all fairness public radio for the past few years has been selling what is called underwriting. Which is basically a commercial without the music or hype. Many if not all public stations carrying a great deal of national programming from NPR or PRI. Some stations have changed formats over the years from jazz and other music, to all news and talk. Some claim the talk programs aired over NPR are more orientated to upper middle class and the wealthy, and have a more liberal philosophy than their commercial talk show counterparts.

Salaries of top executives have been discussed here in length. To that I can only say if someone offered you a job that paid six figures and a contract, would you turn it down? I sure as hell wouldn't! Hey I'm getting close to Social Security and the more money I make the more I will be able to collect from Social Security when I turn 62. We've also seen, or what has been written by some, that while a few in management make big bucks, most employees get little or nothing. You don't think this happens almost everywhere?

For years public radio has been aware that government funding was going to eventually dry up. Some smart executives started a long time ago to offset this expected decline in revenue by coming up with new ways to make money.

Meanwhile commercial stations in most markets today are owned by just a few media giants. Yet they too have to fight for every advertising dollar out there. With the current anemic state of the economy, trying to secure that piece of the revenue pie is getting tougher and tougher each year.

All I can say is that I shutter to think what radio will be like in five years. While technology has done wonders for broadcasting, it has also replaced a lot of people. Literally thousands of announcers, newscasters, and others, have lost their jobs during the 30+ years I was in the business. Some left on their own for other careers, while others were just shown the door. A few veterans have survived.

What saddens me is that the "farm system" most of us started in, working in small market stations, is no longer true for people who desire to get into radio. Many small market stations today are either totally automated, or depend on voice tracking. So where does someone say just out of college get any experience to land a job in a medium market? If its radio, they don't really.

So ends my comments.
 
Mark_Giardina said:
So where does someone say just out of college get any experience to land a job in a medium market? If its radio, they don't really.

Personally, I never did the farm system thing. I went straight to the majors. So I don't know what that's like.

But I work with lots of college kids who have more experience than I did when I was their age. So that isn't an issue. The problem for them isn't getting experience. The problem for them is finding a place to use that experience, in a field where retirement is not an option. But this is a thread about public radio, and I tell students to volunteer for public radio.
 
Big A, you've also said that you had virtually no career as talent. That's an entirely different animal than sales or management. That's where the lack of a place to learn and develop your craft will take its greatest toll. It's still all about content. If a broadcaster isn't creating content that's not available elsewhere, they're in trouble, because there's a very real chance that in a few years, another means of delivery will reduce your audience to levels that won't allow you to survive.
 
SirRoxalot said:
Big A, you've also said that you had virtually no career as talent.

When did I say that? I walked out of college into a job as talent in a major. That's what I'm talking about.

And college kids today are all creating content now without going through the farm system. They're all developing their craft. They're getting criticism from the best critics possible: A real audience.

SirRoxalot said:
If a broadcaster isn't creating content that's not available elsewhere, they're in trouble,

There is no such thing any more. Any content you can think of is available elsewhere. News, traffic weather, DJs introducing songs, playing music, it's all available elsewhere. What's more is that it's more interactive and more personalized elsewhere.
 
Do I have to go back and find the quotes where you said that you weren't very good as talent, and that wasn't the core of your career in radio? It would take time, but they're there. You need to keep your story straight.

The point of recent studies conducted by Alan Burns & Associates is that radio is still a simple, effective means of delivering content that requires minimal interaction, personal programming, or technical skill. Good radio offers content that's been aggregated for a specific audience, is delivered in a timely fashion, and offers an element of companionship that you don't find in most other information services. That's what the audience expects, and studies have shown that's what they WANT.

You're past posts have been so anti-talent that I expect that you'll downplay their role in aggregating and delivering that content. That doesn't make you right.
 
SirRoxalot said:
Do I have to go back and find the quotes where you said that you weren't very good as talent, and that wasn't the core of your career in radio?

That's my self-depreciating humor. I must have had some talent if they hired me. But I only did it for a few years.

SirRoxalot said:
You're past posts have been so anti-talent that I expect that you'll downplay their role in aggregating and delivering that content. That doesn't make you right.

I'm anti- the generalization that a live and local talent, regardless of quality, is better than any alternative. I'm also pretty tired of today's non-talent who think they're more talented than they are. It ain't brain surgery, and they need to reinvent the job in order for it to be useful in today's world. I'd love to find a talent who knew how to "aggregate content" in a way that involves the audience.
 
SirRoxalot said:
That's where the lack of a place to learn and develop your craft will take its greatest toll. It's still all about content.

I've been reading about Justin Bieber. Just a year ago, he was a 15 year old kid living in Canada, posting videos of himself singing karaoke on You Tube. Now he's selling out arenas. How did that happen? How is it possible that people like him (and he's not the only one) can go from high school to the world stage, but broadcasters need a farm system? It seems to me that talent is talent. Either you have it, or you don't.

In my case, the first time I fliped a mic switch, I was immediately comfortable, and knew what I was doing. Then again, I'd been studying the best people in the world, and practicing for ten years. So it was second nature. No need for a farm system when you do your woodshedding at home.
 
Wow, this thread has careened all over the highway, from nearly getting kicked to Take It Outside to the benefit of doing time in the sticks and working your way up to the bigs. As I read some of the posts, I recall that Tribune CEO Randy Michaels began his career at a 250 watt daytimer, 1570 WBUZ, Fredonia, NY. Good as he was, even he started in the sticks. And the legendary Jack Armstrong began his career at WCHL, Chapel Hill, North Carolina before going on to work at major Top 40 stations in Cleveland, Boston, Toronto, Denver, Pittburgh and Buffalo. There must be some advantage to polishing your skills in the small markets before landing a job in the majors.
 
Public stations need money to run just like all the rest. Most federal and state funding is gone now, so corporations, charitable foundations and wealthy individuals must be continuously and tirelessly solicited for support, along with the general listening audience. It takes a certain type of person to do this kind of thing every day, and quite often that type of person is motivated by money. Hence the high salaries, especially in the absence of conventional sales commissions. The GM of an NPR affiliate is essentially the same kind of animal as the GSM of a commercial station. Chasing the almighty dollar. Same as always.

Unfortunately, there just aren't that many dollars out there anymore. You may expect the same consolidations, economies and contractions in public radio that have been experienced in the commercial end of things.

Non-commercial broadcasters are beset by the exact same forces of technological, financial and cultural change that have diminished so many commercial stations. Diverse, detailed and innovative programming, traditional professional standards and an active involvement with a mature and highly-educated audience have sustained NPR and similar services for the time being, but the writing is on the wall.

In my observation, the available radio broadcast audience is steadily shrinking because the majority of young Americans under the age of 30 do not listen to the radio. At all. Ever. Period. Most have decided that iPods, iPads, laptops, smart phones or satellite are the only way to go. It's pretty hard to deny the appeal of totally personalized and virtually infinite programming choice. Most of those remaining young people who still listen to broadcast radio for entertainment or information either can't yet afford the new devices or have limited access to high-speed internet or cellular services.

We can endlessly debate the details, but the basic demographic truth cannot be denied. The valve is being closed at the young end of the hose and eventually the broadcast radio listener stream will run dry. Forty years at the most, and the only remaining AM & FM transmitters will be operated by museums on special occasions, much like the steam engine enthusiasts of today.

Of course, natural disasters, tiered access profiteering, bandwidth crunches or general economic decline could affect the growth of the internet and reinvigorate radio broadcasting, but so far there's no sign of that happening.

It's been painful to watch all this happen so quickly and decisively. There's been a scramble for some way to stop or reverse the decay. Local programming! Live DJ's! Contests! New music! Digital audio! Those of us who fondly remember the exciting radio business of the 1950's thru the 1980's and complain about the current state of affairs need to pause and take a long, long look in the mirror. We're not at the young end of the hose anymore.

The next audience generation has made their choice. Old-fashioned radio broadcasters need to make a choice, too.

We can program for our own generation in the manner to which we are accustomed, with oldies, jingles, conservative pundits and all the rest of the traditional formats and formatics. Nothing wrong with that, and for the moment it remains a fairly viable business model. However, we need to soberly and solemnly acknowledge that this is literally a dead-end course of action, and honor it as such.

The other course is the one that "NPR" seems to be choosing. No more "National Public Radio". Leave the towers and transmitters behind and let the programming entity merge into cyberspace and whatever unimagined media realms succeed it. Don't look back. Don't worry about how it will be produced, staffed or financed. Just go. Make the leap. Go.

So we make our choices.

I know that a wi-fi hub or cellular phone is still a radio, but to me cyberspace is not the 'aether'. That complex and rigidly controlled network of servers and cables and digital code that we call the internet is not the same as the mysterious and fuzzy analog void that we have explored with our radio sets for the past century.

So call me old-fashioned. I must be a dead-ender.
 
Lee Rust said:
The other course is the one that "NPR" seems to be choosing. No more "National Public Radio". Leave the towers and transmitters behind and let the programming entity merge into cyberspace and whatever unimagined media realms succeed it.

Only one problem: For public radio, the programming future is on the net, while the funding is in broadcast.

So they can choose the net as a platform, but they still needs those towers and transmitters for money.

Because unless you're an ISP, everything on the net is free.
 
Lee Rust is right.

Radio as we know it is changing, just as it did when TV took away its old program model of sitcoms, soaps and variety shows. I don't believe radio will completely go away, even for younger listeners, as long as it remains the most user-friendly way to access audio information and entertainment. But we will have to make programming available through a lot more platforms, over the air, over WiFi, smart phones and online, to reach the people we used to reach on AM and FM alone a decade ago. And we had better make our programming more immediate and compelling so that people will turn to us for their information and their music rather than going elsewhere.
 
In summation, when we hear WBFO and/or WNED-AM airing Colon Blow or Dr. Bombast's Mega Vitamin B Supplement shows on Saturday morning, we'll know it's over. I'm kidding. I hope.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom