• 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

What is the future of radio and where is the talent?

Let's face the truth. Radio is simply an appliance. The content is king, not the delivery device.

Back in 2006, CBS radio learned this lesson when Howard Stern and his radio show moved to SIRIUS Satellite radio. Why would people be willing to buy new equipment and pay a subscription fee to hear what the could before for free? It's simple. Howard Stern's content was what people wanted. They didn't want commercials, rock music and traffic reports. Stern and his listeners also didn't want the FCC to censor and babysit their radio listening. People are willing to pay for quality and freedom. CBS Radio tried to replace Stern with the inexperienced David Lee Roth and later Stern wannabe's Opie and Anthony. Both of which failed.

Now, with the huge growth in Internet radio and its availability on PC's, Tablets, Smart Phones and some now being included In-Dash in new car radios, I see the reliance on "old-school" AM/FM radio to be going away by the day. Much like the way that Cable and Satellite TV rule Television broadcasting over rabbit ears and antennas that can only pick up a handful of local stations.

Another great example of this is Tom Leykis. The talk radio legend left terrestrial radio (CBS radio dropping the ball again, BIG SURPRISE!) due to CBS radio switching format of his flagship station (KLSX) to another automated top 40 station. Leykis used his time off between 2009 and 2012 to build a new online radio network called The New Normal. He developed four high-quality and commercial free music streams and one stream dedicated to his talk show. After his CBS contract was up (he still got paid the whole time by the idiots), he returned to the air online and is absolutely killing it. He has had over 3 million different listeners tune into his show in a year (real numbers, not an estimate or people reader meter), has been able to attract advertisers and new and old listeners alike. Leykis is now uncensored and better than ever. You can check out more from Tom Leykis at blowmeuptom.com. He's on weekdays from 6-9PM eastern and his show replays 24/7 until the the show.

People are willing to pay for more options, better content and the ability to record their favorite programs, fast forward through the commercials and other BS and get down to the content that they want to consume. A great example of this is Michael Robertson's DAR.fm, a website that allows users to record their favorite radio shows, and download and listen to them later. This is one of the BEST things to happen for talk radio listeners. I highly recommend the service to talk radio lovers.

Music listeners also have tons of customizable on-demand radio services like Pandora and Spotify. They also have thousands of radio stations, both commercial and commercial free, at their fingertips with services like TuneIn Radio and iheartradio. All of which can be heard crystal clear in their cars and homes. Who has time for static and commercials when there's a better way?

All the while, terrestrial radio seems to be asleep at the switch. Instead of allowing for more freedom on air and promoting local talent, they run more commercials, voice track and syndicate their stations to death. I believe the future of terrestrial radio will be maybe 4 stations per city on AM and FM. One for news and talk and the other for music. And you can bet most of it will be syndicated and voice tracked with local talent no where to be found. Clear Channel and CBS Radio likely haven't made a profit in years, yet they still churn out crap.

This is so sad as I remember the days of tuning into KDKA and listening for school closings with my AM radio as a kid. I loved the personalities and the awesome station imaging that included a strong voice introducing the KDKA Weather Center and KDKA as the 50,000 watt blowtorch. I remember the days of listening to DVE and their morning show with my dad, my favorite top 40 songs on B94, Hip Hop on WAMO 106.7 and new rock on WXDX 105.9. All of these stations are now a shell of their former selves, or are off the air.

Now, WXDX is now pretty much a classic rock station, with most of their playlist being 20 years old! Their only saving grace is Mark Madden, truly the only real beacon of hope for talk radio in Pittsburgh. Like him or not, thank God someone has the balls to be a bit controversial and outspoken in this city! KDKA has no hosts with a real personality and awesome show production like Fred Honsberger used to have. All of the hosts have no intros and use the same bumper music. Griffin, Pintek and Mangino all sound like the same show on many days. Pintek at least tries to do different stuff sometimes, but other than his show and the news, the station has fallen on its face. WDVE's morning show is old and boring (both the hosts and the content) and has seemed to have lost some steam since Jim Krenn left.

With all of that being said (sorry, quite a rant), what will happen in Pittsburgh? What stations and talents do you see staying for the long run and where will the new local talent come from? I only see WDVE and KDKA, due to their longevity and name recognition as likely making it through the radio free fall that will be coming, and that's it.

I truly believe that the next great radio talk hosts, personalities and shock jocks will come from the internet or satellite radio far before they will show up on terrestrial. Terrestrial should be scouting the internet and satellite for talent, though they would have to have the host agree to censor themselves to make the radio babysitters (the FCC) happy.

Honestly, I see this coming within 10 years or sooner. Am I off base here? Let me know! Let's talk about the death of radio!
 
Leykis101 said:
People are willing to pay for more options, better content and the ability to record their favorite programs, fast forward through the commercials and other BS and get down to the content that they want to consume.

The word you forgot is SOME people are willing to pay. Most people are not. They want stuff for free. They want music for free, they want TV for free, and they want radio for free. They don't want to buy new radios either, and that includes buying satellite or internet radios. If they can't pick it up on the devices they already own, they'll do without. But the majority of people in this country want to get rid of monthly bills. Most people are struggling with the effects of the recession, they've seen their home values drop and credit card rates rise. So an extra $15 a month for radio is hard to justify.

Yes, Howard has his dedicated fans, and they were willing to pay, but even the king of all media realized he'd lost an important platform when he went to pay radio. That's why when the right opportunity came, he went on a TV show on FREE TV, not pay TV. All the radio people who think there's money on other platforms could learn from Howard's experience.
 
TheBigA said:
The word you forgot is SOME people are willing to pay. Most people are not.

If we are to believe the numbers of OTA TV viewers quoted on these boards (something between 10-15% of all viewers) it would seem something like 85-90% of TV viewers are willing to pay for TV. I'd call that MOST, not some.

Radio is much larger OTA but I don't recall a precise number.

Perhaps your post addressed radio only?
 
So Leykis101, I'm assuming you're not Tom himself (I did enjoy listening to his syndicated show years ago).... but it's always interesting when someone appears out of nowhere and start posting novels.

Clearly you have a lot of time on your hands.... are you just a Leykis fan with a LOT of free time, or is this thinly-veiled promotion of some of these online services? Do you run some or all of them?
 
landtuna said:
Perhaps your post addressed radio only?

People were also willing to buy new TVs to replace their tubes for flat screens. No one is rushing out to buy new radios, regardless of the technologies available. That includes satellite and internet.

But the fact is that people are looking for ways around paying for anything. Getting TV for free requires a lot more work than some people are willing to do. But we all know how they feel about paying for music. My suggestion is not to overvalue content, unless you're offering something that is so great that people CAN'T LIVE without it. There's very little that radio talent can offer that falls in that category.
 
TheBigA said:
People were also willing to buy new TVs to replace their tubes for flat screens. No one is rushing out to buy new radios, regardless of the technologies available. That includes satellite and internet.

Not according to my experience. Not one person I knew upgraded the old CRT TV to a digital TV at the onset of DTV programming. Most, of course, were attached to cable/satt and HD wouldn't be offered for some while. The rest, like me, could buy a converter box for $40 and the old TV would still work fine. As the DTV conversion solidified and HD was seen as a significant improvement more and more people, including me, upgraded to HDTV's.

"HD" radio does not offer that kind of significant improvement so the demand is much less. However, more and more HD radios are being made available in cars and I admit to listening to nothing but HD radio in my new car. It isn't the signal improvement, if any, but rather the content.

TheBigA said:
Getting TV for free requires a lot more work than some people are willing to do.

For most of us in urban areas it means nothing more than buying a $10 pair of rabbit ears from Target. It doesn't get much simpler or cheaper than that.
 
landtuna said:
Not according to my experience. Not one person I knew upgraded the old CRT TV to a digital TV at the onset of DTV programming.

Your experience isn't typical. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, over 100 million flat screens were sold by 2009. Estimates that more than 80% of US homes have at least one now.

landtuna said:
For most of us in urban areas it means nothing more than buying a $10 pair of rabbit ears from Target. It doesn't get much simpler or cheaper than that.

That assumes you're content with a handful of channels. OTA radio offers more choices than OTA TV. So once again, the motivation to pay for radio isn't as great as for TV.
 
One fundamental difference: People sit down and watch TV. They spend hours doing that.

That experience doesn't apply to radio. For most, it's temporary background noise while you're driving or when you're making something in the kitchen.
 
TheBigA said:
Your experience isn't typical. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, over 100 million flat screens were sold by 2009. Estimates that more than 80% of US homes have at least one now.

Please note that I said "at the onset of DTV programming". The vast majority of people waited until the conversion dust settled and the cost of HDTV declined. The numbers still make sense though because DTV was operational throughout 2009 (and even six months before that IIRC).

TheBigA said:
That assumes you're content with a handful of channels. OTA radio offers more choices than OTA TV. So once again, the motivation to pay for radio isn't as great as for TV.

What is a "handful"? In most markets there are something in excess of 30 OTA choices (although I have only 12 on my menu). That is more than enough and the very few things available on cable that I would watch I can find online (also free). OTA radio is far more limited than TV. On TV you can generally find at least one program you like on each channel and if you are like my wife you can find dozens. On OTA radio in Phoenix I listen to three OTA signals and one of those is over the Net only as it doesn't arrive OTA at my house. Radio is divided by genre whereas TV not so much.

I agree that TV is more likely to be purchased as opposed to radio and I've always thought that radio is a background form of entertainment as opposed to TV being a forefront form. I personally never listen to radio as the only activity and I'll bet most people are that way.

Pay TV also has an advantage that it can be combined with phone and Internet services whereas radio cannot (although there are radio services on some cable systems).
 
Without regard as to whom Leykis 101 is or was, his points are valid and worth considering. The "who do you think you are" song and dance is just a poor excuse people use when they have no intelligent rebuttal.
 
No, my question wasn't meant the way you read it as a challenge, just curious. Guerilla marketing takes all kinds of interesting forms these days. So save your insults.....
 
landtuna said:
TheBigA said:
People were also willing to buy new TVs to replace their tubes for flat screens. No one is rushing out to buy new radios, regardless of the technologies available. That includes satellite and internet.

Not according to my experience. Not one person I knew upgraded the old CRT TV to a digital TV at the onset of DTV programming. Most, of course, were attached to cable/satt and HD wouldn't be offered for some while. The rest, like me, could buy a converter box for $40 and the old TV would still work fine. As the DTV conversion solidified and HD was seen as a significant improvement more and more people, including me, upgraded to HDTV's.

"HD" radio does not offer that kind of significant improvement so the demand is much less. However, more and more HD radios are being made available in cars and I admit to listening to nothing but HD radio in my new car. It isn't the signal improvement, if any, but rather the content.

TheBigA said:
Getting TV for free requires a lot more work than some people are willing to do.

For most of us in urban areas it means nothing more than buying a $10 pair of rabbit ears from Target. It doesn't get much simpler or cheaper than that.


HD radio does offer improvement (FM Only) better grade audio (If the engineer spends time tweaking it) The thing I like about the sub channels is that it can fill the niche where analog radio lacks. example
WLTJ HD 2 - Soul, R&B - http://qinthecity.com
WLTJ HD 3 - Classic Rock - http://wewillrockq.com
WLTJ HD 4 - Dance - http://dancingq.com
WRRK HD 2 = all 60's music - http://bobsbsides.com
WRRK HD 3 = all 50's music - http://bobsmaltshop.com
WRRK HD 4 = All American, All The Time - http://amerirockin.com
 
RadioEngnr said:
HD radio does offer improvement (FM Only) better grade audio (If the engineer spends time tweaking it)

I don't doubt that there are technical improvements in HD-FM but unless the average listener can tell it isn't a saleable item. I've been listening to two HD signals here in the Valley for the past year and cannot tell any difference between them and their parent analog FM (other than content of course).

RadioEngnr said:
The thing I like about the sub channels is that it can fill the niche where analog radio lacks. example

Absolutely! If not for those two subs I would not be listening to any local terrestrial stations at all. I wish we had the variety of subs you list.
 
Actually, I think we can see pretty easily that Veykis is a fan of shock radio hosts (Stern, Veykis, Madden).

And since they've all gotten into trouble for the content of their shows in one way or another at some time, a sycophantic fan will attack the forum of their message rather than the content of the show.
 
The thought does occur, however, that with so many options available to a listener, from satellite to AM daytimers, the simplest way to attract an audience would be "to be the carnival geek who bites the head off a chicken," in the words of Garrison Keeler.

Personally, I think this proves my own talent, as I just did something that even David Letterman could not do, which is make Garrison Keeler interesting and mainstream.
 
Leykis 101 is right in this instance. Even online stations, if marketed well, can rival OTA stations.

One example is in Ligonier, Pennsylvania. Here's the link:

www.ligonierradio.com

Most of you on this board either know Ron Adams personally or at least know who he is. He's best known as a longtime fixture on WHJB-AM and WSSZ-FM until the early 90s. He's also been on the former Variety 96 and Key 95. He started the Ligonier radio effort with his wife, Ursula.

If you listen, you'll hear that it sounds like what 3WS was doing in the mid-80s. A very deep music library with "jocks" in the sense that they're dayparted liner-readers. They don't back-announce, but the liners are updated regularly, and Eddie Weigle also reads liners throughout the day, and Ron and Ursula do the PSAs.

At least three times an hour, they promote the fact that they can also be heard via SmartPhone using the Shoutcast mobile app. I plugged my iPhone into the mp3 jack on my truck's radio, and listened for about two hours. The app stream was crystal clear, and aside from terrain drops that are normal in my residential area, it was a good, steady and strong signal.

I've spoke to Ron, and he's told me that he's felt the station could bill more, but he runs three other businesses and the station is more or less a courtesy to the folks of Ligonier. He broadcasts in town on 1620 AM, but the OTA signal is secondary...they promote the website and app very heavily. It's an effort to be proud of, and as technology continues to evolve, this is a direction that traditional OTA radio should be heading.
 
Boss Radio said:
Ah, that's just a standard promotion they've done before.

I don't recall it being done on The Fan before. ESPN-1250 (not sure if it was still WTAE-AM then or not) did it a few years ago; that's how Chris Mueller got his start, wasn't it?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom