WHAT IS THE REASON FOR RADIO?

[GeneSavage]

That's like saying the use of automobiles was a revolt against the horse. It really wasn't. They're not the same thing.

Actually, I think an awful lot of blacksmiths would take issue with your statement...

It is true that internet radio listeners still listen to about the same broadcast radio as they did before internet radio. The needle isn't moving much on listening... but decades of tradition take a long time to break, and these changes are beginning to happen.

Relate it to television killing radio shows (comedy, drama, etc.), and websites killing newspapers. No, they are not 1:1 identical, but they are changing where people get their services from.

I'm not saying radio can't survive; I'm saying radio can't survive unless it figures out how to fight internet radio for time spent listening. The erosion is minimal right now, but once it picks up steam, the avalanche is going to be hard to stop.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not saying radio can't survive; I'm saying radio can't survive unless it figures out how to fight internet radio for time spent listening. The erosion is minimal right now, but once it picks up steam, the avalanche is going to be hard to stop.

But my comment was in response to another comment that people are revolting against OTA radio. Just because they're shifting to a different technology doesn't mean they don't like the programming. They do, and the proof is that online streams of OTA stations are about as popular, as a group, as Pandora. That's saying a lot, because Pandora is customized content, while OTA programming isn't. So what we're seeing is people seem to be shifting to a different transmission system, from FM to online/mobile. Similar to the shift of AM to FM. The technology isn't killing the content, but it is forcing a change in the cost.

 

[SirRoxalot]

As I often say, this is what happens when the "me" generation has kids. It's all about "me," not about "us," so a medium that is built around one-to-many can't relate.

This is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? I don't agree that everything has to be one-to-one, and not one-to-many. We are individuals, but we're also members of different groups. We have shared experiences. If social networking has taught us anything, it's that many people in disparate places with widely varied backgrounds share so many experiences and points of view.

Most humans seek interaction with others like them. Radio certainly can - and has - served groups of people with common interests. In some cases, good radio has helped to create those groups and guide those interests.

One thing is true about the "Me" generation and those who follow. They KNOW when they're being marketed. There's a real movement to find "real" these days, and they've gone in search of "real" because American media has become a sales machine with little regard for their consumers. In fact, they see advertisers as the consumers. Well, if there's no audience, there are no advertisers.

Broadcasting - the "one-to-many" model - simply has to decide one thing: HOW many. Yes, there are shows that can relate to listeners despite the fact that they're listening at different times and in different places. That's not generally what people expect from radio. Study after study cites local content, and timely, value-added information and entertainment elements as being important to radio listeners.

With individually-programmed on-line music becoming increasingly available and affordable, radio can't simply be a jukebox anymore. That "value-added" component is more important than ever. Part of that is "curated content". Go to Pandora, and plug in almost any criteria, and you'll find an overwhelming number of songs in the mix - some good, many not so good. Many busy people don't mind having someone else sort them out. That's what music programming is all about. And people are better at selecting what music that goes into the mix than any computer program. Sometimes, you have to break the "rules" simply because the "rules" change over time.

Radio has an established place in media. It has withstood challenges from individualized programming devices in the past. The bottom line is that it's still the most convenient and easiest way to hear audio content. Keep that content relevant to your audience, and you'll do fine. Program canned generic pap that's available from other sources, and you'll find yourself outflanked by systems that can deliver that content on demand - which you can't do. Radio simply needs to offer unique content that an audience wants to hear.

 

[TheBigA]

Broadcasting - the "one-to-many" model - simply has to decide one thing: HOW many.

That's what format radio is all about. Format radio identifies that audience, and if the format has an easily defined group, then that group is the audience. That's why the country format is so popular on radio. Country music attracts an easily defined life-group. They have easily defined interests, taste in music, and lifestyle. Same with conservative talk. The trick with format radio is to play to that audience, and hire talent that is part of the audience. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. The station hires someone local who's convenient, rather than someone who has credibility with the format. But what we see is that most format audiences are pretty much the same from city to city, and are defined mainly by that format and life-group, rather than their location. The audience communicates with other similar people around the country, and there are centralized events that attract members of that format life-group.

With individually-programmed on-line music becoming increasingly available and affordable, radio can't simply be a jukebox anymore.

Sure you can. There is a very large life-group whose format is un-hosted music. Like the beautiful music stations of the 60s and 70s. They simply want music in the background, and don’t want to be talked to. Jukebox radio is a format, and, when included in a cluster with other stations, can provide an alternative to all the other formats in the market. It may not be a #1 format, but every station can’t be #1. You’re programming to an audience, and clearly there’s an audience for un-hosted music. The music mix itself is the “curated content.” The songs have been carefully selected to fit a particular audience. It doesn’t need a host or talent, and the audience is satisfied with just the music mix. That’s why it works.

Radio has an established place in media. It has withstood challenges from individualized programming devices in the past. The bottom line is that it's still the most convenient and easiest way to hear audio content.

But it is increasingly becoming less convenient. The phone is becoming more convenient. In the 60s, the device people took with them when they left the house was the transistor radio. Now it’s the phone. OTA’s place in the dashboard is being challenged by other transmission systems. They are also calling themselves “radio,” and the public sees them that way. It’s the job of OTA owners and programmers to recognize other platforms and transmission services, and make their content available in those other places. If radio is in the content business, rather than the towers and transmitters business, then make that content available everywhere.

 

[landtuna]

That's like saying the use of automobiles was a revolt against the horse. It really wasn't. They're not the same thing.

Actually, I think an awful lot of blacksmiths would take issue with your statement...

Having had a grandfather who was a lifelong blacksmith I would say no. Horseshoeing was only part of a blacksmith's business and when the automobile replaced horses most smithys went on to do wrought iron work or work on machinery of various kinds. The ones who still wanted a living shoeing became farriers and there are enough horses left in the world to keep plenty of them busy. I have several horse-owning friends who can attest to the good living they earn. ;D

 

[GeneSavage]

Having had a grandfather who was a lifelong blacksmith I would say no.

I'm certainly not going to argue with your Grandfather. ;D

I'll agree that "radio" has the potential to survive by making the leap to the internet; I should have said "broadcasters on the AM & FM bands" need to adapt to "the infinite dial" (was it Arbitron who first called it that, or someone else? Whoever... it's a good description) or AM & FM broadcasters will not find themselves getting any piece of the pie.

It's a daunting task: instead of competing with 30, or 50, or even 100 stations in your area, you're competing with more than 600,000 programing choices.

I had the horrifying, eye-opening experience not too long ago of switching between my internet stream and several other competitors. What I found was that we're all playing basically the same songs. They may pull one out I don't play, I may play one they don't, but for 99% of the songs, you couldn't tell which station was which.

It showed me I have a LOT to do in order to separate myself from the thousands of other 80s stations... and the difference has to be what goes between the records.

The questions broadcasters have to ask is, "if I'm programming a popular music format (with thousands of competitive streams playing approximately the same library online), what can I say or do that will make my station sought out by listeners?

The pie is being cut into MUCH smaller slices these days. For some stations, the solution will be to abandon "traditional" programming entirely. For others, it will mean making their content "hyper-local." Others will be determined to be the most-listened to station out of thousands by dropping millions of promotional dollars into various advertising outlets.

My concern is whether AM & FM broadcasters will figure out which of these things to do (and how), or simply watch their audience be siphoned off by other audio sources until they get to the point it's cheaper to shut the transmitter down, lock the door, and send everybody home.

Broadcast needs another innovation, like rock n roll was in the 50s when TV tried to "kill" radio. Some people are trying; Jelli is one attempt, but I don't think it's a real solution. Hyper-local content can be unique, but is also expensive... the reason we got away from it in the first place. Advertising is expensive, too. Promotional budgets are slashed to the bone.

What's a broadcaster to do, long term?

 

[SirRoxalot]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble. If you're doing syndicated content, you're promoting the competition that will eventually KILL you because the day is coming when people won't need to listen to you to get the same content. That means you're in BIG trouble.

NPR stations may well be the first to feel this pressure. More and more, NPR stations are dropping local content and filling with syndication. More and more, NPR is making that content available as a podcast. So, NPR affiliates are creating demand for programming that's more conveniently available from other sources. How long before the local guys see their donations decline?

 

[TheBigA]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble.

Local content, like what? Local ads? No problem. That's local content. Even stations with live & local DJ s don't talk much. Definitely don't bring up local political issues. They may do interviews with national stars. Big deal. The only local information is provided by outsourced traffic reports.

the day is coming when people won't need to listen to you to get the same content.

That day is here. There's nothing of value a local DJ can tell me that I can't get elsewhere. Except maybe his personal stories of what he & his wife did on the weekend. But as I said, that's of no value.

 

[TheBigA]

The questions broadcasters have to ask is, "if I'm programming a popular music format (with thousands of competitive streams playing approximately the same library online), what can I say or do that will make my station sought out by listeners?

The simple answer is nothing. The two great motivators in the world are sex and religion. So if you can either get your listeners a hook-up, or salvation, you have a chance. Otherwise, there are lots of better alternatives.

The worst part is when these DJs think people tune in to hear THEM. That's what is killing radio. These egomaniacs use the public airwaves to tell stories of how they lost their virginity while listening to Sexual Healing. I'm not kidding. Who cares? Why do I need to pay a local guy to tell that story on the air?

 

[davideduardo]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble.

Let's see... the local content on music stations ever since radio learned, maybe 40 or so years ago, that excess yacking and yucking and puking and pot whipping was lethal... consisted mostly of "fifth caller gets a prize a client had to force us to give away" or time and temp. Nearly everything else was (or should have been) generic.

Then there is the issue that "local" in the Internet world is not a distance-related term in many instances. My community, as I have mentioned previously, consists of people I have ongoing contact with, mostly by eMail, FB and LinkedIn, nearly none of whom live within 50 miles of me.

Lest it be forgotten in discussing irrelevant qualities, listeners go to radio, to TV, to web streams or satellite or to their MP3 player for entertainment, not for localism or a sense of belonging.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Nearly everything else was (or should have been) generic.

Then there is the issue that "local" in the Internet world is not a distance-related term in many instances. My community, as I have mentioned previously, consists of people I have ongoing contact with, mostly by eMail, FB and LinkedIn, nearly none of whom live within 50 miles of me.

David- you are among the small handful of people on this website that have helped me reshape my understanding of radio in the 21st Century. But you have not yet completely straightened me out. ;D

To say that I grew up in a rural area, a world of small towns, is to understate reality. Then I spent close to 40 years of my life being a "city dweller" reacting to the communications of city life.

Now I am once again a dweller of a rural area. And after a lifetime (40 years?) of being somewhat a "political agnostic" during the city years, I have decided to jump in and help with "communicating things political" in what amounts to a crowded piece of real estate that is still very rural in its communication methods. I would argue that our community needs exactly the radio station format you are suggesting should not exist.

Our town, our county does not have a radio station of its own. And if we did, it would probably be a useless thing if it did not insert some content you are suggesting went out of style 40 year ago. We sit close enough to Atlanta that anyone wanting the kind of "content emasculated" programming that you say is essential today is going to listen to Atlanta anyway. If we had something local, it would like fail following your formula. (We had a daytimer when I moved here and it is now gone. There is a bit of intrigue in its demise, however)

Are there any markets where you would say: Oh, in your market all my lifeline observations about this industry may need a different twist. If so, what criteria would support the selection of a non-standard format?

 

[PirateJohnny]

...The worst part is when these DJs think people tune in to hear THEM. That's what is killing radio. These egomaniacs use the public airwaves to tell stories of how they lost their virginity while listening to Sexual Healing. I'm not kidding. Who cares? Why do I need to pay a local guy to tell that story on the air?

What I remember about what I call the heyday of AM Top 40 radio - 1964-1975 (Beatles to Disco) is that WAS why people chose station A over station B. Top 40 playlists were tighter then as there weren't that many music acts in total, like today. With competing station playing basically the same songs, the only difference was the DJs. Listeners tuned in for their favorite DJ, not their favorite song. Or did I get it completely wrong? What did that McLendon guy do with the KLIF DJs if they weren't what drew in listeners, especially when other stations offered the same music?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What I remember about what I call the heyday of AM Top 40 radio - 1964-1975 (Beatles to Disco) is that WAS why people chose station A over station B. Top 40 playlists were tighter then as there weren't that many music acts in total, like today. With competing station playing basically the same songs, the only difference was the DJs. Listeners tuned in for their favorite DJ, not their favorite song. Or did I get it completely wrong? What did that McLendon guy do with the KLIF DJs if they weren't what drew in listeners, especially when other stations offered the same music?

A lot of things were different then from today. We had a date to sit down every week and watch a couple of hayseeds like Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife do their country version of slapstick comedy.

Junior Samples was lured away from the lake country where I live today to be a centerpiece of Hee-Haw.

And formula TV like Perry Mason was part of our lifestyle.

We chuckle at the memory of our TV tastes back then. Aren't you the guy who posted the link to the Coyote dj in Louisville. I listened to a few minutes of that and muttered: "What were we thinking! What were we smoking?"

 

[SirRoxalot]

The answer if simple. If you're not doing local content between those songs, you're in trouble.

Local content, like what? Local ads? No problem. That's local content. Even stations with live & local DJ s don't talk much. Definitely don't bring up local political issues. They may do interviews with national stars. Big deal. The only local information is provided by outsourced traffic reports.

the day is coming when people won't need to listen to you to get the same content.

That day is here. There's nothing of value a local DJ can tell me that I can't get elsewhere. Except maybe his personal stories of what he & his wife did on the weekend. But as I said, that's of no value.

You really are clueless about how good, relatable, non-liner-card radio is done, aren't you? And there's PLENTY of information that you either can't get elsewhere, or requires a lot more time to assemble. That's what SHOW PREP is all about. And that's just in music formats. Do we need to discuss talk formats? You don't seem to get them, either. Or Country.

Look at ratings. In city after city, the stations with the most live and local content WIN consistently. Sorry, but I ain't buyin' that Kool-Aid that you guys are sellin'. Maybe it works in some formats, but it sure doesn't work in others. And the formats that it works in are the ones that will lose to the Internet soonest.

 

[TheBigA]

What I remember about what I call the heyday of AM Top 40 radio - 1964-1975 (Beatles to Disco) is that WAS why people chose station A over station B.

Here's a newsflash: It's not the 70s any more. What worked then won't work now. It's a whole new world with tons more competition.

 

[TheBigA]

You really are clueless about how good, relatable, non-liner-card radio is done, aren't you? And there's PLENTY of information that you either can't get elsewhere, or requires a lot more time to assemble.

Do you go to the library to use the internet? There's nothing that people can't get elsewhere. DJs aren't so smart that they have a handle on all the knowledge. And the show prep they do involves NATIONAL sources, not local. They search the internet, they subscribe to Google alerts, they subscribe to prep sheets, and they use syndicated satellite tours and audio service. All national BS that is used in market after market. I listen to awards submissions, and hear the exact same jokes and interview clips in market after market. It's embarrassing. It's not that they don't get prep time, don't have the staff, or don't have the resources. They're lazy and they don't care. Many are older than their target demo, and no longer part of the life group. Cardinal sin in being an air talent. There are a handful of original talents in this country, and most work for the big companies, because they pay the best. Other than them, everyone else is phoning it in and could be easily replaced by a centralized live voice with credibility.

The ONLY thing that matters for live and local is outreach. That means going outside the studio and shaking hands. That's the only thing an out-of-market host can't do. Personal appearances, remotes, introductions at local concerts, interaction with listeners and advertisers. That's it. If DJs aren't doing that (and from my observation, most aren't), they bring nothing of value to the table. The thing Stern did, and a few other successful syndicated hosts continue to do, is travel to markets for outreach. That's why they're often able to beat an actual local host.

 

[davideduardo]

What I remember about what I call the heyday of AM Top 40 radio - 1964-1975 (Beatles to Disco) is that WAS why people chose station A over station B.

The heyday of AM Top 40 was the early 50's to the early 70's. The 50's were full of examples of the first Top 40 in a market getting a 40 or even a 50 share. The 60's were replete with classic Top 40 battles like WMCA / WMGM / WINS / WABC, WQAM / WFUN, KHJ / RKLA / KFWB and so many more. The 70's were marked by the rash of FM conversions started with stations like WMYQ, KSLQ and WDRQ in '72. The death of AM top 40 soon followed, with the mid to late 70's full of stories of AMs dropping the format.


[/quote]Top 40 playlists were tighter then as there weren't that many music acts in total, like today.[/quote]

Early Top 40's played the Top 40, period. By the time Drake did KHJ, "golden" songs were being introduced, expanding the lists. Top 40 stations today (using the R&R imposed name of "CHR") really don't play that many more songs than a mid-60's CHR did... sometimes less.

As to music, a station would get dozens and dozens of 45s each week... for every one that got played, 30 or 40 went in the trash. No format has that kind of material available today, and that is why the famed music directors like Rosalie, Betty and Coleen were so well known... and most stations don't even have an MD today.

With competing station playing basically the same songs, the only difference was the DJs. Listeners tuned in for their favorite DJ, not their favorite song. Or did I get it completely wrong? What did that McLendon guy do with the KLIF DJs if they weren't what drew in listeners, especially when other stations offered the same music?

DJs were important because there was no alternative media. No portable music players existed in the first decade or so of Top 40. There were at best 3 TV stations in most markets, fewer in many others. Through the late 60's, huge markets only had 6 to 10 signals to pick from, and many were bad at night. An example: Cleveland had 7 fulltimers and one Daytimer, and it was a Top 10 market in the 50's. Two were R&B, 3 were Top 40 and three were MOR in the late 50's. Little choice, so people changed stations when commercials came on, when the news came on (Thanks, FCC, for forcing us to do that one) or when the power cut at sunset. Few jocks were so significant as to make a difference... and when they did make a difference, they were on a station that was really good to begin with.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If several stations were playing the same songs - including some featuring "Less Talk and More Rock" - and the station with the least talk wasn't winning, then you HAVE to recognize that talent makes a difference. Maybe I was lucky because I was in a market with a LOT of great talent - often thanks to the programming genius of people like Jeff Kaye who's influence on programmers is still evident here.

I was reading Tom Taylor the other day, and he quoted the triumvirate of good radio - entertainment, information, and companionship. Radio CAN do that better than iPods, satellite, syndication, or VT. It requires an investment in the product to differentiate it from a jukebox playing somebody else's tunes.

BigA, your lack of either respect of understanding of what and how air talent does their job is evident in repeated posts. You sound like one of those guys who couldn't do it, so you determined it wasn't important. That led you to an adversarial relationship with air talent that's obviously poisoned your punch bowl. You clearly don't get it. I don't know who you know, but your description of talent who are "lazy and don't care" simply isn't what I see every day. I see a lot of guys who work hard every day, and are overwhelmed because cutbacks have added more and more responsibilities in production, promotion, and on-air, while cutting paychecks. That's not exactly a recipe for happiness, is it?

Radio is losing talent fast - and not just on air. Sales and management people are fleeing in the face of "beancounter radio", where everything MUST be quantifiable on a spreadsheet. Clear Channel and Cumulus are leading that charge, and it's simply not working. In my market, Town Square and Entercom are KILLING Cumulus on the street. Yes, it started under the Citadel reign, but it's accelerated under Cumulus, with their endless Skype meetings and rigid requirements for sales people. HALF the sales staff has left, and they're not exactly seeing a line out the door for people looking for an "opportunity".

No, it's not the '70s. Nobody's looking for a return to the '70s, because the landscape is different. Everybody recognizes that. What many of us don't agree with is the landscape laid out by several "professionals" here who work for major companies who are trying to redefine the medium in a way that violates the basic principals of why radio has worked so well in the past.

It's really not that hard. "Entertainment, information, and companionship". Stick that in your computer and program it.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA, your lack of either respect of understanding of what and how air talent does their job is evident in repeated posts.

It's not a matter of respect. It's a matter of the facts. You talked about show prep, and I listed their sources and how they do it. Was I wrong? You mean on air people don't use national prep services? Really? They don't do national satellite tours with celebrities? Really? Have you ever worked in radio? This is how radio has been done since the early 90s, and it hasn't changed. The morning shows I know have staffs of four-five people, including a full time producer who is supposed to help the talent prepare. And for the most part, that preparation is mainly national, focusing on national TV shows, national celebrity news, and national music. They only local subject is when they throw it to the outsourced traffic person, who is probably a hundred miles away. That's how live & local radio is done every day. You tell me what kind of local prep these shows do. Read the local newspaper? Really? What's really hurting radio is the lack of imagination, the lack of willingness to try something beyond the way it's been done for years.

Sure a couple of companies are firing staff, and everyone knows who they are. But if you look at the majority of companies, including Entercom, CBS, Cox, Townsquare, Pamal, and more, they're all operating with full staffs of local talent. A lot of them are local after 7. But if you listen to what they're doing, it's not very imaginative, and it's not very local, other than in promoting local concerts or events. The rest is national, because that's what people are talking about. It's not for lack of staff. And if you look at the ratings in markets where they operate, despite all the staff cutbacks and bad morale you talk about, Clear Channel in particular is doing very well.

 

[landtuna]

Radio is losing talent fast - and not just on air. Sales and management people are fleeing in the face of "beancounter radio", where everything MUST be quantifiable on a spreadsheet.

Radio may want to read the history of the American auto industry of the 70's to see what bean counting can do to an industry.