-
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.
What in the WORLD happened to radio?
- Thread starter Steven21
- Start date
Actually, I've offered many suggestions, which you & TheBigA dismiss out of hand. Suggestion #1 is revising music testing methodology. The current methodology has distilled a very narrow selection of music targeted at a very narrow audience. I'm not a statistician, but there has to be a way of broadening the audience for radio in general, and for a particular station.
Secondly, I've advocated programming for the listener - not the station, or the advertiser. Present programming that engages the listener, and everything else will follow. If you've got the listeners, you'll get the advertisers.
There's a lot more, but it's the end of a long day, I'm tired, and you two aren't interested in anything other than defending an approach that is slowly sapping the medium of life.
Secondly, I've advocated programming for the listener - not the station, or the advertiser. Present programming that engages the listener, and everything else will follow. If you've got the listeners, you'll get the advertisers.
There's a lot more, but it's the end of a long day, I'm tired, and you two aren't interested in anything other than defending an approach that is slowly sapping the medium of life.
SirRoxalot said:The current methodology has distilled a very narrow selection of music targeted at a very narrow audience.
They call that the target demo. It's how radio has been done since the 1970s.
SirRoxalot said:Secondly, I've advocated programming for the listener
They call it "listener supported radio," or PUBLIC radio. You're obviously better suited for that branch of the medium. Take the pay cut, and try working over there. You'll be much happier.
OK, let me get this straight. You could do a different kind of music research and uncover songs that over 2/3 of the audience would accept 9presumably whether or not they actually have heard them) that they would not tune out. Or are you advocating broad based formats where I might hear Classic Rock and Hip Hop on the same station? Or country and A/C. I'm presuming what you're looking for is all formats to have a DJ intensive, full service approach. Maybe WOWO or WGAR in the 1970s. Presumably all that jock talk, along with more unknown or little known songs, would get people off facebook and twitter and get them listening intently to that DJ. If after all you're saying listeners would like DJs if they said different things (maybe talked about their pets or the potholes in town, I don't know), am I right that that's what you think would end an advertising recession?
As the late Ronnie Reagan said, "There you go again." Taking everything to the extreme.
Isn't it just possible that music research isn't as effective as it's touted to be? That a "hook" test doesn't accurately reflect the real results of actual listening? That sample sizes are too small, or too concentrated on a station's existing listeners (preaching to the choir), and don't include enough people who are in the demo but don't identify with a particular station?
As far as returning to "a DJ intensive, full service approach. Maybe WOWO or WGAR in the 1970s" is concerned, isn't there SOME middle ground between that and the jock-free, canned liner, jukebox approach of so many canned corporate stations these days?
Radio ain't workin' well these days. The same-old, same-old ain't gonna cut it. SOMETHING needs to change, and what we're being offered by corporate ain't it.
Isn't it just possible that music research isn't as effective as it's touted to be? That a "hook" test doesn't accurately reflect the real results of actual listening? That sample sizes are too small, or too concentrated on a station's existing listeners (preaching to the choir), and don't include enough people who are in the demo but don't identify with a particular station?
As far as returning to "a DJ intensive, full service approach. Maybe WOWO or WGAR in the 1970s" is concerned, isn't there SOME middle ground between that and the jock-free, canned liner, jukebox approach of so many canned corporate stations these days?
Radio ain't workin' well these days. The same-old, same-old ain't gonna cut it. SOMETHING needs to change, and what we're being offered by corporate ain't it.
I hear what Rox is saying here. On Tuesday, I really enjoyed the new Classic Hits. I was hearing some old favorites. It was better than my iPod because my playlist isn't as broad. But by Wednesday, I started hearing some of the music I heard the day before. "Stuck in the Middle" by Stealers Wheel is a fun song. But I don't need to hear two, three or four times a week in 2009. There have to be thousands of songs that made the top 30 during their popularity that WHTT could tap into for its Classic Hits format. Yet, it appears the station's playlist is limited. Plus, hearing voice tracking by Bill Lacy, as good as he is, is not going to cut it. As many have argued here, this format needs live personalities. Granted, Citadel is in dire financial straits. Perhaps we should be grateful for what Classic Hits is. It's clearly better than Mix 104.1. But unless the playlist is broader or more personality is added, I and other listeners are likely to tire of it.
SirRoxalot said:Isn't it just possible that music research isn't as effective as it's touted to be? That a "hook" test doesn't accurately reflect the real results of actual listening? That sample sizes are too small, or too concentrated on a station's existing listeners (preaching to the choir), and don't include enough people who are in the demo but don't identify with a particular station?
If you disagree with the results of a poll, the first step is to question the methodology. That's what the PPM opponants are doing now. But at the end of the day, you can't hold a full election every time you want to do something. So you do representative sampling. That's how the US gov't works. We vote for representatives, and they make decisions for us. Do I agree with every vote? Absolutely not. but that's the system. Here's what I know: No matter what system a station uses, there will be a group of people who will complain about it.
SirRoxalot said:Radio ain't workin' well these days. The same-old, same-old ain't gonna cut it.
And yet, all you keep talking about is a return to the "same-old, same-old." We did the DJ thing already. We did it to death. It's outlived its usefullness, and it's time to move on to the next generation of radio. The same old same old ain't gonna cut it. That's why we need something new. Those who liked the same old aren't gonna like where radio will go. But we gotta move into the 21st century at some point. Why not now?
OK, let's do the math. 5 station cluster, 5 jocks apiece at say, $30000 (not counting payroll taxes and benefits). So we've icreased our expenditures by $750000 a year just like that. When do we see any kind of return on that investment, assuming the audiecne even does come back to radio because of these great personalities? And you do that when revenues are down?
gr8oldies said:OK, let's do the math. 5 station cluster, 5 jocks apiece at say, $30000 (not counting payroll taxes and benefits). So we've icreased our expenditures by $750000 a year just like that. When do we see any kind of return on that investment, assuming the audiecne even does come back to radio because of these great personalities? And you do that when revenues are down?
Make it a cool $1-million and include payroll taxes. That's a fraction of what most groups will pay in "executive bonuses" for people who are driving them into bankruptcy.
How about this? $200K per year per station. That about $4K per week, or $600.00 a day. Figure - conservatively - a 12-hour broadcast day that SHOULD make money. That brings it down to $50 bucks an hour - less than the cost of ONE commercial. Hire people with talent - which will be hard to get for $30K - and I'm betting that your radio station will do better than a bird-fed or out-of-market VT station. A decent jock is worth one spot an hour, and will bring more money than that back into the station. Especially if he's given enough leeway to entertain.
That's a million or more per cluster. If a group has 5 stations apiece in 50 markets it adds up, even if your CEO works for a dollar a year. I'm going by what you say you want, foreground DJs no matter what format, even if that format tends to be a background format. So the smooth jazz jocks should be doing personality bits as well as the CHR jocks. At what point do ypu know you have people you can "turn loose" and I take it you mean all dayhparts, all formats. I don't know how you guarantee that the presence of DJs are going to make revenue increase, when evisence, especially PPM, points to the contrary. I realize your argument is that people will listen to DJs when they're allowed to talk more, but I'm a little less than convinced. If listeners are used to clicking off, where do you get to "wait a minute, he's talking about his dog"?
Once again, you take everything to the extreme. The problem is that some corporations treat every station like a background station.
Obviously, there's no one solution that fits every station and every format. What's become clearer is that background stations are going to have a tough time against interactive Internet stations that can deliver listener-selected music. If there's no added component to involve the listener, or to provide something - local news weather, and information, relatable content, shared experiences - in a timely manner, then radio will continue to lose share to other media.
Continuing to be nothing more than "somebody else's iPod - with commercials" just ain't gettin' the job done.
Obviously, there's no one solution that fits every station and every format. What's become clearer is that background stations are going to have a tough time against interactive Internet stations that can deliver listener-selected music. If there's no added component to involve the listener, or to provide something - local news weather, and information, relatable content, shared experiences - in a timely manner, then radio will continue to lose share to other media.
Continuing to be nothing more than "somebody else's iPod - with commercials" just ain't gettin' the job done.
SirRoxalot said:Continuing to be nothing more than "somebody else's iPod - with commercials" just ain't gettin' the job done.
So you're saying the 248 million figure Abitron tosses around is a lie?
Oh, people still tune in, hoping for something better, but they don't stay with most stations because there's nothing special to keep them. Some people still use radio for background music because it's cheaper than satellite, but the evolution of streaming will likely eat into those numbers.
There are exceptions. There are still some very good radio stations out there, that are involved in the community, and serve their local listeners well. You'll generally see them near the top of the ratings. Unfortunately, too many of them have lopped off live mid-day and evening talent as a "money saving measure". Revenues decline, and corporate demands even deeper cuts without considering the thought that the cuts actually cost them more revenue than they saved.
TSL has been on the decline since the '80s - significantly before computers and the Internet were widely available. Now, the PPM, with its miniscule sample and inability to differentiate between active and passive listening, is spewing out more numbers.
The corporate reaction? Fire more jocks. Make the programming even more generic. More syndication, shorter playlists, less talk. Oh, that's just what people say that they want. Gee, is it possible that people tune around so much because what they're hearing is too repetitious? Gee, I've never heard that comment from a listener - or, more likely, a FORMER listener.
But, carry on. You obviously know best. How's that definition of insanity go, "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?"
There are exceptions. There are still some very good radio stations out there, that are involved in the community, and serve their local listeners well. You'll generally see them near the top of the ratings. Unfortunately, too many of them have lopped off live mid-day and evening talent as a "money saving measure". Revenues decline, and corporate demands even deeper cuts without considering the thought that the cuts actually cost them more revenue than they saved.
TSL has been on the decline since the '80s - significantly before computers and the Internet were widely available. Now, the PPM, with its miniscule sample and inability to differentiate between active and passive listening, is spewing out more numbers.
The corporate reaction? Fire more jocks. Make the programming even more generic. More syndication, shorter playlists, less talk. Oh, that's just what people say that they want. Gee, is it possible that people tune around so much because what they're hearing is too repetitious? Gee, I've never heard that comment from a listener - or, more likely, a FORMER listener.
But, carry on. You obviously know best. How's that definition of insanity go, "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?"
SirRoxalot said:How's that definition of insanity go, "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?"
Hmmm, isn't your rant just the same thing over and over? Has it produced different results? I'm just askin.'
SirRoxalot said:Gee, is it possible that people tune around so much because what they're hearing is too repetitious?
Actually, like most things in radio, there's been a study on that, and they've found the reason people tune around is because music tastes aren't defined by radio format. Most people like a combination of formats, and the combination usually varies from person to person. So they tune around from country to AC to pop to classic rock, looking for the combination that best suits their personal taste. So in answer to your question, NO. People like repetition. They usually drive the same way to and from work, say the exact same thing when they arrive home, even make love the same way.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"Oh, people still tune in, hoping for something better, but they don't stay with most stations because there's nothing special to keep them. Some people still use radio for background music because it's cheaper than satellite, but the evolution of streaming will likely eat into those numbers."
The growing number of stations in larger markets with substantial cume but really lousy TSL (and consequently, anemic AQH shares) tends to give weight to that. If stations are going to hold on to listeners for any length of time, and thus assure advertisers that when the stopsets come, their spots will actually be heard, there has to be value added beyond just music off the hard drive.
Cume is suffering now too. There are a growing number of younger listeners who don't use radio as much as their older brothers and sisters, largely because they're finding less reason to put up with the commercials to listen to what's on offer. Stations that are more than just an iPod with 18 minutes of spots every hour aren't suffering this loss to the same degree but bad practices on some stations hurt all stations by making radio a less desirable option overall.
Talk stations, which have the highest TSL of any format and thus rack up AQH numbers out of all proportion to what you'd expect from their cumes, are an extreme example of the role of personality in maintaining audience. Music stations can't match talkers, but with the value-added of entertaining personalities and useful information, they can hold a lot more listeners for a lot longer in any given hour and become more attractive buys. Radio is a business. Bringing back the best practices of radio's last 30 years of programming, could also bring back at least some of the missing listeners. It's worth a try to save the value of the stations as businesses...
The growing number of stations in larger markets with substantial cume but really lousy TSL (and consequently, anemic AQH shares) tends to give weight to that. If stations are going to hold on to listeners for any length of time, and thus assure advertisers that when the stopsets come, their spots will actually be heard, there has to be value added beyond just music off the hard drive.
Cume is suffering now too. There are a growing number of younger listeners who don't use radio as much as their older brothers and sisters, largely because they're finding less reason to put up with the commercials to listen to what's on offer. Stations that are more than just an iPod with 18 minutes of spots every hour aren't suffering this loss to the same degree but bad practices on some stations hurt all stations by making radio a less desirable option overall.
Talk stations, which have the highest TSL of any format and thus rack up AQH numbers out of all proportion to what you'd expect from their cumes, are an extreme example of the role of personality in maintaining audience. Music stations can't match talkers, but with the value-added of entertaining personalities and useful information, they can hold a lot more listeners for a lot longer in any given hour and become more attractive buys. Radio is a business. Bringing back the best practices of radio's last 30 years of programming, could also bring back at least some of the missing listeners. It's worth a try to save the value of the stations as businesses...
Bob1370 said:The growing number of stations in larger markets with substantial cume but really lousy TSL (and consequently, anemic AQH shares) tends to give weight to that.
You're assuming that everything else has stayed the same over the past 25 years, and we all know that's not true. I know in my own lifestyle that there are far more demands on my time now than in the 80s. When listening to the radio is the only choice, and there are no distractions, it wins. I suggest TSL levels were unrealistic prior to 1987. Other devices and activities started eating away at radio TSL, and we continue to see that today. There is NOTHING anyone in radio can do to change personal habits of people.
Bob1370 said:Stations that are more than just an iPod with 18 minutes of spots every hour aren't suffering this loss to the same degree but bad practices on some stations hurt all stations by making radio a less desirable option overall.
Music stations have been cutting back on the number of commercials during the last few years. The advertising crisis over the last 4 years hasn’t helped. The average number of commercials per hour is 14, not 18. News and talk stations are the formats with the most commercials, not music. For music listeners, it’s not the number of commercials, but the interruptions that are most problematic.
Bob1370 said:Bringing back the best practices of radio's last 30 years of programming, could also bring back at least some of the missing listeners. It's worth a try to save the value of the stations as businesses...
Any suggestion anyone can come up with has been tried. This is not a situation where 30 year old solutions are going to help. These are new challenges and new problems. The fact is that with all the options, you’re not going to bring back missing listeners. That shouldn’t be the goal. The goal should be to do the best possible work possible. That’s all you can control. The only way to make music listeners happy is to given them control over programming, and do it without commercials. Any variation on that isn’t going to work.
gr8oldies said:I really don't know how those old Beautiful Music stations found ways to be number one with no wacky DJs doing comedy bits between Mantovani and the Living Strings.
Truth tell, I don't know how a station anywhere in this country manages to stay afloat when it gets a genuinely wacky DJ who should never have been in radio in the first place. It is one thing to try for a gimmick, quite another, as has been the case twice that I have seen over a few decades, to have some poor soul on the air who actually thinks that hosts on various networks in different parts of the country are sending messages to them. Both times they have melted down from trying to absorb it all at once. It's not an act either.
Fortunately for all of us, whether in radio or not in radio, that is an incredibly rare thing for someone to actually get sucked in to such a weird universe of the absurd, surreal and bizarre. When it happens it doesn't help the station that has fallen victim to it, voluntarily for kicks, ratings and giggles or otherwise.
[/quote]
That's not why you hear satellite radio at the gym. The real reason is no commercials. Especially commercials for competing gyms. The other reason is minimal interruptions from personalities. But as for music lists, they're typically the same as any commercial station in the format. Especially now that Sirius people are making the decisions.
[/quote]
That's not the real reason..it may be a small part of it...but music selection IS the reason. If there are 10 people in the gym and the majority of them want to listen to Metal, they'll get it....and not the same "metal" crap that has been overplayed on the local stations. If they want country...they'll get it...etc.
Please do not believe that it's just due to not having to hear commercials.
That's not why you hear satellite radio at the gym. The real reason is no commercials. Especially commercials for competing gyms. The other reason is minimal interruptions from personalities. But as for music lists, they're typically the same as any commercial station in the format. Especially now that Sirius people are making the decisions.
[/quote]
That's not the real reason..it may be a small part of it...but music selection IS the reason. If there are 10 people in the gym and the majority of them want to listen to Metal, they'll get it....and not the same "metal" crap that has been overplayed on the local stations. If they want country...they'll get it...etc.
Please do not believe that it's just due to not having to hear commercials.
oak068 said:Please do not believe that it's just due to not having to hear commercials.
That's the primary reason. But it varies by format. Terrestrial radio really doesn't offer a Metal format. They combine it with other types of rock. But as far as the country channels, Highway 16 plays the exact same music as any terrestrial country station, but with no commercials and very few interruptions.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.