Where Does Anyone See Radio and TV in the Next Few Years

[MediaLover]

I wanted to start a discussion to ask where does anyone see AM, FM and TV locally in Cleveland and Northeast Ohio going in a few years?

I believe there'll be more talk formats heading to FM and less music, unless there's still a need for different formats. Big AMs like 1100, 850 and 1420 will still be around, but the smaller ones are more troublesome unless owned by a national company.

Country, Hip-Hop and Top 40 are likely to still be big with music. Rock (except for Classic) might be a tougher sell as time goes on.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Tim]

3 days and no replies to a pretty interesting topic

Hmmm. That tells you all you need to know about the likely future of commercial radio, at least as it is now in 2013. Wow!

Every year the Napster, etc./downloaders of songs on-line generation of the 90's gets older and older.

They were teens in the early 90's...and are in their late 20's into their 30's in 2013. They drifted from heavy radio listening then. What makes you think all of a sudden they'll change their media habits & drift to radio now? Ahhhh....not impossible, but not likely.

Haven't most of you noticed most major formats in 2013 focus on adults 35-54? Why do you think that is? And, soon, that 35-54 demo will be 45-64.

I agree with your post to a point. Music on radio in the future? Either something new or different, or songs no newer than 1980's music...when the last generation of mass-heavy radio listeners were in their teens. Radio's reached it's age floor.

Talk radio will get away from their 35-year reliance on heavily politically-oriented talk, as many people are finallly figuring out little changes in the everyday lives of most of us if blue or red are in charge. So, talk has to find topics that will attract the masses.

It's time to shut off the automation and voice-tracking....and hire live, real, creative on-air folks with something of interest to say, and music that's not the same old same old 300-400 tracks over and over and over and over.

Create content that's so compelling that people will listen through advertising for.

 

[TheBigA]

It's time to shut off the automation and voice-tracking....and hire live, real, creative on-air folks with something creative to say, and music that's not the same old same old 300-400 tracks over and over and over and over.

Create content that's so compelling that people will listen through advertising for.

The really creative people want to get paid too much for a single local station in Cleveland. And we all know that the larger the playlist, the smaller the audience.

 

[Tim]

Current music is too easy to hear on-line. A whole generation of people now under age 35 (or so) get it there. Not 100% of people under 35, but many of them.

It would seem that means play nothing newer than 80's music on radio, unless you're a niche format...and rarely do niches make huge bucks.

I'm guessing there are tens of thousands of talented people, some former radio people, who'd gladly work in radio if it paid even a living wage. Don't think most of 'em are expecting 100K+.

If you guys noticed...there's a TON of "800" number spots on radio in drive times (those are "P.I.'s"...per inquiry...that pay only per call...and not much at that), and more smaller, 1-location advertisers on larger stations (even local TV). That tells you radio, even TV, isn't getting the ad rates they used to...rates smaller businesses never could've afforded before. The larger, national advertisers are diverting more and more of their advertising budgets to digital/on-line...because they know that's where millions and millions of consumers are spending more & more media time.

When radio ad revenues finally fade even more, only then the radio industry will make changes to try & rebound. The point is...will it be too late by then?

 

[TheBigA]

Current music is too easy to hear on-line. A whole generation of people now under age 35 (or so) get it there. Not 100% of people under 35, but many of them.

You'd be surprised how many people under 35 listen to OTA radio. It's a lot more than you'd expect. Why? Because, it's cheap, easy, quick, and serves the purpose.

I'm guessing there are tens of thousands of talented people, some former radio people, who'd gladly work in radio if it paid even a living wage. Don't think most of 'em are expecting 100K+.

You should spend some time listening to audition tapes.

 

[davideduardo]

That tells you radio, even TV, isn't getting the ad rates they used to...rates smaller businesses never could've afforded before. The larger, national advertisers are diverting more and more of their advertising budgets to digital/on-line...because they know that's where millions and millions of consumers are spending more & more media time.

Cleveland billings:

1993 $64,000,000
2013 $89,000,000

The peak was nearly $110,000,000 just before the recession. Today's numbers are in recovery mode, just like nearly every other business.

Even adjusted for inflation, we still don't have the kinds of losses you suggest.

 

[davideduardo]

3
Haven't most of you noticed most major formats in 2013 focus on adults 35-54? Why do you think that is? And, soon, that 35-54 demo will be 45-64.

Please explain KIIS and KPWR and KBIG in Los Angeles. Or KHKS in Dallas. Or WHTZ, WKTU and WSKQ in New York. Or WBBM-FM and WGCI in Chicago. KBXX and KLTN in Houston. WPOW, WEDR, WRTO and WHYI in Miami. And so on.

There are successful 18-34 stations at the tops of their markets, just as there are successful 35-54 stations and 25-44 stations and all manner of different focuses within the 18-54 sales demos.

 

[johnbasalla]

My 20-something nieces are constant radio listeners when they are in the car.

 

[johnbasalla]

Laws against texting while driving, and laws - or at least heavy messaging - to curb cell phone use while driving will also increase radio listening in vehicles.

 

[Tim]

What David is claiming is the opposite of what I've heard from people I know who work in the business, advertising agencies, and associated businesses. Oh, and a couple medium market station owners. These folks are seeing major changes in the one area that's far and away their biggest concern: ad dollars.

Nobody's claiming radio is falling a part overnight. TV either. But, a steady decline in advertising dollars isn't a guess, isn't my opinion, it is a fact.

Total ad dollars is up. But, share of spent ad dollars for radio is in decline. Advertisers, like consumers, now have many more choices. So, fragmentation is probably the best way to describe what's happening.

Radio's time spent listening is down. Not cume, but TSL. Oh, this isn't from me...it's from Arbitron.

None of us who love the way the industry used to be are happy about this. But, as much as we may want to hang onto the past, times are changing.

 

[TheBigA]

None of us who love the way the industry used to be are happy about this. But, as much as we may want to hang onto the past, times are changing.

For some reason, you're focusing only on the bad news. Why? The picture is far bigger than what you present.

TSL has been in decline for 25 years. Why? Lots more to do besides listen to the radio. There has been for 25 years.

There will be NO going back to "the way the industry used to be." All of us who work in the industry understand that. Why not you? There's nothing radio can do that will get me or anyone else to stop using our computers and cell phones. We live in the real world, not the past.

 

[Tim]

The Big A just made my point (though that was not his intention).

For radio to have a place in our media mix in the years ahead, it has to get back to offering something compelling...not just a few hundred songs, sweepers, canned back-sells, and mounds of commercials.

The employees of radio stations haven't hurt the industry, it's the bean counters who've cut staff to the bone, and sucked the life...the humanity out of the business, all for the sake of cutting overhead by operating with as few employees as humanly possible.

When consumers find less and less appealing content in radio, they go elsewhere...and the ad dollars will follow them.

I find it incredibly sad that the radio industry as it is in 2013, is killing itself. And, that's a shame for a media, as somebody else pointed out, is portable & easily accessed by millions and millions of people worldwide.

 

[Unregistered]

Cleveland billings:

1993 $64,000,000
2013 $89,000,000

The peak was nearly $110,000,000 just before the recession. Today's numbers are in recovery mode, just like nearly every other business.

Even adjusted for inflation, we still don't have the kinds of losses you suggest.

I would be curious to see the billings for Akron, Canton, Youngstown and Columbus.

In the case of Akron and Canton, they are separate radio markets but are combined as one TV market. And there is no way that they could be combined together with the Cleveland market without those stations suffering as a result, particularly WHBC-AM, WDJQ, WNIR and WAKR - signals which only cover their specific market, and little else.

Youngstown is an interesting market. One that has suffered a population implosion due to a prolonged economic depression dating back to the 1980s, if not earlier. It's been documented elsewhere, but that market has a subclass of signal-impaired low-power AM stations that have literally no audience, no consistency in programming or staffing, and thus, no sales and no billing... three of which of silent and can only be worth something if they have an FM translator attached.

Then you have Columbus, which has seen a consistent population boom as people are moving into the city. Consequently, there are a number of move-in FM signals by the major clusters... one from Marion, another from Chillicothe, another from Zanesville, plus stations in Lancaster, Newark and Delaware that are rimshot signals. It's also a market where the Columbus Dispatch had to move WBNS-AM's sports format (and valuable Buckeyes flagship rights) over to FM because the market literally outgrew the AM stations' night pattern.

 

[vjm]

I would be curious to see the billings for Akron, Canton, Youngstown and Columbus.

In the case of Akron and Canton, they are separate radio markets but are combined as one TV market. And there is no way that they could be combined together with the Cleveland market without those stations suffering as a result, particularly WHBC-AM, WDJQ, WNIR and WAKR - signals which only cover their specific market, and little else.

Youngstown is an interesting market. One that has suffered a population implosion due to a prolonged economic depression dating back to the 1980s, if not earlier. It's been documented elsewhere, but that market has a subclass of signal-impaired low-power AM stations that have literally no audience, no consistency in programming or staffing, and thus, no sales and no billing... three of which of silent and can only be worth something if they have an FM translator attached.

Then you have Columbus, which has seen a consistent population boom as people are moving into the city. Consequently, there are a number of move-in FM signals by the major clusters... one from Marion, another from Chillicothe, another from Zanesville, plus stations in Lancaster, Newark and Delaware that are rimshot signals. It's also a market where the Columbus Dispatch had to move WBNS-AM's sports format (and valuable Buckeyes flagship rights) over to FM because the market literally outgrew the AM stations' night pattern.

To be fair, The Buckeyes have been simulcast on WBNS AM/FM for many years regardless of what format the FM station has had.

What happened in the last 5 years or so was Dispatch moved their local sports talk to 97.1 FM, making 1460 pretty much a 24/7 ESPN Radio flanker (give or take scattered Buckeye related programming).

To compare it to Cleveland, WBNS 1460 serves the same role in C-Bus, that 1540 KNR2 does here.

 

[TheBigA]

I find it incredibly sad that the radio industry as it is in 2013, is killing itself. And, that's a shame for a media, as somebody else pointed out, is portable & easily accessed by millions and millions of people worldwide.

So for radio to succeed, it has to do what you want? Otherwise, they fail?

What is compelling? Radio right now has 230 million listeners. It's providing content people want.

The issue isn't about content, but the device. The listeners love the content. They prefer other devices.

Meanwhile, you ignored my question: why do you only focus on bad news?

 

[Unregistered]

The discussion is only focusing on the current state of affairs. It's not taking into account the possibility of wireless broadband streaming usurping the traditional AM/FM model. All that is missing is the receiver... it has to be more reliable than a cell phone (with something that won't suck up data usage or battery life like a vacuum) and a device that can also accept both AM and FM.

When that device comes forth, and when people get their heads out of their butts and enable wireless broadband in most places, that will be the equalizer for the medium. Broadcast range, directional signals, audio quality (especially considering the deterioration of AM exacerbated by poor receivers and the foolish adoption of the iBiquity in-band-on-channel standard) and other technical limitations... all will mean little. If you can make money with whatever you program, then you can *make it* as a broadcaster.

The problem is that the people who run organizations like the NAB are not forward thinkers. They are trying to prop up mediums that are failing with ideas that won't work. Try convincing someone under the age of 30 about the virtues of the AM dial. There is a reason why CBS made their FM sports radio initiative, culminating with a simulcast of WFAN on the FM dial.

 

[TheBigA]

The discussion is only focusing on the current state of affairs. It's not taking into account the possibility of wireless broadband streaming usurping the traditional AM/FM model. All that is missing is the receiver...

And then, all that's missing are consumers for that device.

There's this assumption going around that internet radio content is better than broadcast, and the fact is: it isn't.

Radio is much more expensive to do on the internet, which is why the content is so bad. The music royalties are killing online radio.

 

[bturner]

A few random comments...

Radio still has the masses. Over the past few decades Radio has seen a decline in time spent listening. For the most part, the reach is about what it has always been.

Some claim internet radio as the death knell for over the air radio. I don't see that in the statistics I see. I am not hearing or seeing the ad revenue there although internet advertising is increasing by leaps and bounds. The time spent listening that I see is very poor for internet only radio. Certainly the performance fees are based on percentages that are unrealistic even for over the air radio. There are huge numbers of over the air stations that would never get close to reaching that percentage in revenue required of internet only radio by Sound Exchange.

Many people are listening to radio on their phones, not their radios. Over the air radio is, more and more, not heard on a device we named "radio".

I have to wonder how radio has done versus the onslaught of other media choices in the past couple of decades. Having no figures in front of me, I cannot express an opinion. I would assume radio has fared pretty well.

I believe radio is in a place where it is searching for its new normal. Radio has evolved through the decades. We're sort of house hunting at this point, trying to locate our new place as we grasp all that is around us and attempt to put everything we can to work for us. The radio might be like those big black CDs in a few years, but I think it is the listening device that will change as radio evolves once more.

 

[davideduardo]

The discussion is only focusing on the current state of affairs. It's not taking into account the possibility of wireless broadband streaming usurping the traditional AM/FM model. All that is missing is the receiver... it has to be more reliable than a cell phone (with something that won't suck up data usage or battery life like a vacuum) and a device that can also accept both AM and FM.

You are limiting broadcasters to AM and FM by your argument.

Radio owners are not in the transmitter business. They are in the content delivery business, with the content being supported by advertising.

There is a transition in distribution from Steel in the Sky to new media. The devices already exist, and consist of smartphones, tablets and computers. In general, consumers want one device that "holds" all their entertainment options... radio, video, TV, music, photos, chatting and texting. There is no market for a device that is "just" a new-fangled radio.

Broadcast owners are trying to make the transition within the limits of the advertising based model that supports them. What is not needed is a new band or a new kind of radio. The audience has no need for either.

 

[davideduardo]

Over the air radio is, more and more, not heard on a device we named "radio". .

Great statement.

It's interesting that the listeners "out there" consider "radio" today to be "anything without pictures". So, a stream, a podcast, satellite and AM and FM are all radio to the consumer. Only the traditionalists and Luddites in the business continue to say stuff like "Pandora is not radio".