What's wrong with radio.

[Casey Anthony]

I'm not going to be the typical, bitter radio person who thinks he knows what's wrong with radio. I have my own ideas, but I thought it would be a good thread to start as to what you, radio people, think has happened to the radio industry.

I listened to a radio show 2 days ago and he mentioned his website, what was on it, what the "video of the day" was, some of the news stories on there, and even talked about a few other things on his website. In 15 minutes, he gave his website address 3 times.

3.

Know how many times he gave the call letters or the frequency?

0.

Not even going in to his :20 break.

Radio hosts have become nothing more than catalysts to their websites or to the station's Facebook account.

Listeners who want to find that will find it without you giving it out. When I listen to a radio show, I want to hear about things going on, not a 15 minute advertisement for your stupid website.

Someone, please, make it stop.

 

[KeithE4]

I'm not going to be the typical, bitter radio person who thinks he knows what's wrong with radio. I have my own ideas, but I thought it would be a good thread to start as to what you, radio people, think has happened to the radio industry.

I listened to a radio show 2 days ago and he mentioned his website, what was on it, what the "video of the day" was, some of the news stories on there, and even talked about a few other things on his website. In 15 minutes, he gave his website address 3 times.

3.

Know how many times he gave the call letters or the frequency?

0.

Not even going in to his :20 break.

If he has listeners, by definition they know the frequency of the station. Call letters are meaningless to anyone but the FCC unless they are used as part of the station branding.

Radio hosts have become nothing more than catalysts to their websites or to the station's Facebook account.

Listeners who want to find that will find it without you giving it out. When I listen to a radio show, I want to hear about things going on, not a 15 minute advertisement for your stupid website.

Someone, please, make it stop.

Nope. Welcome to the 21st century. A business' website and Facebook and/or twitter pages are among their best advertising tools. Only word-of-mouth is better. Probably 90-95% of American have some kind of web access, either at home or at work (or both). What better method is there to market one's product (radio or something else)? Some do take it a bit too far, but one can get more info from a station's website than having to wait for it to be broadcast over the air.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Maybe this thread should be linked to or interwoven with a companion thread titled: Re: What's wrong with PEOPLE.

I have contributed ample content to other threads and made my share of critical observations about "where radio is at" but my immediate response and contribution to this discussion is that if we are going to understand what is happening to radio today, we have to become conversant, even experts, on what has changed in our country, our civilization, our people. I am the "trail wrangler" for the website of a local political group. Our group is mature adults. I can't understand or keep up with how they have gone ga-ga over Facebook. I participate in the "communications package" for my place-of-worship and we are not a rock-n-roll youth movement group... and once again new media, social media and Facebook are beginning to crowd out traditional forms of media.

Those of us who "paid our dues" in the broadcasting world at some time in the past, and dreamed that later in life maybe we could have the luxury of hanging out at the radio station and doing some programming are prone to cluck out tongues and say: What's wrong with radio. Once we figure out what's wrong with what we thought was our audience, maybe we can make some meaningful contribution to this thread.

In the meantime, "Eat More Kale!"

 

[Silkie]

If he has listeners, by definition they know the frequency of the station. Call letters are meaningless to anyone but the FCC unless they are used as part of the station branding.

If listeners are anything at all like me in their listening habits they hit the tuner, and when they come upon the sound they were looking for they stop. If they should happen to call in for a contest and win, they are asked what station they are listening to. They stammer and stutter a bit, because they only want to be there for that program. In my case I listened for a short time after that - a few weeks - but the slot for my listening time of day was so awful that I just went for the programs that I liked. It required a great deal of work with the FM antenna, because the station was and is pretty well out of range for all but the Internet, and sometimes a car. When the programs that I liked were gone, first because of how the timing was set, and then because they were gone entirely, I did not bother to make an effort. For Internet listening I want to enjoy what I am listening to.

 

[TheBigA]

Listeners who want to find that will find it without you giving it out. When I listen to a radio show, I want to hear about things going on, not a 15 minute advertisement for your stupid website.

Couple things about this comment. First of all, I don't know what market you're in, but if it's monitored by PPM, then the call letters and frequency no longer matter. That used to be an issue for Arbitron diaries, and you gave the call letters and frequency into and out of every song. It was drilled into your head. No more. Doesn't matter. The other thing we know from PPM is that any talk in a music format is a turn-off. So how do you do personality development without causing people to change the station? You build fans with your blog or social media. I know a guy who does two shows: One on the air, and the other one on Twitter. The Twitter show is an interactive conversation with his listeners, and it's fascinating. He uses it to drive people to other features he does on his blog. New music features that allow him to introduce new music that his station isn't playing yet. Once again, it's about personality development. And it's all done with the support of his bosses. Because it's driving P1s to the station. The listeners feel they know the DJ more than if he was just a one-dimensional character on the radio, and they get to interact with him in ways they never could before. The other thing is that when you speak on the radio, once you say it, it's gone. But if you create a podcast of some funny bits, it will be available for listeners when your shift is over. In that way, you can be on the air 24/7 without actually being there. If you're a personality on a radio station, you need to build your audience any way you can, or there's no reason for you to be there. Simply giving the call letters isn't enough to justify your salary. But if you can create content and drive audiences to another place where the station can put advertising, then you're just a more valuable employee.

As we move along in the 21st century, there will be a lot of changes in the way radio interacts with its audience. It will seem foreign or crazy to older listeners. But it's simply applying the new realities of the multi-platform media marketplace to radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The other thing we know from PPM is that any talk in a music format is a turn-off.

You say stuff like this, and we're supposed to accept it as fact. Could you please show me one study that says this? That may be true of a few background formats, but it's certainly not true in a great number of foreground formats where music is a prominent part of the programming. It's not true according to several studies that show listeners complaining because they want more information about the music they're listening to. It can be as simple as backsells. It can be a lot more relational and lifestyle-oriented.

You paint with a very broad brush. Let's see some specifics.

 

[TheBigA]

You paint with a very broad brush. Let's see some specifics.

Just about every study on PPM that has been done, from Edison Research, Coleman, or any of the various research companies, have all agreed that the amount of talk on music radio should be measured carefully. I'll admit my comment was a bit extreme when I said ANY talk is a turn off. And you make a good point that a lot of it has to do with the format, and the original poster didn't mention what format he listens to. And yes, I speak with a very broad brush. But one thing I've heard over and over from programmers in all formats is that talk for the sake of talk is not good in a PPM world. If you want to do personality development, the best place to do it off the air.

 

[davideduardo]

Could you please show me one study that says this?

Besides the already mentioned studies from the major radio research companies, we also have the moment to moment, ongoing, 24/7 MediaMonitor data that can show us reaction to every song and break and stopset.

If there is tuneout every time a song is played, over enough plays to make the data reliable, then the song is dead.

If a morning show bit does the same thing every time that character, subject or content is used, Stop It!

The findings, for essentially every format, are that talk is negative unless direct, to the point and very fast. Even talk based morning shows are seen to improve if the song count is increased, bits are made shorter, character voices and sidekicks are scaled back or eliminated, etc.

Seacrest on KIIS is an example of several of these points: several years ago, the new Amp, also a CHR, did nearly pure music in mornings and briefly beat Seacrest. KIIS reacted by working with Seacrest to make the talk more condensed, the content more sharply focused and they killed the idle chatter and fill. More songs, faster pace... back to #1 in mornings.

That may be true of a few background formats, but it's certainly not true in a great number of foreground formats where music is a prominent part of the programming.

News flash: since TV took over drama and comedy and the family no longer sits around the radio listening to The Lone Ranger and Jack Benny, all radio is a background affair. We drive, work, cook, eat, jog or whatever while we listen.

And the excess of talk "problem" is part of every music format.

It's not true according to several studies that show listeners complaining because they want more information about the music they're listening to. It can be as simple as backsells. It can be a lot more relational and lifestyle-oriented.

Every study I've done, and that means over 1,000, shows listeners want to know song titles and artist of the songs they don't know. But, if the study digs a bit deeper, you find that listeners don't want to hear artist and title for songs they do know. And each listener knows different songs.

So for most listeners, artist and title are booooorrrrinnnggg. Too much is a tune out, as it adds to clutter.

Besides that, you hit a moot point. With more and more listening on devices where the artist and title are displayed on a screen or display, it's really not necessary to say anything about the songs... unless its something like "... and she's going to sing tonight on the Grammys...

In Gold based formats, how much does a listener need to know the artist and title?

You paint with a very broad brush. Let's see some specifics.

The brush is not as broad as you think. In PPM markets, there are some new truths that have been revealed across the board.

 

[flashback]

it is a good thing radio did not use ppm to decide ratings when djs like larry lujack were on.

it is a shame that we can not hear great personality dj shows like the one he did anymore because of changing times.

 

[TheBigA]

it is a good thing radio did not use ppm to decide ratings when djs like larry lujack were on.

Instead, you had PDs like Paul Drew who kept tight control over the amount of time a Boss Radio DJ could speak. PPM simply proved something that Paul instinctively knew 50 years ago. And yet the Boss Jocks of that era are viewed as some of the best, and I think a lot of it had to do with their efficiency.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Verbal diarrhea has never been prized, but the pendulum has swung to the point where too many formats simply don't give people a chance to entertain. This is especially true outside of morning drive. When the "voice guy" is getting more minutes than the live jock, there's a problem.

Part of the problem is that there's very little guidance for talent from programmers burdened by running multiple stations, and even multiple formats. Too many PDs have been forced to become computer geeks, with little time or reward for riding herd on jocks, let alone working with them to improve. Yeah, "it's up to talent to develop their own skills" blah-blah-blah, but who benefits if they get better? The RADIO STATION.

It's all about investing in your own product, and radio's doing a lousy job of it.

 

[flashback]

it is a good thing radio did not use ppm to decide ratings when djs like larry lujack were on.

Instead, you had PDs like Paul Drew who kept tight control over the amount of time a Boss Radio DJ could speak. PPM simply proved something that Paul instinctively knew 50 years ago. And yet the Boss Jocks of that era are viewed as some of the best, and I think a lot of it had to do with their efficiency.

even with that djs like lujack and others had the time to develop good personality music shows.on occasion they were able to do more then a scentence or two to talk about some things.that seems to be a thing of the past.todays djs are now uninteresting.not because of them but limitations put upon them.

perhaps if the ratings were decided by older methods personality of djs could shine through again.

 

[TheBigA]

perhaps if the ratings were decided by older methods personality of djs could shine through again.

We're not going back to the past. The past is gone. People listened to Lujack because they had no choice. If they wanted to hear rock music, they had to sit through his yammering. They don't have to wait any more. DJs have lots of platforms where they can shine for the people who want that kind of entertainment. They can become talk show hosts or make podcasts for their blogs. Larry Lujack didn't have that opportunity.

 

[flashback]

perhaps if the ratings were decided by older methods personality of djs could shine through again.

We're not going back to the past. The past is gone. People listened to Lujack because they had no choice. If they wanted to hear rock music, they had to sit through his yammering. They don't have to wait any more. DJs have lots of platforms where they can shine for the people who want that kind of entertainment. They can become talk show hosts or make podcasts for their blogs. Larry Lujack didn't have that opportunity.
[/quote

so you are saying is music radio is for people with no attention span.

 

[TheBigA]

so you are saying is for the most part of music radio is for people with no attention span.

Depends on the format and the demo the station is aiming for. If the station is aiming at boomers, maybe not. But if the goal is people under the age of 50, the research is pretty clear: We live in a short attention span world.

 

[davideduardo]

perhaps if the ratings were decided by older methods personality of djs could shine through again.

The diary allowed stations with small loyal cores to look very big.

Nobody understood that the progression from mornings with music on Top 40 in the 50's and 60's to Zoo's with music and bits in the 70's to more and more talk in later years was not what listeners wanted. They listened because they lacked alternatives.

If you take Stern's LA or NY cumes and TSLs and project them into the PPM environment, Stern might not even have been in the Top 10 in the daypart.

As has been said, the diary measures memory, TSL and cume. The PPM measures cume and TSL.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sounds to me like more simplistic solutions for complex problems. When you look at the ratings leaders in both PPM and non-PPM markets, there are plenty of foreground personalities doing very well in music formats. You cite Seacrest. He's pretty foreground, no? They seem to like him fine in LA.

Good talent wins. Radio jukeboxes will lose the battle against listener-selected music streams. That's a simplistic answer, but I'm afraid it's valid. If radio doesn't have something else to offer, it will indeed become a buggy-whip industry.

 

[davideduardo]

Instead, you had PDs like Paul Drew who kept tight control over the amount of time a Boss Radio DJ could speak. PPM simply proved something that Paul instinctively knew 50 years ago. And yet the Boss Jocks of that era are viewed as some of the best, and I think a lot of it had to do with their efficiency.

Drew came relatively late to the Boss / Drake table. And I think that, while he got the brevity thing, he got it from observing Drake and his teams.

If anyone "got" the concept and implemented it, it was Ron Jacobs. I really recommend his book, which is a chronicle of KHJ including many of the internal memos. He could write two pages about how to make sure that every "93 KHJ" had to sound unique... and write one hammer-stroke line to a jock who was windy or imprecise.

Another example of the style was KFRC's original Drake era PD, Tom Rounds. It's no coincidence that Rounds and Jacobs gathered up Casey Cassem and created American Top 40, which showed how telescoped information and features could make what was a generic countdown be one of history's most widely distributed radio shows.

 

[actixguy]

Whats wrong with radio? Thats not hard to figure out. It has a become a completely generic, no personality, no local flavor media. How many stations in the market you live in actually have stations with live jocks? Real live, local news? How many have formats that arent cookie cutter corporate scripted? Radio has lost its soul? When radio stations actually did local live news had jocks who local communities truly knew and advertisers were happy to pay to appear? That is pretty much gone now, killed by corporate radio. The worst thing the Feds did was deregulate. Instead of having 15 stations in market owned by maybe 5-10 different owners we know have the same 15 owned by 2 or 3. Their is little real competition other than from other sources of advertising to compete. Local radio as we knew it is dead.

 

[TheBigA]

Local radio as we knew it is dead.

The key part of your post is "as we knew it." But then again, when you consider the incredible sociological revolution that has taken place in the last 25 years brought about by personal communications, it's no wonder. The past is the past, and the only people who mope about it are from that generation. They're suffering from "old foggie" disease.

But in point of fact, most of radio has remain unchanged. You still have local personalities, even in small markets, although they're mainly available in morning and afternoon drive. Local news is actually experiencing a rebirth right now. Why? Because the stations can own the content, as opposed to music, which is owned by record labels. There are more all-news stations now than there were before deregulation.

When it comes to advertisers, they prefer the corporate stations. Why? Because those stations tend to be the top-rated stations in town. They are more likely to have active web sites so they can offer advertisers multi-platform advertising. As fir "little real competition from other sources of advertising," you obviously haven't tried to sell advertising lately. Radio stations are competing with cable companies, TV stations, local web sites, direct mail campaigns (perhaps the #1 outlet for local ad dollars), and hyper local newspapers.

Corporate radio companies only own a small percentage of total radio stations. So there are still thousands of radio owners.
In fact, radio has far more diverse ownership than practically any other industry. Consider the choices you have when it comes to department stores. Back in the old days, every town had a local department store. Now, you have Wal Mart, Sears, and maybe Macys (if you're lucky).

So in conclusion, yes radio as you knew it is dead. Then again, radio as your grandparents knew it died in 1945. And AM radio as your parents knew it died in 1978. Every 30 or so years, radio changes. The changes we're seeing in radio were due to happen regardless of deregulation. These changes were going to happen because things change every generation or so. It's the way of the world.