What if consolidation hadn't occured?

[RockofHBG]

Do you ever fantasize about how radio might be today if consolidation hadn't occurred. If ownership caps remained at one AM and one FM per owner per market? If total ownership caps remained at around 12-18 total per owner? First, you must realize why consolidation ever was considered in the first place. The reason is, that by 1991, 50 percent of all broadcast stations were losing money! Operating in the red. The harsh recession of 1990-91 really put the hurt on radio, which for many years was considered recession-proof. The first time radio really had been really hurt by the economy was the recession of 1980-81, when the way stations were operated were impacted for the first time.

So, if consolidation hadn't occurred............

Many of those distressed stations, if they had made it through the 90s, would have been killed by the 2008 recession and would be dark.

With a large number of stations gone, the impact of radio as a whole would have been greatly diminished as an advertising medium.

The AM band would be long gone. Maybe it would have been reallocated for a handful of high-powered national stations, but probably gone.

Those "good-hearted" long-time, traditional owners would have suddenly seemed not so traditional and good-hearted with the advent of digital automation and deregulation that no longer required a body on-site. Those stations probably would have downsized to a 1 or 2 person staff. And...with fewer resources than corporations, they probably would have gotten most programming from the bird and maybe would have signed off at night to avoid a hefty power bill.

And, if you think deregulation wouldn't happened, think again. They probably would have loosened up more to help the little guy stay on air.

I'm sure some stations would remain profitable, such as the WINK-104s of the world. But I don't think programming would be better, probably worse, and there wouldn't be any more jobs, perhaps fewer.

Your thoughts??????

 

[Seltzer]

I wish I could say you were dead wrong but you're dead on.

There are some smaller operations around and they are running with small staffs. One operation I'm aware of functions with 3 full time air people for three stations. Lots of syndication and voice tracking fill out the days. These particular stations don't do very well in their rated market. Really no surprise why.

The so called good old days are over. If you're fortunate enough to still be working and making a living at it, congratulations.

 

[vinyltapecd]

Ok, since I don't know any better, I'm willing to take your word for it that many stations wouldn't have survived if consolidaton hadn't occurred. But since we were just talking about whether radio as it is today is favorable in the listener's eyes, I have a different question. Suppose radio stations that were in trouble could have survived without consolidation, would such stations have continued to provide a reasonable amount of variety in their playlists rather than playing the same songs a million times? I'm guessing the answer is yes. So in summary, my conjecture is that while consolidation may have been necessary for the survival of many stations (based on what you say), it was also largely responsible for ruining radio for the listener by forcing stations to serve only vanilla all day, every day. Almost anyone who disagrees with this is only looking at things from the business persective.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What if the banking industry had not consolidated? Maybe broadcasting would be different because borrowed capital would have been more available.

What if the auto industry had not consolidated, and had now allowed local dealerships to consolidate? Maybe broadcasting would be different because ad dollars from the auto retail industry would have been more available.

What if the airline industry had not consolidate? I can remember when even secondary radio stations in a market to gather some small airline trade deals.

What if the retailing industry had not consolidated? If Walmart and Best Buy and Home Depot and other national giants not developed, the radio industry would possibly seeing different revenue patterns.

What if churches had not consolidated into MEGA CHURCHES. We would have an army of small church pastors spending some money for time on old style stations and encouraging their parishioners to listen to stations that served the wants and needs of the little churches.

What if manufacturing had not consolidated and moved everything they can to China or somewhere else. A factory worker might be living in your neighborhood and listening to a radio station in your neighborhood... owned by a family living you your neighborhood.

What is good and what is bad about the change in radio cannot be described and held accountable seperately from all the other consolidation going on in the world.

(I attended a high school that had less than 40 people per grade. My children all went to schools with over 500 students per grade. There has been further consolidation. How many students per grade in TODAY'S typical high school?)

Like it or not... it's a brave new world.

 

[RockofHBG]

I have a different question. Suppose radio stations that were in trouble could have survived without consolidation, would such stations have continued to provide a reasonable amount of variety in their playlists rather than playing the same songs a million times? I'm guessing the answer is yes.

The answer is actually no. This topic comes up time and time again. Listeners have complained about repetition and limited playlists since the 50s. What people say and how they actually behave are two different things. For example, in the 1970s, NFL viewers complained about play by play announcers. NBC decided to experiment by eliminating the announcers. That lasted for one game. The ratings were awful. Music stations succeed by consensus, not diversity or variety. That means playing only the songs a lot of people know and love. We call them hits. In any format, there are relatively few songs that qualify as true mass appeal hits. Really. If you were to see music tests, you would find that you're lucky if you can get 300 titles that test well enough to be considered mass appeal. Now, before you poo-poo music tests as voodoo, keep in mind the results are relatively consistent market to market and stations that do them and apply their results generally do very well. This applies to both current-based and gold-based stations. Some people accept repetition more easily on Top 40s than on gold-based stations. Simply put and almost without exception, the station that is playing the most familiar and popular songs at any given moment for a cohesive demographic (18-24 females, 25-44 males, etc) and music style preference, are the stations that win big. Now, that said,you can be too tight. You can't be a classic rock station with only 200 songs or an oldies station with 250 titles. Programmers disagree on that magic number, but it is always less than 500 titles active at any given time. Current based stations can play between 50-250 songs.

Almost every station that has tried to base it's format on longer playlists and "songs that no one else plays" either fails or performs at a very low ratings level. Think about the "Jack" format. When it first signed on, addressing the constraints of tight radio station playlists, it had some decent success in some markets. After the novelty wore off, the format crashed in a book or two. The stations that didn't drop the format and rebounded, did so by.........cutting the playlist!!!!

I don't bring this up to be a jerk, but come on. There is almost 50 years of history that is pretty consistent. And don't you think that if the approach of big playlists worked, Clear Channel or Cumulus would jump all over it. A lot of radio outsiders as if act the corporations are just too stubborn to try this approach, that they sit in their big offices, going "ha ha ha, let's make the playlist tighter just to piss of the world!!". Hey, they love ratings, they love money and they'd play fart noises if it worked.