I
InstrumentofTRUTH
Guest
This is very true, and I believe that this (brokered programming) will be the only way to spare radio, as we once knew it. The problem with the brokered programming concept is that the people who are willing to pay to broadcast their shows need the support of those who are listening to the broadcasts. I have paid to broadcast my show for over 3 years, and have developed a large listening base, however, I've garnered very little financial support during this time frame. This must change if we plan to prove to the corporate conglomerates that we want local, entertaining, and thought-provoking programming--not just a mouthpiece for EITHER political party--spouting out talking point after talking point. Just like we are willing to pay BIG bucks for other entertainment options (movies, concerts, sporting events, pay-per-view events, etc.), we should get used to supporting GOOD radio entertainment in a direct financial sense. The truth of the matter is that is the ONLY way we are going to get it at this time. Satellite radio is a tiny example of what I'm talking about. Subscribers of satellite radio are willing to pay for a slightly better form of radio entertainment. Just think of how better SHOWS would be if we were willing to pay for individual shows? The quality of radio would increase immensely OVERNIGHT if we would be willing to financially back talents that are willing to provide us with what we WANT--quality entertainment that caters to US--with a LOCAL flavor. As little as ONE dollar a month from the listeners of brokered programming (like mine) to a talent would go a LONG way to ensuring that the listeners would get the programming that THEY want--instead of the programming that a CENTRAL OFFICE wants. We really need to reconsider our radio habits. Remember we do get what we pay for--we should've known that this was going to eventually happen someday in this business. We are now conditioned to pay NOTHING for radio entertainment, and we are now suffering with poor programming because of it. Just think of how bad the other entertainment mediums I previously mentioned would be if we didn't pay for them either... (Public radio & TV comes to mind here.)
I believe that in the future that brokered programming will be the only saving grace (in talk radio especially) if we are really going to get what we want out of this form of entertainment. Remember, that we (those of us who are paying to broadcast our shows) must really be passionate about our shows, as well as passionate about entertaining the listening public if we are willing to PAY to broadcast our shows. Help us out—bring us listeners AND supporters. We really need it. It is the biggest incentive that we have to continue doing our shows. Like someone else said previously, without the support from the listening public or being offered a legitimate opportunity from a station, we would have to get another “job” (that we would otherwise HATE) in order to survive. We believe that God called us to do a radio show—but corporations have NO interest in what God thinks, therefore we should work together to help these talents that DESERVE to be on the air stay there.
Also remember that these corporate conglomerates do not want to develop talent anymore, and they don't want to take a chance on anyone. They'd rather take the "easy" road--and make the most "comfortable" money with the LEAST amount of effort necessary. This is why they DUMP syndicated program after syndicated program down our ears. We have to stop rewarding them with our ears (ratings), and turn our ears, as well as our support, towards those of us who will strive to give you, the listening public, what you want--QUALITY AND ENTERTAINING programming. If we can become successful in our ventures, then we can eventually acquire some of these stations, and begin to challenge these "one-stop shops" on the airwaves.
This is not a surprise. The key to catering to a market is to put on PROGRAMMING that caters to a particular market. NO two markets are the same, and this is why syndicated programming isn't the BEST answer. Yes, one or two syndicated programs might be okay, but a FULL broadcast clock dedicated to syndicated programming? That's a disaster--especially in a BIG (top 50) market. (F.Y.I. the top 50 markets have over 1 million 12+ population.) I think big markets have enough LOCAL issues to talk about that would interest a big enough audience to bring in ratings and revenue to these stations--but these stations are too LAZY and are also NOT COURAGEOUS enough to take the necessary risks to bring that type of programming to their stations. Only when the ownership of radio stations is back in the hands of "mom and pop" organizations, instead of these corporate conglomerates will this issue improve--unless you (the listeners) are willing to support those of us that are willing to pay to broadcast our shows on stations that offer brokered programming.
