• 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 REASON FOR RADIO?

landtuna said:
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.

That's one interpretation of history. Another would be how the automobile unions drove the industry to the brink of bankruptcy. The money has to come from somewhere. Easy to blame "bean counters" but someone has to but the brakes on rising costs. The executives kept granting huge raises at a time when imports were increasing competition and driving down car prices. The auto industry was fine until other countries showed you can build cars for a lot less. Same with radio. That's what competition does: It drives down prices. The only option after that is cut costs.
 
TheBigA said:
landtuna said:
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.

That's one interpretation of history. Another would be how the automobile unions drove the industry to the brink of bankruptcy. The money has to come from somewhere. Easy to blame "bean counters" but someone has to but the brakes on rising costs. The executives kept granting huge raises at a time when imports were increasing competition and driving down car prices. The auto industry was fine until other countries showed you can build cars for a lot less. Same with radio. That's what competition does: It drives down prices. The only option after that is cut costs.

My point, of course, was that bean counting as the primary management tool allowed (forced?) the industry to produce cheap products which were of very poor quality. Obviously there were other factors but what permitted the imports to essentially take over the market was their general overall high quality as compared with the junk coming out of Detroit.

Something similar could be said about the radio industry today. It has severe external challenges and to meet those by depreciating the product with things like voice-tracking and lack of locally-oriented content will result in the same damage that our auto industry encountered. Unlike GM and Chrysler though OTA radio isn't "too big to fail".
 
landtuna said:
Obviously there were other factors but what permitted the imports to essentially take over the market was their general overall high quality as compared with the junk coming out of Detroit.

Not true. The battle mainly was over price. The early imports were terrible quality. Datsuns were horrible. British and Italian imports were also terrible. Same with the Yugo. People bought them because they were cheap, not because they were good. Like McDonalds and WalMart. The quality cars were still being made in Detroit, but they were more expensive. The Japanese didn't even get into the luxury car business until the late 80s. The other issue was the cost of gas. American cars were not as efficient, but that's because they had big engines. The foreign cars had smaller engines, smaller, lighter, cheaper bodies and frames, thus used less gas. Foreign cars that had comparable quality and gas efficiency were made in Germany, but were more expensive than the Japanese, thus they didn't really challenge Detroit in terms of sales.
 
TheBigA said:
The quality cars were still being made in Detroit, but they were more expensive.

The early imports did not have the quality which showed up in the 80s. Detroit was not making quality cars in the 70s and 80s! I was System Administrator/Director of Information Systems for a dealer in the 1980s who had more Chevy franchises than anybody else in the country. And he had stores for some other brands. When we got into a "pissing match" with Chevy over the question: Are you building bad cars? and Chevy saying: Are you not properly prepping the cars before delivery?..... I was the guy who dug into the database and came up with the mother of all queries that analyzed every service department repair order for any car that came into the shop for a warranty issue when the speedometer still showed less than 1,000 miles. The Chevy report was seven pages, single spaced, for our one main store. Just for grins, I ran the same query on our Honda store on the campus. About SEVEN LINES on one page! We were selling three Chevies for each Honda we sold. So the ratio was about 50 to 1.

We concluded one of the problems was that Detroit executives simply had their secretary arrange to get them a new demo before the ash tray got filled. They had no idea that NEW CARS were crapping out early, early in their life. They never had to take a half-day or day off work to go wait at the dealership while a crappy car was repaired. The never had to aruge with the cashier or the service manager about the cost of replacing a water pump. Their pocket book never felt the pain of paying to have the alternator, the A/C compressor and the power steering pump removed so the tech could get to the water pump that was typically the first of those items to fail.

I guess some of us wonder if radio today suffers that same syndrome. The guy running the big radio conglomerate doesn't understand what it is like to sit here this afternoon in the hills of North Georgia with the sound of thunder in the air and the occasion blink of my monitor.... and his blankety-blank radio station doesn't have any report for me as to whether I can plan to go pick up a prescription in town... or should I gather up Mama and barricade ourselves in the little space where we go when the weather gets really nasty. Guess I'll go downstairs and turn on the TV and find out.

By the way. My last Detroit purcahse was a 1990 Buick... purchased from the people where I had been doing the computer administration. I needed it for my new road job. The Buick went sour on me at 70,000 miles so we went over in the next block and replaced it with a Camry. It got totalled, but the second Camry is now the "beater" sitting out in the rain today with 160,000 miles and NO SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS... and still has the origina. muffler. Never in my life did I get that kind of return from anything built in Detroit.

Paid more for the Camry than I paid for the Buick. Go figure.

So... what is your next example that we can compare to radio? ;D

So... looking at the SUJECT LINE again: What is the reason for radio (today) ?
 
TheBigA said:
SirRoxalot said:
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.

It must be that I'm living in an unusual market then, because that's simply NOT how radio is done here on the leading stations with live and local staff. There's a LOT more local content, and it doesn't sound the same as the generic morning shows running on some of the stations running syndication. Syndication, in fact, has never done very well here. Yes, even Stern got his butt kicked in the days when he was on terrestrial radio.

We even have people who look at the many available traffic cams and do their own traffic, with the correct pronunciation of the streets, and correct descriptions of traffic patterns. It ain't exactly rocket science, but it sure sounds lousy when people get it wrong.

These days, all music is "national", mostly because you'll be putting your career on the line if you don't follow the national music charts or "suggestions" from the corporate programmers. But, once again, what differentiates stations these days is more about what's there besides the music. In other words, the value-added part.

Yeah, we've got some of the radio that you describe. It's on the second tier stations for the most part. Or on stations with no direct competition.
 
TheBigA said:
landtuna said:
Obviously there were other factors but what permitted the imports to essentially take over the market was their general overall high quality as compared with the junk coming out of Detroit.

Not true. The battle mainly was over price. The early imports were terrible quality. Datsuns were horrible. British and Italian imports were also terrible. Same with the Yugo. People bought them because they were cheap, not because they were good. Like McDonalds and WalMart. The quality cars were still being made in Detroit, but they were more expensive. The Japanese didn't even get into the luxury car business until the late 80s. The other issue was the cost of gas. American cars were not as efficient, but that's because they had big engines. The foreign cars had smaller engines, smaller, lighter, cheaper bodies and frames, thus used less gas. Foreign cars that had comparable quality and gas efficiency were made in Germany, but were more expensive than the Japanese, thus they didn't really challenge Detroit in terms of sales.

We're getting a bit far afield here but let me submit a slight correction for your consideration.

During the period beginning in 1958 Americans began wanting less expensive cars. Detroit responded with the Corvair, Pinto and Dart. Two of the three were death traps and the Dart looked like something the government designed although it did come with an innovative Slant 6 engine. Alternatives included AMC's line of mostly small cars and an assortment of mostly terrible imports such as Fiat, Renault, Hillman, and oddities like the Isetta and Messerschmitt. At the time price was a big consideration although only the VW Beetle made any sort of market penetration. There were a smattering of Japanese cars but they were shoe boxes in size and grossly underpowered for American highways.

Halfway through the 60's the second-generation Corvair was introduced as a significant improvement over the original (although sales continued to take a beating primarily as a result of Nader's criticism of the first generation car), Pinto was on the decline due to its propensity to explode when impacted from the rear, and AMC was essentially out of business. The Chrysler K-car was the primary fleet purchase for the federal government to try to keep MoPar in business but it was not a financial bargain for anyone who had to maintain it. Meanwhile, the Japanese cars were getting bigger, with engines and transmissions more adequate for the American market and still killing on price. By the mid-70's there were more Japanese badges on the road and the quality of their vehicles outshone Detroit. During this same time Detroit attempted to address economy of operation with such epic failures as the Chevy Vega, Oldsmobile diesel and a series of renamed platforms such as the Pinto/Mustang and the Chevy/Cadillac. Japan was building innovative high quality vehicles (for the most part) and Detroit was offering up parts bin specials. The war had been lost and it wasn't until very recently that American cars, with minor exceptions, could hold a candle to the Japanese.

You can argue that it was merely a price issue and the more expensive American manufacturing could not compete on price. True enough but also remember that, in the end, people will pay for quality but most will not waste any amount of money on a piece of junk.

The last new American vehicle I purchased was a 1978 Chevy Blazer. It came from the factory severely misaligned. So much so you could follow it in another car and it rode down the highway sideways, like a dog. In contrast, I bought a '74 Mazda RX4 wagon which had all the body seams aligned, ran so smooth and quiet you could hear the analog clock ticking in the dash and could outrun virtually any vehicle in its class. 12 years ago I bought a '00 Toyota Avalon with much the same experience. Neither car ever saw the shop except for normal maintenance. My daughter still has the Avy which now has 125,000+ miles on it and still has not seen a repair shop. Last year I bought a '11 Hyundai Santa Fe and have been equally impressed with it. Interestingly, I paid just a tick more for the Santa Fe last year than I did for the Avalon 12 years ago.

During the last decade American cars have gotten much better than they were a generation ago but there is much more intense competition as well. Looking up and down my street, a fairly well-to-do neighborhood, there are only two houses out of more than a dozen with American cars in their driveway. One is an F-150 and the other is a Volt.
 
landtuna said:
You can argue that it was merely a price issue and the more expensive American manufacturing could not compete on price. True enough but also remember that, in the end, people will pay for quality but most will not waste any amount of money on a piece of junk.

I agree that we're getting off the point. Let me bring it back to the topic by saying that American cars didn't get bad because of bean counters. They got bad because Detroit took its eye off the ball. But they were still paying auto workers tons of money, those workers continued to get great benefits, and the system that created great cars simply started making bad cars. And the prices for those bad cars kept going up, because the contracts for the workers kept going up. At some point, the system breaks.

How does this relate to radio? How many employees does it take to run a radio stream on the internet? Compare the number of employees at Sirius to the same at Clear Channel. And CC isn't in as many markets at Sirius. My point is that new media has proven you can reach the same number of people for less. OTA radio is trying to compete, but the revenue stream can't support the old costs. something has to give. Ultimately, most of the car plants in Detroit shut down. And they reopened in southern states where they didn't have entrenched union contracts. The cars have improved, but not because of the amount of money they spend on making them. Sirius comes up with more creative radio than most OTA stations. Not because they spend more money. Spending more money doesn't necessarily result in better product. And if the revenues don't allow for the employees to get paid, something has got to give. That's where we're at with radio. So don't blame the bean counters. Getting rid of the accountants won't change the main problem with radio or cars.
 
TheBigA said:
Ultimately, most of the car plants in Detroit shut down. And they reopened in southern states where they didn't have entrenched union contracts. The cars have improved, but not because of the amount of money they spend on making them. Sirius comes up with more creative radio than most OTA stations. Not because they spend more money. Spending more money doesn't necessarily result in better product. And if the revenues don't allow for the employees to get paid, something has got to give. That's where we're at with radio. So don't blame the bean counters. Getting rid of the accountants won't change the main problem with radio or cars.

Let me bring up a topic again at the risk of seemingly beating a dead horse. There was something bigger in moving auto plants to "virgin territory". They didn't all leave Detroit. Some left St. Louis. A couple left Atlanta. We are back to Lean Process. Japan beat Detroit on Lean Process. Detroit faced hurdles implementing "Demming Management" in the established plants, the union plants. With new plants in communities eager to please the new found employer, these workers did not push back. They embraced "just in time" production and other facets of a new concept of quality and efficiency. Detroit began to blossom once again when they ate humble pie and adopted what is also commonly called "Toyota Quality Techniques".

I see that since my earlier explanation and questions, NO ONE has been able to come forward and say: "Soda Crackers Broadcasting" has instituted Lean Process and they are beginning to lead the pack in their region.

Facebook or Google or General Electric or maybe Adobe will come along and revolutionize on-line and podcasting with Lean Process once of these days and possibly leave tradition radio asking: Where the hell did out business and our audience go... and WHY?
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
We are back to Lean Process. Japan beat Detroit on Lean Process.

Interesting thought. Too bad Sony and the Japanese electronics industry didn't learn from their auto cousins. Maybe it's a function of the age of an industry in it's culture. But Sony could use a lot of leaning.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
NO ONE has been able to come forward and say: "Soda Crackers Broadcasting" has instituted Lean Process and they are beginning to lead the pack in their region.

As I said, even after all the staff cuts, Clear Channel is still doing pretty well in the ratings. So that might be what you're talking about.

Maybe I'm missing something but none of the companies you listed, from Facebook to Google to GE to even Adobe has really entered the content business. Perhaps they've realized there's no money in it. People get content for free. That's why OTA radio has survived.
 
I did not read all the posts in this thread so I'm replying to the OP only. Radio is simply that - a business. If they don't make money with it the stations either go off the air or they sell to another broadcaster. There's where you see the cookie clutter programming. If they didn't have to make money with it, you'd probably get some very unique programming and formats in every market. It's the one thing I dislike about radio as a business - they take away the good stuff from time to time.
 
RadRadio23 said:
It's the one thing I dislike about radio as a business - they take away the good stuff from time to time.

But that's why Congress created public, non-commercial radio, to provide an alternative to radio as a business.
 
TheBigA said:
Maybe I'm missing something but none of the companies you listed, from Facebook to Google to GE to even Adobe has really entered the content business. Perhaps they've realized there's no money in it. People get content for free. That's why OTA radio has survived.

I used those company names as "placeholders" in a concept I am proposing. Those are companies who have madebreak-through business changes in the areas of business where they choose to play. Google has eaten the lunch of the old time search engine companies.

In another topic there is a discussion of what a break-through guy Gordon McClendon was in this industry... what... 50 year ago now? Though they play in the non-comm sand-box, I look upon NPR as an innovative pace setter and 30 years from now people will look back and realize NPR ended up leaving tell-tale marks on the commercial broadast world.

I look upon CC and Cumulus as setting new marks in operations and business efficiency. I don't see them generating new programming directions.

I assume there will be new players recognized in the next 15 to 20 years who may change radio the way Steve Jobs changed the industries he chose to bring innovation to. Who ever these people are, whoever this one person is, we may not recognize him/her coming until he bursts onto he market with a commanding lead that no one else can catch up to. I would argue that the breakthrough is likely to happen in a non-broadcast methodology because such a visionary will see the need to move fast and the FCC will choke his/her innovation to death before it can be born.
 
TheBigA said:
...As I said, even after all the staff cuts, Clear Channel is still doing pretty well in the ratings. So that might be what you're talking about....

Well, when I get in the car, I don't have much choice if I want to listen to the radio. The radio is already there with the push of a button. It takes extra effort to bring CDs with me or program an iPod and plug it into the system. Radio is more convenient.

And, yes, I posted the link to Coyote Calhoun at WAKY circa 1973. I posted that as an (extreme) example of a DJ offering something more than the music and being different compared to the competition. It's the "Life of the Party" thing I have mentioned, either in this thread or another thread.
 
PirateJohnny said:
And, yes, I posted the link to Coyote Calhoun at WAKY circa 1973. I posted that as an (extreme) example of a DJ offering something more than the music and being different compared to the competition. It's the "Life of the Party" thing I have mentioned, either in this thread or another thread.

Today that would be seen as something for people to vote on in a reality TV show.

It wasn't really very different...everyone in the format was screaming. It was the core of the famous Howard Hoffman "Nine" tape that came out around that time.
 
RadRadio23 said:
Radio is simply that - a business. If they don't make money with it the stations either go off the air or they sell to another broadcaster.

Not really because OTA there are limited number of stations for listener. For example Atlanta has 8 FM C0 or C1's (full power) that cover the whole market. 106.7 will become 106.5 and make 9. Counting movins at the most 20 Commercial FM signals.

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bi...p=Y&format=&dx=0&radius=&freq=&sort=freq&sid=

even New York only has 30 viable commercial FM signals.

http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bi...p=Y&format=&dx=0&radius=&freq=&sort=freq&sid=

This is not like the retail or food business, where if you can raise the capitol, you can usually put up a store and do business and compete. In Atlanta Cox and Cumulus both has 4 (20%) of the quality FM signals. In NYC, CBS and CC control 5 each almost a third of the quality FM signals. other forms of media aside, where is the reason for any of these clusters to innovate? By default they do not have to be great just a little better that the other (if there is one) station in their format.
 
secondchoice said:
other forms of media aside, where is the reason for any of these clusters to innovate? By default they do not have to be great just a little better that the other (if there is one) station in their format.

But you can't exclude other forms of media, because the consumers don't. That was proven during the hearings on the Sirius-XM merger. They determined that the public sees all media as the same, and satellite competes with OTA and other forms of radio. That finding is what justified the merger, and determined that one company owning all of satellite radio is not a monopoly. As for being "great," that has never been the motivation of commercial radio. The purpose is to get ratings. Innovation, such as it is, is motivated by attracting more people and making more money in the overall media marketplace.
 
That is the problem with OTA radio, we do not "worry" about the other forms of media just the direct (if there any) market other station. If we do not take care of the listeners then they will leave. Right now a lot of the industry is more worried about debt than listeners
 
secondchoice said:
Right now a lot of the industry is more worried about debt than listeners

I don't see anyone "worried about debt." Clear Channel just spent $12 million to buy a station in Boston. Cumulus is spending lots of money on stations and programming. All of this spending is about attracting listeners. And they ARE worrying about other forms of media. That's why they're spending money on things like iheartradio and radio.com.
 
A few hundred years ago there were a lot of people who worried about sailing too far from shore and falling off the edge of the earth. Some people did sail into waters too treacherous for their skill-set and they suffered a fate different than falling of the edge of the earth, but with the same outcome: We never heard from them again.

There was this guy named Columbus, and there were others, who had a vision of how the world was put together, and they ventured out to sea.

It matters not whether you are Romney building an empire known as Bain, Mulally bringing Ford back from the edge of the earth, Steve Jobs coming back a number of years ago to build Apple into what we know today, or the Melvin Simon organization owning, operating and building shopping centers near where you live, DEBT is just part of business. In fact, for most of us, DEBT is just part of personal life.

From a RADIO point of view (a listener, a fan, a team-member of the industry) we love to get CC down on the floor and stomp on them like some kind of college hazing event. If no one would loan CC all that money, they couldn't RUIN the tradition and memory we want to cling to.

From a business point of view, from the MBA point of view, borrowing money to acquire enterprises and to revamp enterprises is about a natural as some young couple having an extra fling at sexual activity on a long holdiday weekend. If you truly want to understand radio... The Big Picture... get over this fundamentalist view of debt! ;D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom