What in the WORLD happened to radio?

[Steven21]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe TSL went down because the music wasn't particularly appealing during that time? Do I have any proof of THAT? Yeah, about as much as you do that it was the jock's fault the TSL went down. The best jock around cannot overcome bad music selection.

When it doubt, blame someone else. Look...you attribute everything that was great about radio to the video example you gave. I brought up the point that if you evaluate what they were saying, it's not much different from what you hear today. You want energy? There are lots of CHRs and Urban stations that do this exact presentation today, and it hasn't much changed in 25 years. What to me is compelling? The most compelling thing in JoJo's whole rap was that I could win $106 if I just kept listening. Wowie Zowie. That'll get me through the next commercial break, or the next disco tune. Yep. This kind of radio is being done around the country right now. But no one cares, because anyone can do the exact same thing in their bedroom on their home computer. Except they get to pick the music. And THEY are the stars.

What you consistanly do not address is the QUALITY of the on-air talent. I'm talking presentation. Style. Maybe you are tone deaf in that sense. You are WRONG about it being the same today as it was then. You must not listen around the country much, especially to large and major market radio. The elctricity, coke induced or not, is dramatically different now. I guess they just can't get good rock anymore, huh?

And since you are such an astute connoisseur of talent, I asked you what or who YOU think is so compelling---not on the short vid clip, but in the whole realm of radio past and present.

C'mon, let's hear who the BIG A thinks is the paradigm of all that is compelling in musicradio PAST or PRESENT, 'cause I've heard 'em all.

Can't wait.

 

[TheBigA]

What you consistanly do not address is the QUALITY of the on-air talent. I'm talking presentation. Style.

It's all subjective, and in this day, when anyone can host their own radio show, and be heard by millions on YouTube or some similiar site, it really doesn't matter.

The days of top-down communication are over. The same power that allows you to question my facts gives every person with a computer the power to reach an audience...regardless of quality. Some of the dopiest bits become the biggest attractions on the internet. That's what makes all those videos seem so quaint.

 

[majicrockstar]

Hey The Big A You didnt answer the question!!!!!! By the way are you a politician, that was a very political response?

 

[TheBigA]

Hey The Big A You didnt answer the question!!!!!! By the way are you a politician, that was a very political response?

Because the answer doesn't matter. That's the point.

It's like asking who is the best blacksmith in the horseshoe business. Who makes the best manual typewriter?

Do you still own a CB radio? Breaker breaker.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The single biggest change in radio since 1980 is the transfer of control over music to the computer, and out of the hands of experienced air personalities. Once PCs became cheap enough and powerful enough, the 3x5 cards got pulled, and mandated music lists made their way into the studio.

The result? Many hours of computer programming were dedicated to rotations, categorization, instrumentation, genre, tempo, blah, blah, blah - everything but TASTE. You can put in as many parameters as you want, but computers don't have any sense of esthetics, and mechanics can't replace artistry.

When was the last time you heard a segue, let alone a GOOD segue? Are computers valuable? Sure. I have NO desire to go back to spinning vinyl, chasing carts, or cueing CDs. But don't tell me that it isn't possible for the computer to give a live jock 3 songs to choose from, with one default selection for lazy/VT/automated/multi-tasking air people. That alone would keep air personalities more involved in the show, and allow them more control over the presentation. Don't like a particular song? Too bad. Skip it twice, and the third time you HAVE to play it. The sacrosanct rotation is maintained, but a HUMAN element is allowed to creep back into radio.

As far as "TheBigA"'s contention that jocks were just coke-fired stumblebums raking in the payola - backed up by a sensation book or two that "documented" the situation - I have to say one word that won't make it past the censorship here - B*LLSH*T. For every "star" who saw that kind of action, hundreds of other people poured sweat, blood, tears, and TALENT into making their stations successful. So successful that the corporate raiders came in and seriously overpaid for the properties that are now driving them toward bankruptcy. Gee, I guess that there really WASN'T that much "wasted money" that could be squeezed out of radio with "synergies", was there?

Would the same act work now? No. I don't know of ANYBODY doing the same act every day that they were doing in the '80s (outside of a specialty show), because times and audiences have changed. That doesn't mean that talent doesn't matter. There are some very good, relatable jocks out there. There's just not enough of them, and there are too many with the talent who are wasted in screwed-down formats that don't give them much chance to make a difference in the presentation.

As far as amateurs posting their own "radio show" on YouTube is concerned, if you can't tell the difference between that crap and a decent jock, you really don't "get" radio. It's like the difference between masturbation and having someone else make love to you. You do understand the difference, right?

 

[TheBigA]

The single biggest change in radio since 1980 is the transfer of control over music to the computer, and out of the hands of experienced air personalities. Once PCs became cheap enough and powerful enough, the 3x5 cards got pulled, and mandated music lists made their way into the studio.

Rick Sklar was mandating music lists in 1961. You can read the story how music decisions moved from the hands of DJs like Alan Freed to professional music schedulers in Sklar's book, Rockin' America. The WABC DJs never chose their own music. The big Top 40 DJs whose videos were listed earlier in this thread never chose their own music. Who in their right mind would play some of those songs? Unless you were in the minors, you played what you were told, in the rotation you were given. It took a while for music scheduling software to be invented, but DJs got dot-matrix music lists in the 70s.

As for segues, the era of progressive rock radio was a short-lived experiment that died a big death in the 70s as Top 40 transitioned from AM to FM. That ended the career of the progressive DJs, who picked their own music. I got to know Thom O'Hair, one of the first at KSAN San Francisco. He told me that by the time he left the Bay Area, they were following playlists just like the Top 40 stations in town. It's one of the reasons he left San Francisco. He ultimately got into non-commercial radio, where he had more freedom.

 

[Silkie]

>> For every "star" who saw that kind of action, hundreds of other people poured sweat, blood, tears, and TALENT into making their stations successful. So successful that the corporate raiders came in and seriously overpaid for the properties that are now driving them toward bankruptcy.<<

Without quoting your entire post, SirRoxalot, there is heart of the matter.  There are a few sayings, "Under all is the land", and "a house is not a home".  When ships are dedicated they must ultimately be "brought to life" in order for them to do anyone any good.  That said, the raiders who overpaid for properties dissed the talent that built and turned the houses into homes and brought life and meaning to them.

It is tantamount to buying the tent, sending all the circus away, bringing in a crew of grotesque chain saw massacre freaks and telling the public that the circus has come to town; or manning the ship with pirates who eventually ravage and sink the ship.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Dear Lord, do I really wanna enter my car in this demolition derby? Ah, WTH.

Coked-up DJs? I've worked with some damn fine jocks in Buffalo who wouldn't know a line of blow if it was right in front of their noses. (Rimshot: Gray Fidelipac or GoldCart)

The best jocks that I've admired over the years never did it with booze or drugs. It was all real, all the time.

Years ago, I worked for a PD and a consultant who gave me lattitude in "assembling" the music as long as I was honest about it and didn't abuse the privilege, no more than one or two categories an hour, no more than four changes per daypart. This meant diligently checking the rotations, what was played in the last 24 hours and what was scheduled for the next 24 hours and noting it on the log.

Truthfully, the pre-selected rotation was played more often than it was altered and most changes weren't substitutions as much as changing the order in which a songs were played or where I substituted a phoner or live intro/backsell for a jingle or bumper.

Sounds old school, but it sometimes involved something as simple as flipping the order of songs coming out of the top of hour ID. It was a privilege to work with a PD and consultant who trusted my understanding of the radio station's mission and gameplan. I've never had problems taking direction froma PD who took the time and effort to direct me. I looked at it as coaching. Sad thing is, so many PDs are overworked and spread so thinly, they have little if any time for coaching their air talent... at least the live, local air talent that still has a gig.

 

[TheBigA]

That said, the raiders who overpaid for properties, dissed the talent that built and turned the houses into homes and brought life and meaning to them.

None of the companies who bought these radio stations were "corporate raiders." In fact, many of the companies they bought the stations from fit that description better. The difference between companies like Clear Channel and Nationwide was that Clear Channel was a broadcasting company. Nationwide was an insurance company. So the guy who ran the radio stations could BS the suits at Nationwide. But he couldn't do that at Clear Channel. Same with Cumulus, Citadel, Cox, and the rest. These were all companies that were in one business: Radio. Sure CC grew to own outdoor advertising and concert promotion. But that was really the start of their downfall. CC was first and foremost a radio company, going back to its formation in the mid 70s.

These companies didn't want to change the way these stations were run. For a long time, they were run exactly the same way they'd been run under previous owners. To blame these companies for the extreme sociological and technological changes that have happened in the last 8 years is giving them, in my opinion, too much credit. They didn't expect the audience to rebel against local DJs, find new sources for music, or get their entertainment from new devices. But once that happened, they were stuck with a lot of hula hoops and Nehru jackets. A ot of stuff that was basically out of style. You can see it in those videos.

 

[gr8oldies]

I remember a station I worked at where the PD and MD would be poring over music logs sometimes until 4am, rerunnin them tweaking them and substituting until they got them exactly right. The software is a tool for gosh sakes

 

[SirRoxalot]

These companies didn't want to change the way these stations were run. For a long time, they were run exactly the same way they'd been run under previous owners. To blame these companies for the extreme sociological and technological changes that have happened in the last 8 years is giving them, in my opinion, too much credit. They didn't expect the audience to rebel against local DJs, find new sources for music, or get their entertainment from new devices. But once that happened, they were stuck with a lot of hula hoops and Nehru jackets. A ot of stuff that was basically out of style. You can see it in those videos.

If you actually believe what you've written here, you're more misguided than I thought. The FIRST thing Clear Channel, Citadel, Cox, and others did when they bought into a market was look for "duplication". Sales got jerked around, compensation and lists were sliced and diced, and air talent was "trimmed". Formats were "tightened, lightened, and brightened", and the cookie-cutter was applied to stations that had been purchased BECAUSE THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL.

Audiences didn't "rebel against local DJs", they turned off over-formatted radio stations playing repetitious music. Many people - including a large segment of the younger demos - abandoned radio because radio didn't serve their needs or desires. They got their entertainment elsewhere because the stations that used to target 12-30 became automated "flankers" for the big 25-54 station in the cluster, or VT'd spoilers trying to nick a share or two from the competition's big 25-54 station.

Clusters were built in an attempt to corner enough of a particular demographic - usually 25-54 females - that the new owners could drive rate up to pay for their inflated purchase price. The whole house of cards was built on the promise of increasing revenue, while decreasing costs - both based on "synergies" to be derived from local consolidation and corporate control over HR and benefits.

The result? Fewer advertisers could afford to pay the increased rate. Experienced sales people were cut because they "made too much money", and replaced by newbies who thought that sales was all about "making the numbers work". Stations with less debt could drop their pants to get the buys, and the ax came down on more personnel so corporate could put more money into paying off their oversized debt.

Thrown in that cyclical cyclone called a "recession", and you have the nightmare that we see today. THAT'S "What in the WORLD happened to radio".

 

[TheBigA]

The FIRST thing Clear Channel, Citadel, Cox, and others did when they bought into a market was look for "duplication". Sales got jerked around, compensation and lists were sliced and diced, and air talent was "trimmed". Formats were "tightened, lightened, and brightened", and the cookie-cutter was applied to stations that had been purchased BECAUSE THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL.

Maybe you can be specific. Because in most CC martkets, sales and programming were left alone. CC didn't have the infrastructure to manage all these new stations. It took several years to build the regional system they have now, with format captains and regional VPs. Until that happened, everything stayed the same. For years, there was no corporate program director. In fact in a lot of the most successful markets, NOTHING was touched until the ad crisis at the end of last year. Stations in markets like Cincinnati and Minneapolis were completely left alone, with full live & local staffs, no intrusion into playlists, and their top people got the promotions to regional VP. In lots of markets, CC stations were left in their old buildings, and employees even received paychecks that still said names like Southern Star on them. To this day, a lot of those successful stations are still run by the exact same people, and many of the same staff are there.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What you say may be true of some of the "cash cows", but it isn't true for most of the Clear Channel stations that I'm familiar with.

Clear Channel isn't in Buffalo. Perhaps some of the Rochester folks can comment on Clear Channel's benevolence.

 

[TheBigA]

What you say may be true of some of the "cash cows",

You keep saying they bought these stations because they were successful, and then screwed them up. Now you seem to be changing your tune. My point is that if you were a successful radio station, you were left alone. There were a lot more dogs than cash cows. But if you were at a successful station, no one was going to tell you to change. And if you look at ratings in most of the CC markets, you'll see that if a station was doing well ten years ago, it's still doing well now. Not just because of heritage and habit, but because the station was allowed to serve its market without a lot of interference from headquarters.

 

[Steven21]

What you say may be true of some of the "cash cows",

You keep saying they bought these stations because they were successful, and then screwed them up. Now you seem to be changing your tune. My point is that if you were a successful radio station, you were left alone. There were a lot more dogs than cash cows. But if you were at a successful station, no one was going to tell you to change. And if you look at ratings in most of the CC markets, you'll see that if a station was doing well ten years ago, it's still doing well now. Not just because of heritage and habit, but because the station was allowed to serve its market without a lot of interference from headquarters.

I have several friends at CC clusters in 6 different markets. Several of them worked specifically at stations that, in recent years, were on top of their game (top 3 key demos) but were told by corporate to make certain changes, especially eliminating on-air people, featured programming and many persoanlity elements. This was done as a result of a corporate dictation, ie; "all our stations in this format will now do this". Several of those stations lost shares (in some cases, significant) to their competitors over the next 2-4 books.

This has gone on and continues to go on.

 

[TheBigA]

Several of them worked specifically at stations that, in recent years, were on top of their game (top 3 key demos) but were told by corporate to make certain changes, especially eliminating on-air people, featured programming and many persoanlity elements.

We weren't talking about "recent years," but when CC first started expanding. My point was, and still is, that there was no "corporate" at CC until after 2003. If you had a successful station, you were left alone.

In the last year or so, everyone has been scrambling, from CC to the small owners. Go over to the Syracuse group and read the threads about WSEN.

 

[Lee Rust]

It's true that the broadcast radio cash cow has been milked dry of advertising effectiveness and the programming strip-mined of credibility by some of the large corporate operators.

It's true that many of the failures within the radio business past and present can be attributed to bad management or misguided ownership.

It's true that many talented and creative people have contributed to the art and craft of radio broadcasting throughout the past century, and that generations of listeners have been entertained, enlightened, amused and aroused.

But a century is a long time for any particular technology to be culturally dominant, especially a high-tech information and entertainment technology.

Nobody communicates by telegram anymore or attends the nickelodeon. Fewer and fewer of us write letters or read the newspaper regularly. Even books are starting to be supplanted by digital reading appliances. Competition from new audio and video media will continue to diminish the time spent listening to the radio in the daily life of the average person.

Accelerating audience losses, along with an ongoing economic contraction, have been steadily shrinking the dollars flowing into the mass-appeal commercial radio business over the past twenty years, and will likely continue to do so. Remember that the radio ownership consolidation of the 1990's was a result of that revenue shrinkage, not a cause of it.

Those exciting decades of boss jocks and elaborate promotions that we all remember so fondly were made possible only by the torrents of undiluted advertising dollars that were flowing through the industry in those days. Not to mention the incredible music and audacious programming that marked the American cultural zenith of the mid 20th century.

Those dollars and days are gone.

Broadcast radio technology has outlived the telegraph only because it is adaptable, inexpensive, effective, elegant and reliable . Its future, whether analog or digital, is assured. The future of the broadcast radio business model is less certain. Certainly any advertising-supported operations will be have to be very frugal ones. Maybe some listener-supported/commercial hybrid will emerge. Perhaps the volunteer-staffed, non-commercial model will prevail. In any event, there will be a future. It just won't be like the past.

As Paul Harvey would say: "Stay tuned for news".

 

[GSmitty]

Well said, Lee.

 

[yugoidar]

Got to agree with GSmitty. Lee, perhaps the most thought out and best expressed post among the many on this thread. Thanks for letting us know your thoughts.

 

[Oldbones]

Audiences didn't "rebel against local DJs", they turned off over-formatted radio stations playing repetitious music. Many people - including a large segment of the younger demos - abandoned radio because radio didn't serve their needs or desires. They got their entertainment elsewhere because the stations that used to target 12-30 became automated "flankers" for the big 25-54 station in the cluster, or VT'd spoilers trying to nick a share or two from the competition's big 25-54 station.

But "over-formatted radio stations playing repetitious music" have existed for decades, beginning in the mid-late 60s with Bill Drake, continuing with the "Q-format" in the 70s and so forth. Keep in mind that one of the main reasons Drake instituted liner card formatics is because most jocks didn't really have anything compelling to say in the first place.
The big difference was that back then there really wasn't anywhere else to go. Yeah, you could make mix tapes, but they were kind of a PITA to produce, were only sorta portable, and you needed a large record collection to do it. MP3 players made it a lot easier...they're small, light, inexpensive (well some of them anyway), it's easy to rip songs from CDs or download what you don't have. Put it on shuffle and you never have to listen to the exact same mix twice, or songs you don't like.

For those who think that bringing back the local dj is gonna save radio, think again. If "localism" is what today's listeners want, why are they turning to media with even less of that than radio? I'll second Lee's remarks. It was fun while it lasted.