Weasels In the Hen House?

[TheBigA]

I guess that make's the guy who yelled "iceberg ahead" on the Titanic a "professional complainer" too, huh?

The lookout is paid to watch for icebergs. Are you being paid to complain? I doubt it.

Some people talk "Big", but they've yet to demonstrate their commitment to the medium, or even understanding of what's going on out there right now.

To quote you, you know nothing about me or what I do. You assume I work for a corporation. But you don't really know. Nor do you know what I do to demonstrate my commitment to the medium. But I can bet it's way more than what you do.

Do you guys really think that revenue, audience, or profit will rise based on the moves that are being dictated by the big radio corporations right now?

I think I already outlined why a lot of these companies are doing this in another thread, and you didn't respond. Go back and read. As I've said, revenues won't be hurt by cutbacks, and profits won't be helped by retaining or increasing staffing. But cutting costs in a weak economy is what everyone does, including families on a budget. Radio companies are simply acting like most consumers now.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I think I already outlined why a lot of these companies are doing this in another thread, and you didn't respond. Go back and read.

Really? You wouldn't want to point that out for me again, would you? You've been so far behind in the conversation that I may have missed a salient point. Either that, or you didn't understand the post that answered your question.

As I've said, revenues won't be hurt by cutbacks, and profits won't be helped by retaining or increasing staffing. But cutting costs in a weak economy is what everyone does, including families on a budget. Radio companies are simply acting like most consumers now.

There we have a fundamental disagreement, and only time will tell. If I'm right, both revenue and listening will not only continue to fall, but will drop even faster. If you're right, revenue recovers, and listening at least plateaus. As far as the cutting going on now being like "families on a budget", it's more like a landlord evicting the people who bring money through the door because the mortgage is too high.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Financial Advice?

Once again, David, you're making assumptions with no foundation. You have no idea who I am, what my background is, or what position I currently occupy.

That's correct. I am making guesses based on what little we actually know about you, which is next to nothing. Generally, credibility is enhanced by knowing a little about the person speaking and their background.

An anonymous poster can say most anything.

I could say that you sound like one of those geeky radio kids who wished that they could be on the radio, but sucked on the air, and decided that you'd get into management so you could "show those guys". That wouldn't make me right.

Since a couple of clicks from this messsage's footer will show you who I am, there is no need to even make assumptions. In fact, I got into radio because I was a Storer Broadcasting stockholder, and at about age 12 decided I should inspect my investment... starting with WJW in Cleveland. I became fascinated with the operation of radio, and hung around stations, often paid, for several years until I found out that the best way fo a 17 year old to run and program a station was if he owned the station... so I put one on in a market of just under a million.

David, not all rewards are monetary.

Having lost a dozen stations, give or take, over the issue of democracy (guns won), I agree with you.

My motivation really isn't personal. It's based more in my love of radio, which appears to be killing itself slowly, and my concern for a lot of people I know who have put blood, sweat, tears, and toil into an industry that they love, only to be dumped for reasons that have nothing to do with their talent or their performance. Even worse, their loss degrades the industry, reduces its value, and costs more listeners.

What you narrow-mindedly fail to get is that radio is not in the AM or FM business, but in the entertainment business. We are now seing several shares going to station streams in some of the PPM markets, and additional distribution chanels are becoming viable every day. I have several applications on the desktop of my iPhone that play "radio" for me, and the soon to arrive WiMax will radically channge the delivery of entertainment once the initial geek stage moves into broad acceptance.

Radio, broadcast via RF, may be on the wane (particularly AM, where most of the loss lies) but radio as distributed by other methods is just beginneing. To me, this is a fascinating time for those who have attracted strong talents and compelling programs and programming.

Most shareholders are an annoyance to corporate, not a concern. For some, they're "suckers" to be played. I think that I've already explained why some of the major players may consider the profit that they've already made sufficient, and decide to cut their losses.

Shareholders are the owners, the only owners, to whom the management and the BoD must deliver results.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Financial Advice?

What you narrow-mindedly fail to get is that radio is not in the AM or FM business, but in the entertainment business. We are now seing several shares going to station streams in some of the PPM markets, and additional distribution chanels are becoming viable every day. I have several applications on the desktop of my iPhone that play "radio" for me, and the soon to arrive WiMax will radically channge the delivery of entertainment once the initial geek stage moves into broad acceptance.

Radio, broadcast via RF, may be on the wane (particularly AM, where most of the loss lies) but radio as distributed by other methods is just beginneing. To me, this is a fascinating time for those who have attracted strong talents and compelling programs and programming.

I haven't missed a thing. I've stated - even in this thread - that new technologies will challenge radio as never before. What fascinates me is that you acknowledge that radio is in "the entertainment business", but you stubbornly advocate throwing talent overboard. Listeners - and more importantly former listeners - have said that they don't find most current radio programming compelling. I advocate programming that worked well in the past - relatable personalities to add entertainment value to music (i.e. programming widely available elsewhere) - so that radio can separate itself from other delivery systems. This is how radio stood out in the past - especially from the '50s (vinyl era) through the '80s (tape era). As radio became noticeably more homogeneous, the percentage of the listening population receded. The less radio has differentiated itself from other "music delivery systems", the smaller the average audience has become.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Financial Advice?

What fascinates me is that you acknowledge that radio is in "the entertainment business", but you stubbornly advocate throwing talent overboard.

It's that talking bodies are not required in each case to be entertaining. In some situations, just the opposite prevails....

A truly inspired mix would be ruined by talk. Yet the best mixers draw crowds to clubs from across the continent. That's not entertainment?

A prefectly balanced and unintrusive soft rock or AC format for listening on the job or while doing other things is great entertainment... and another situation where more talk than needed would be destructive.

One of the most successful format runs of history, Beautiflu Music, was easily executed with voice tracks and minimal talk, yet there were markets with two and three of these stations in the top 10 stations... another format that would have been ruined by anything but the minimalist approach.

On the other hand, most everything I have done in the last several decades has been totally personality based, including more than a dozen talk stations, personality adult hits (in all dayparts), personality classic rock, and a top 15 market station that had "morning shows" in every daypart, 6 of them, and holds the FM record for unbroken years at #1 in a top 25 market.

Listeners - and more importantly former listeners - have said that they don't find most current radio programming compelling.

I don't hear that ever. I must have talked to a quarter million people who were hiding from you.

Folks find greater variety of formats to chose from, the simplicity of free radio, etc.

 

[TheBigA]

There we have a fundamental disagreement, and only time will tell. If I'm right, both revenue and listening will not only continue to fall, but will drop even faster.

Once again you make this incorrect assumption that there's a relationship between staffing and revenue or listenership. Clearly, there isn't any. If listenership, by your graph, has fallen for 20 years, while staffing remained fairly untouched, then the staffing did not retain audience.

The reality everyone has reached is that the air signal will not be a source for growth moving forward. The radio companies know it, the advertisers know it, the FCC knows it, Wall Street knows it, and the listeners know it. In fact, the listeners welcome it and demand it. The only people who don't know it are radio employees who have not made the transition from on-air work to new media. If you're one of them, good luck.

Listeners - and more importantly former listeners - have said that they don't find most current radio programming compelling.

But at the same time they DON'T say that they prefer more talk from local DJs. So you're making an incorrect conclusion. In fact, local DJs is the #2 thing they don't about like local radio, after the music selection. And as I've pointed out in the past, those who say they don't listen to local radio have chosen devices that don't offer live DJs at all.

This is how radio stood out in the past - especially from the '50s (vinyl era) through the '80s (tape era). As radio became noticeably more homogeneous, the percentage of the listening population receded. The less radio has differentiated itself from other "music delivery systems", the smaller the average audience has become.

Once again, a false connection. You can't compare today with the past. It's apples and oranges. From the 50s to the 80s, people had little choice. There were fewer formats, fewer device options, fewer radio stations. Once we got into the 80s, the number of radio stations more than doubled, the number of formats doubled, the number of devices quadrupled, and the new devices offered things radio could not. Meanwhile, the relatable personalities remained. They have been the constant as listenership declined. The issue isn't that radio doesn't differentiate itself from other devices, but that other devices offer more personal services that people want, while radio remains largely unchanged.

What radio did in the 50s and 60s was reinvent itself into something people wanted after the stars left for TV. Radio needs to do the exact same thing now, and it won't accomplish that by staying with old programming techniques that worked well in the past. The current audience doesn't care about what worked in the past, just as the audience in the 60s cared little about radio drama. Sure there's an audience for it, just as there was for radio drama. But it's diminishing, and that's what we see. So radio needs to reinvent itself, and it can't do that with an aging and out of touch air staff that plays recorded music from major record labels. That whole thing is dead and over.

 

[SirRoxalot]

There we have a fundamental disagreement, and only time will tell. If I'm right, both revenue and listening will not only continue to fall, but will drop even faster.

Once again you make this incorrect assumption that there's a relationship between staffing and revenue or listenership. Clearly, there isn't any. If listenership, by your graph, has fallen for 20 years, while staffing remained fairly untouched, then the staffing did not retain audience.

Staffing has NOT remained untouched during this period. The amount of input allowed by air personalities has NOT remained untouched during this period. Please link to ANY valid reference that supports your contention that there is "clearly" no relationship between staffing, revenue, and listenership. Please point to any study that "proves" that this is an "incorrect assumption".

The reality everyone has reached is that the air signal will not be a source for growth moving forward. The radio companies know it, the advertisers know it, the FCC knows it, Wall Street knows it, and the listeners know it. In fact, the listeners welcome it and demand it. The only people who don't know it are radio employees who have not made the transition from on-air work to new media. If you're one of them, good luck.

Once again, the sources for your contentions? Radio has survived competing media several times before. Radio still offers the simplest, most wide-spread method of disseminating information and entertainment, and does so effectively when it provides programming that listeners want. Radio still has tremendous reach, but listeners are not listening as long. It doesn't seem like a stretch to infer that they're not captivated by what they're hearing.

Listeners - and more importantly former listeners - have said that they don't find most current radio programming compelling.

But at the same time they DON'T say that they prefer more talk from local DJs. So you're making an incorrect conclusion. In fact, local DJs is the #2 thing they don't about like local radio, after the music selection. And as I've pointed out in the past, those who say they don't listen to local radio have chosen devices that don't offer live DJs at all.

Please link to the study that says "local DJs is the #2 thing they don't like about local radio"? WHAT do they complain about when it comes to "local DJs"? Is it the fact that they aren't allowed to do much more than shill for the station, instead of relate to the listener?

Most people who turn off the radio go to other media because of music selection. If that's the case, then what does that tell you about the validity of your highly-touted music research? Either the methodology is poor, or the conclusions are incorrect.

This is how radio stood out in the past - especially from the '50s (vinyl era) through the '80s (tape era). As radio became noticeably more homogeneous, the percentage of the listening population receded. The less radio has differentiated itself from other "music delivery systems", the smaller the average audience has become.

Once again, a false connection. You can't compare today with the past. It's apples and oranges. From the 50s to the 80s, people had little choice. There were fewer formats, fewer device options, fewer radio stations. Once we got into the 80s, the number of radio stations more than doubled, the number of formats doubled, the number of devices quadrupled, and the new devices offered things radio could not. Meanwhile, the relatable personalities remained. They have been the constant as listenership declined. The issue isn't that radio doesn't differentiate itself from other devices, but that other devices offer more personal services that people want, while radio remains largely unchanged.

"Meanwhile, the relatable personalities remained. They have been the constant as listenership declined." Please reveal your source for this contention. I've never seen any study, or any opinion from an acknowledged industry expert that agrees with this.

The issue isn't that radio doesn't differentiate itself from other devices, but that other devices offer more personal services that people want, while radio remains largely unchanged.

Once again, please offer a source for the contention that "radio remains largely unchanged". Once again, acknowledged industry experts like Lee Abrams and a host of others disagree.

What radio did in the 50s and 60s was reinvent itself into something people wanted after the stars left for TV. Radio needs to do the exact same thing now, and it won't accomplish that by staying with old programming techniques that worked well in the past. The current audience doesn't care about what worked in the past, just as the audience in the 60s cared little about radio drama. Sure there's an audience for it, just as there was for radio drama. But it's diminishing, and that's what we see. So radio needs to reinvent itself, and it can't do that with an aging and out of touch air staff that plays recorded music from major record labels. That whole thing is dead and over.

Is it the air staff that's aging and out of touch, or the fact that young people aren't interested in getting into a business that eats its young, doesn't pay, offers no job security, few benefits, and seems to be in the control of people who have no interest in THEIR future?

Once again, if the research methodology is correct, and conclusions are valid, why is the music NOT working? If the "whole thing is dead and over", why did these companies pay billions to put these huge conglomerates together? If it's "dead and over", why not try something besides "more of the same"?

 

[davideduardo]

Please link to ANY valid reference that supports your contention that there is "clearly" no relationship between staffing, revenue, and listenership. Please point to any study that "proves" that this is an "incorrect assumption".

Any station that can look at its own revenue, staff size and ratings can do this little exercise on its own. Except for the recent recession-caused staff reductions, there is no relationship of the kind you are trying to make between staff and ratings and revenue.

Once again, the sources for your contentions? Radio has survived competing media several times before. Radio still offers the simplest, most wide-spread method of disseminating information and entertainment, and does so effectively when it provides programming that listeners want. Radio still has tremendous reach, but listeners are not listening as long. It doesn't seem like a stretch to infer that they're not captivated by what they're hearing.

Every study I have seen shows the opposite. There is just less time for radio because there are so many other leisure alternatives.

It's funny, but what you are saying was a common comment by older talkative DJs in the post-1965 period after Bill Drake refreshed and renewed music radio; Drake was widely vilified as having killed personality radio when he in fact reinvented it.

It's fitting to remember this on the day that he reportedly passed away at age 71.

Please link to the study that says "local DJs is the #2 thing they don't like about local radio"? WHAT do they complain about when it comes to "local DJs"? Is it the fact that they aren't allowed to do much more than shill for the station, instead of relate to the listener?

After removing the word "local" which is an issue listeners don't give a hoot about in music radio, I have found that noxious DJs are #1, ahead of bad songs and way ahead of commercials as the "main reason you would tune out a radio station."

Most people who turn off the radio go to other media because of music selection. If that's the case, then what does that tell you about the validity of your highly-touted music research? Either the methodology is poor, or the conclusions are incorrect.

In fact, the biggest complaint against DJs is "talking on top of the songs" and all the while DJs still seem to think that hitting the post is a much valued skill.

Feelings about DJs and bad songs are derived from perceptual research, not a music test. This shows that you take potshots at research without even knowing how and for what purpose research is done.

This is how radio stood out in the past - especially from the '50s (vinyl era) through the '80s (tape era). As radio became noticeably more homogeneous, the percentage of the listening population receded.

I don't get this, as it is the opposite of what happened. In 1960, in a top 15 market of the time, Cleveland, there were 2 r&b stations, 3 Top 40's and 3 MORs. Today, there are over 20 different formats that get ratings. That's the opposite of homoginization.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A Wonderful Life

David, you keep referencing "studies", but don't link to any publicly-available study that shows whether the methodology is sound, or the results interpreted correctly.

You cite "history", but history, as they say, is written by the "winners". Your twist on history disagrees with the view of many people who were part of the era. It the same as when you ignore publicly-provided research, and accuse me of "not understanding" because I disagree with you.

The arguement has grown circular. Continue on, gentlemen. It won't change the results. Until you can bring some NEW information to the table, I don't see the point in continuing - just as I don't see the point in continuing practices that have reduced AQH ratings from 16.3% to 14.0 in the last decade alone.

I guess that we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings. If you're right, ratings and revenue will rise, and the mass firings of talent by multiple radio corporations will save the corporations.

To put it in seasonal terms, Mr. Potter has the bank on the hook, and some of his corporations are about to take down the savings and loan by defaulting. Bedford Falls will be renamed Pottersville, and we' know how that turns out. Next, Mr. Potter will wonder why people move out of town for someplace more appealing.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: A Wonderful Life

David, you keep referencing "studies", but don't link to any publicly-available study that shows whether the methodology is sound, or the results interpreted correctly.

For all you think you know of radio, you should know that research done by companies to improve their product and competitive stance is proprietary and confidential; many companies require non-disclosure agreements to be signed before even being made party to such research.

Radio station projects are no excepion. I can discuss broad stroke concepts and methods, but can not discuss the studies I am part of... hundreds a year, in fact.

There are no studies of the effectiveness of proprietary research because the research is proprietary and can't be independently studied unless you go back decades. I think I mentioned the cake mix research as a good example of that.

You cite "history", but history, as they say, is written by the "winners". Your twist on history disagrees with the view of many people who were part of the era. It the same as when you ignore publicly-provided research, and accuse me of "not understanding" because I disagree with you.

You have been citing "2008 figures" when 2008 is not over, and when 2008 represents the divergence of ratings methods that are not properly combinable. You are also leaping to conclusions (about "live and local" and more DJs) that have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

As to history, you are talking not about what happened but about what you feel were the reasons and consequences for the actual events. That's like my saying that Detroit is having such a bad season because of the color of the uniforms; it is true that the Lions are having a bad season. As to the uniforms, that is opinion and unsustainable.

 

[TheBigA]

Please link to ANY valid reference that supports your contention

I have followed your posts in several threads, and to the best of my knowledge, the ONLY reference you've posted is one that shows a drop in TSL over the last 20 years. And from that chart, you've extrapolated pages of unsupported claims and opinions. You start referencing your opinions, and I'll think about refeerncing mine. But as we've seen, when others post references, you either ignore them or attack their credibility. So it's a waste of time.

You want DJs to relate to the listener? Which listener do you want them to relate to? You think one DJ can relate to all listeners at the same time? One-size-fits-all? Sorry, that doesn't happen any more. You do traffic on the tens? That's not convenient for me. You tell a joke you think is funny? Sorry, you just offended me, and I'm taking your station to court. You tell me what you did over the weekend? I don't care. That's what listeners say about DJs relating to the local audience. I see these comments every day on message boards just like this one. I get emails from listeners complaining about the DJs. What more proof do you need?

This is not the 1980s, and radio is facing competition that it never faced before. Your posts read like someone at the turn of the 20th century, saying if we just hired more blacksmiths, changing horses shoes quicker and better, the public wouldn't consider trying those new automobiles. Clearly, the public has spoken. They like new media and they want radio to respond like new media. The evidence for this is sitting right in front of you. Did you post opinions on message boards in the 1980s? You tell me. How much time do you spend on message boards now? What did you used to do with that time? Wake up and smell the coffee. Ranting about returning to the past is a waste of time.

By the way, I have NEVER in ANY of my posts touted music research. If you can find one of them, please post a link here. IF you can. I am not a believer in music on the radio, and I stated that here. I believe the day of the DJ playing recorded music from major record labels is over. THAT is my view on music.

 

[TheBigA]

Is it the air staff that's aging and out of touch, or the fact that young people aren't interested in getting into a business that eats its young, doesn't pay, offers no job security, few benefits, and seems to be in the control of people who have no interest in THEIR future?

I want to address this directly, because I speak at a lot of colleges and talk with a lot of young people about broadcasting. You'd be surprised how wrong this view is. Colleges today have hundreds of thousands of young people in broadcasting degree programs. Lots of them are studying radio programming. Those are the students I've met. They DON'T feel the industry eats its young. However, they are far more entrepeneurial then the boomers. They're not looking for "job security and benefits." That's the system of the past. They know time is on their side, they know that when aging boomers either get fired or die, there will be great opportunities for them, and they are prepared to reinvent radio in a way that I've already outlined. Just as this generation doesn't need top-down broadcasting with DJs telling them what's popular, this generation doesn't need companies who have an interest in their future. They and their friends believe in their future, they create social networks that support their views and their interests, and they know that is the future of media in this country, not DJs playing recorded music from major labels. Y9ou are clinging to the past because it's what you know, and it worked for you. They aren't encumbered by the past, because their experience shows that there are newer and better ways.

 

[12 In a Row]

Is it the air staff that's aging and out of touch, or the fact that young people aren't interested in getting into a business that eats its young, doesn't pay, offers no job security, few benefits, and seems to be in the control of people who have no interest in THEIR future?

I want to address this directly, because I speak at a lot of colleges and talk with a lot of young people about broadcasting. You'd be surprised how wrong this view is. Colleges today have hundreds of thousands of young people in broadcasting degree programs. Lots of them are studying radio programming. Those are the students I've met. They DON'T feel the industry eats its young. However, they are far more entrepeneurial then the boomers. They're not looking for "job security and benefits." That's the system of the past. They know time is on their side, they know that when aging boomers either get fired or die, there will be great opportunities for them, and they are prepared to reinvent radio in a way that I've already outlined. Just as this generation doesn't need top-down broadcasting with DJs telling them what's popular, this generation doesn't need companies who have an interest in their future. They and their friends believe in their future, they create social networks that support their views and their interests, and they know that is the future of media in this country, not DJs playing recorded music from major labels. Y9ou are clinging to the past because it's what you know, and it worked for you. They aren't encumbered by the past, because their experience shows that there are newer and better ways.

Excellent post and inspiring words for the future.
Look to the next generation, they'll figure it out.

With the passing of Bill Drake, I can only imagine what the pros thought of him back in 1965.
Before Bill, jocks constantly talked over every song and felt the station was all about them.

May the next Bill Drake be right around the corner. "And the Hits Just Keep on Comin'!"
RIP Bill

 

[adma]

I suppose it's the nature of the biases (industry or otherwise) of this board that the present circumstance is told/spun of today's audiences being satisfied--maybe more satisfied--with their radio choice. But maybe we should reframe it as a satisfaction with their media and entertainment choice--irrespective of whether or how much radio's part of the equation. It's certainly a lot less of a simplistically primitive situation out there than back when, er, "radio ruled". SirRoxalot seems to want to portray a starvation situation; er, anything but. And if there are problems inherent today, it isn't like there were problems inherent in the idealized past, either--perhaps, in some way, the trade-off is for the better. Like, when it comes to "community" and "companionship", what makes radio so necessarily superior to other, more current and advanced, forms of electronic or non-electronic social networking? The universe of e-conversation and text-messaging can breed actual physical interaction and even political power that can dwarf old ways, you know--look at President-Elect Obama as a new-media phenomenon, for example.

Face it; times have changed. Maybe it's not so much a matter of Bedford Falls in threat of becoming Pottersville, as of Bedford Falls confronting modern standards of racial and gender equality, and if even the mildest bow to so-called political correctness leads to "people moving out of town for someplace more appealing", well, good riddance...

 

[adma]

And if there are problems inherent today, it isn't like there were problems inherent in the idealized past, either

"Weren't", not "were". Belated typo spotting.

 

[gr8oldies]

I worked in "the good old days" for several mom and pops, and no, I was definately NOT in broadcsat utopia. People entering the business in 1975 were also told about a business that eats it's young, and very few could stay in it and have anything approaching a middle class lifestyle. You either made it big or you eventuall got out, about the time your spousal unit told you "no more moves" and wanted you making more than minimum wage.

As the Big A pointed out, the difference among the up and coming broadcasting students vs. the old timers, is that the new generation will know how to create content for all media, and they'll be forming their own companies, not waiting for some radio company to plop them in front of a mike for four hours a day, an hour of production and then a paycheck lands on their desk every other Friday. The new generation will start their own companies, and let the current owners deal with the headaches of all those towers and real estate.

 

[Surfer]

What is "radio" anyway?

 

[pocket-radio]

Radio: a content delivery system broadcast to anyone with a receiver.
Television: a content delivery system broadcast to anyone with a receiver

Wired and wireless internet access: a system where users can access global content
from a computer, laptop, pda, cell phone and other high tech interative devices.

 

[davideduardo]

What is "radio" anyway?

Today, "radio" is starting to mean "content delivery" irrespective of the method of delivery.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio: a content delivery system broadcast to anyone with a receiver.
Television: a content delivery system broadcast to anyone with a receiver

Wired and wireless internet access: a system where users can access global content
from a computer, laptop, pda, cell phone and other high tech interative devices.

"Television" is mostly delivered by wire (CATV first, then Cable). Today's cable has no "receiver" requirements for local channels, which deliver by some form of wire, cable or fiber to the Cable head ends. But it is still TV.

Redifussion, popular particularly in many of the Crown Colonies 50 years ago (From Trinidad to India to several Africal nations) was radio delivered by wire. It was radio then. So is alternative delivery of content now.