-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Being "staffed" doesn't mean live & local.
Again, that's not the point.
They have both staffing and live & local presentation in Buffalo. What's your point?
JACK has no staff.
Maybe you missed where I said "All but a couple of stations...." So I know all about Jack.
No AIR staff. But they're in a building filled with people, and there are a couple people assigned to managing that station.
Most stations in Buffalo have live & local hosts for at least 12 hours a day. As you said, it's up to "individual tastes." Every time you open a mic or play a song, there's a chance of pissing someone off. That's the disadvantage to OTA radio, and why people prefer to program their own stations.
You missed my point. During the latest snow emergency, most stations were NOT staffed. The live and local dayparts were largely voice-tracked.
"Going wall to wall on the radio, repeating the same general information over and over, telling people to "stay indoors," or similar warnings is useless information. School and business closings are more efficiently delivered in other, more direct ways. Technology has provided many more ways to get more specialized information to the public."
Absolutely true - which is why Buffalo radio stations stopped doing that over a decade ago. That's NOT what I'm talking about. Interacting with listeners, giving UPDATES as they become available, providing companionship that ratchets DOWN the tension instead of ratcheting it up, pointing people in the right direction for help, and providing entertainment between those segments is what made Buffalo radio important during an emergency situation in the past. In the past, listeners found the new information that they needed, a voice of reason, and a sense that "we'll get through this together" during such situations. That wasn't true this time around at most stations.
Once again, "A", you really don't know much about this market, so you think of it in generalities. There's a big difference between how the media handles a snow storm here and how it's handled in most other markets. For the first time, radio largely didn't answer the bell on this one. I don't only blame management because I know people who didn't make the extra effort that it would have required. I know many couldn't, but in this case some didn't. That's disappointing. The "why" has something to do with leadership, but personal responsibility also comes into play.
"Going wall to wall on the radio, repeating the same general information over and over, telling people to "stay indoors," or similar warnings is useless information. School and business closings are more efficiently delivered in other, more direct ways. Technology has provided many more ways to get more specialized information to the public."
Absolutely true - which is why Buffalo radio stations stopped doing that over a decade ago. That's NOT what I'm talking about. Interacting with listeners, giving UPDATES as they become available, providing companionship that ratchets DOWN the tension instead of ratcheting it up, pointing people in the right direction for help, and providing entertainment between those segments is what made Buffalo radio important during an emergency situation in the past. In the past, listeners found the new information that they needed, a voice of reason, and a sense that "we'll get through this together" during such situations. That wasn't true this time around at most stations.
Once again, "A", you really don't know much about this market, so you think of it in generalities. There's a big difference between how the media handles a snow storm here and how it's handled in most other markets. For the first time, radio largely didn't answer the bell on this one. I don't only blame management because I know people who didn't make the extra effort that it would have required. I know many couldn't, but in this case some didn't. That's disappointing. The "why" has something to do with leadership, but personal responsibility also comes into play.
In the past, listeners found the new information that they needed, a voice of reason, and a sense that "we'll get through this together" during such situations. That wasn't true this time around at most stations.
To be honest, it doesn't have to happen "at most stations." It really just has to happen at one. And if it happened at one station, and that station made a connection with its listeners, then they score the big points. Hooray for them. And if everyone else loses, and it makes a difference, they will notice, and you may see a change next time. But what I see (and here are my generalities again for you) is that people want what they want. You want radio to be re-assuring. Someone else wants radio to shut up and play the music, or talk about Obama, or tell me about something else BESIDES the storm. All of radio can't do the same thing any more. It's simply impractical. Not because of money or staff, but because the audience is too fractured. And don't tell me Buffalo is different. It isn't. If it was, one station would be way ahead in the ratings, and instead, you've got a few bunched together at the top. As I said, if one station made a connection, people will know. That's all it takes.
Last edited:
By the way, I found this interview with FCC Commissioner and former Buffalonian Michael O'Rielly today. He has no reason to say nice things about Buffalo radio stations and their coverage of the storm. But he does. You can say he has lost touch with his hometown, or he's bucking for a post-government job. Or maybe he's right.
http://www.insideradio.com//Article.asp?id=2866192#.VHVrrT90zZ4
http://www.insideradio.com//Article.asp?id=2866192#.VHVrrT90zZ4
Yes, you're once again mistaking generalities for actual content. O'Rielly said nice things about Buffalo BROADCASTING. Most of what he described was TV coverage. He did commend WBEN for its efforts - an attempt to bolster AM radio against those who'd like to steal back the spectrum. That WAS political - as was WBEN too often in its coverage.
Radio's job is to reach a wide audience, especially in the case of emergency. Considering that many new radios don't have an AM tuner anymore, it's important for more than one station to do the job. WBFO helped fill that gap, but my point is that the effort by most broadcasters fell far short of what was done in the past - and I'm talking about the recent past. Yes, there are a variety of approaches to the audience. In the case of what we experienced last week, there should have been a wider variety of approaches to delivering what the audience NEEDED. Past performance indicates that we've done it right in this market in similar situations.
The recent performance simply doesn't live up to that tradition, and is indicative that too much of radio treats itself as just a "music delivery service", and not as a curated content delivery service. The failure to react to unusual circumstances reduces the impact of the medium - and the value to both listeners and advertisers. That's simply bad business - and a chunk of the reason why radio revenues aren't where they should be compared to other media.
Radio's job is to reach a wide audience, especially in the case of emergency. Considering that many new radios don't have an AM tuner anymore, it's important for more than one station to do the job. WBFO helped fill that gap, but my point is that the effort by most broadcasters fell far short of what was done in the past - and I'm talking about the recent past. Yes, there are a variety of approaches to the audience. In the case of what we experienced last week, there should have been a wider variety of approaches to delivering what the audience NEEDED. Past performance indicates that we've done it right in this market in similar situations.
The recent performance simply doesn't live up to that tradition, and is indicative that too much of radio treats itself as just a "music delivery service", and not as a curated content delivery service. The failure to react to unusual circumstances reduces the impact of the medium - and the value to both listeners and advertisers. That's simply bad business - and a chunk of the reason why radio revenues aren't where they should be compared to other media.
The recent performance simply doesn't live up to that tradition, and is indicative that too much of radio treats itself as just a "music delivery service", and not as a curated content delivery service. The failure to react to unusual circumstances reduces the impact of the medium - and the value to both listeners and advertisers. That's simply bad business - and a chunk of the reason why radio revenues aren't where they should be compared to other media.
And as I said, if you're right in your view, then the radio stations will see that in the ratings.
Providing non-stop storm coverage for a few days on every radio station won't make a significant change in annual radio revenues. People are not going to stop using TV, computer, and phone because radio goes back to what it did in 1977.
As far as revenues go, radio stations that combine on-air with online, and engage listeners across multiple platforms including social media, are experiencing higher revenues than those that don't. Radio stations that put all their eggs in the on-air basket are not. The choice is obvious.
Last edited:
You simply can't grasp the concept that storm programming doesn't have to be "non-stop", but does need to be accurate, local, and timely. Annual revenues ARE affected when people leave radio because it isn't offering the service that they once had, and they go in search of that information elsewhere. People start using their TV, computer, and phone MORE when they don't get what they want, or need, or used to have from radio.
It's hard to engage on multiple platforms when you're not there and answering the bell, and engaging on your primary platform.
It's hard to engage on multiple platforms when you're not there and answering the bell, and engaging on your primary platform.
You simply can't grasp the concept that storm programming doesn't have to be "non-stop", but does need to be accurate, local, and timely.
And you can't grasp that storm programming doesn't have to be on the main air signal. People started using TV, computer, and phone even when radio WAS providing storm coverage. So this idea that radio can replace those devices just by providing storm coverage is stupid. As though people will go back to riding horses if the gas gets too expensive. It's not going to happen. People watch TV, especially if they're home-bound by a storm. They're not sitting in the living room waiting for the radio to broadcast the weather report because it's the only source for news. They're not waiting for the newspaper to get delivered so they can see pictures. It's not 1977. This may come as a surprise, but you don't actually have to be at the radio station to engage with people on the web site or social media. You can do that from the safety of your home. Like I'm doing with you right now.
Yes, but you see, not everybody is at home. Not everybody has a TV in every room. Not everybody has a computer in every room. Have you read a study about how people use radio lately? Radio can be, however, more than background noise. People actually do things other than consume media, and have the radio on while they do it.
It's not 1977. People didn't sit around the radio waiting for their favorite program to come on in 1977 either. And not everybody is constantly engaged in social media, the Internet, or other interactive endeavors because they have other things to do with their hands, and they may not own or be interested in constantly interacting with a smart phone.
It's not 1977. People didn't sit around the radio waiting for their favorite program to come on in 1977 either. And not everybody is constantly engaged in social media, the Internet, or other interactive endeavors because they have other things to do with their hands, and they may not own or be interested in constantly interacting with a smart phone.
Have you read a study about how people use radio lately? Radio can be, however, more than background noise. People actually do things other than consume media, and have the radio on while they do it.
I read lots of studies, and lots of people use radio in lots of different ways. Someone in every company that owns a station in Buffalo reads those studies too. And we all get together every year at various conferences and compare notes. We talk about all the possibilities, and all the options. So yes, in answer to your question, we know. But thanks for asking.
I'd offer that there are more altruistic programming and on-air people doing it "for the community" than there are corporations doing it for the community. Sure, everybody's in it for the money, but Field, Price and Dickey wouldn't know Western New York if they were dropped in the middle of Delaware Park.Are you doing it for the company or the community? I'd suggest if you're doing it for the company, that may be the wrong reason.
Field, Price and Dickey wouldn't know Western New York if they were dropped in the middle of Delaware Park.
But each one of them have hired local people to run their operations in WNY who DO.
You have lots of businesses that have absentee landlords. It's not an unusual thing. Public utilities and services that aren't locally owned. But they have local offices with local management, and it's their job to represent their company in the community.
Meanwhile, WBFO is locally owned. How much better is it run than the other corporate stations? You tell me.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.