Where're The Listeners?

[skyrocker]

In this tenuous battle for survival we sometimes think of...as a
business story... but (it's) much more... It's a human tragedy
that ... inflicts pain on listeners and employees not just
investors and shareholders. - Jerry Del Colliano <insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com>

Many things in this entire radio fiasco are very twisted and some of them
much more rankling than others. Especially the way the whole thing is
reported soley as a piece of business news.

When I worked with CBS last time, there were corporate memos everywhere and
constantly. Within these memos were plenty of CYA language, but absolutely
NO priority for the station's listeners. NONE, whatsoever. Whenever I tried
to point this out, even take small, inexpensive corrective measures, I was
met with the full arsenal of resistance available to whichever annointed
corporate stooges. Perceiving everything through the lens of their bottom
line, all they could see was - there was something wrong with me.

A radio station is just a room full of equipment. Populate the place and you
have a bunch of bodies working with broadcasting machinery. All of which are
little more than useless without someone listening to their efforts. The
audience makes the entire idea come alive and viable.

Their audience once trusted their radio and believed in the people they
heard on it. People now very much gone and the subject of "Where's (insert
radio personality name)?" posts on this site.

One of the most frustrating gaps in radio's current dilemma is leaving its
listeners out of all reportage . As a performer, who held my audience in
highest respect, I'm relieved to finally KNOW why my services are no longer
being looked upon by management as a valuable means to help make money and
an investment in the business of broadcasting. I thought there was something
wrong with me.

No, rather, it's because my contribution is too small when put up alongside
their enormous debt. At management's top, they weren't even near the top of their
game. You and I, as newbies, would have made better business decisions.

This realization, however, while clarifying the big picture for me, does
nothing for my livelihood, nor for radio's jilted listeners.

And now, finally, the listeners, with more alternatives to turn to than than
ever before, can compare. And they're thinking - something's wrong with
the way they do radio here.

 

[RadioStarOne]

Amen, Skyrocker! You said it!

 

[TVradioguru]

Many things in this entire radio fiasco are very twisted and some of them
much more rankling than others. Especially the way the whole thing is
reported soley as a piece of business news.

When I worked with CBS last time, there were corporate memos everywhere and
constantly. Within these memos were plenty of CYA language, but absolutely
NO priority for the station's listeners.

Well first of all let me remind you that radio is a business...Always has been, always will be.

But I'm curious as are others I imagine; how are the best interests or priorities of listeners not being met? Care to give some specific examples?

Not to come off cold hearted, but is your rant just another non-specific "pitchfork and torch" ralley attempt on how the big bad corporations with no heart have ruined radio because you're no longer employed in the industry? Or do you have actual examples of how to "fix" radio, taking into account obvious factors such as the economy and ever-growing competition for listeners?

 

[Geek-O-Rama]

You are right, gur, it is a business. But without listeners, there is no business. The losses are among younger demos but isn't that because there is nobody giving them what they want. Not be a geezer but Top 40 happened because the teesn got to hear nothing but new music picked out by DJs who loved the music. A lot of the songs didn't make it but we go to hear tons of sonsg and decoide which 45s (downloads) we wanted to spend our 99 cents to buy.
12-24 years olds still tuen in but they don't stay long because they don't get the oen thing they want-new music.

 

[jprg]

Well said. I got out of radio in 2001, not because of being laid off but because I was working for a Christian radio station in Southern CA (where I live, but was born and raised in the Bay Area). The last station I would work for would be a religious station, but hey it was radio right. This used to be a fun business with cart machines, records, reel to reel tape etc and lots of creativity. I miss radio but then again, I don't with what's going on. Thank God for the iPOD which is now all I listen to.

 

[landtuna]

You are right, gur, it is a business. But without listeners, there is no business. The losses are among younger demos but isn't that because there is nobody giving them what they want. Not be a geezer but Top 40 happened because the teesn got to hear nothing but new music picked out by DJs who loved the music. A lot of the songs didn't make it but we go to hear tons of sonsg and decoide which 45s (downloads) we wanted to spend our 99 cents to buy. 12-24 years olds still tuen in but they don't stay long because they don't get the oen thing they want-new music.

I don't know about you but in my metro area there are many sources of "new" music (and I include Rap in that category even though it isn't close to being 'music') and only a few sources of "old" music (one is Classic Rock - an Oldie sub-set, one is almost all Oldies and the best pure Oldies is on a signal-deprived AM daytimer with inadequate coverage and a lousy signal).

I don't think it is the lack of "new" music that is not attracting teens to radio but rather:

1. Their ability to listen to exactly what they want to hear (new and old alike) without listening to anything they don't like to hear. Us *ahem* older folks never had that ability back in the day so it doesn't affect us as much. As a comparison, ask your teens if they will watch a movie, any movie, filmed in B&W. In my house, it is a struggle to get them to watch any B&W movie or classic TV show no matter how good it is. They will however, watch absolute crap as long as it's in color.

2. The constant barrage of commercials drives everyone, not just teens, away from radio. Since I was a teen (yes, we had car radios back then) I've noticed that as soon as a commercial comes on most people hit the button. In the old days there were usually several stations playing something you liked so no big deal. Not so today so people just forego the radio entirely if they want to listen to music.

One other point:

In the "old days" the music was new (to us) but likely as not was a RnR cover from a previous R&B or pop artist. The new music was mostly of the same genre group (BeBop, Rock, Pop) whereas today there are two main popular "music" formats - Hip Hop and Rap. I don't know one teen who listens to Rap and the rest seem to be split between Hip Hop and Techno. As most of the Hip Hop songs sound virtually identical there doesn't seem to be much "new". Perhaps a steady diet of Hip Hop also drives teens away. I know it does me.

Radio as a business will never succeed trying to be another iPod. But it has something portable music players don't have and that is the jocks. In the old days it was the jocks along with the music that made radio. With more and more automation and national "jockless" programming that listener-to-broadcaster affinity is being lost. That is what radio cannot afford to lose if it is to remain a viable music-broadcasting business.

By getting rid of the on-air personalities radio is cutting its own throat. As us "oldies" die off so will music radio and we'll be left with godcasting, infomercials and the likes of Limbaugh and his ilk. *UGH!*

 

[kinetic]

This article suggests a different reason why newspapers are struggling. I think their struggles parallel the problems facing radio. What I wonder is the reason he puts forth for newspapers can also be applied to radio.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215154

 

[DeadAudicy]

Well first of all let me remind you that radio is a business...Always has been, always will be.

The point might not have been that radio isn't a business, but seems more and more to be a failed business.

how are the best interests or priorities of listeners not being met?

Well, frankly, the customers are leaving the store. So the assumption could be made, without needing to cite specifics, that they are not being served.

The business model is for stations to provide entertainment in return for ears, which are sold in airtime dollars to advertisers. Now which part of this dynamic is currently missing? Listeners still have ears, and desire to be entertained. Advertisers still have businesses, and still wish to invite consumers.

And now, finally, the listeners, with more alternatives to turn to than than
ever before, can compare. And they're thinking - something's wrong with
the way they do radio here.

Here's where I disagree with the OP and coalesce my point. The aggregate listener doesn't think that deeply about what is wrong with any one delivery medium, but can devine what is right about the delivery of ultimate choice. If entertainment is present, so is the listener. If entertainment is consitent, the listener is loyal. More radio stations than not are simply failing to deliver listener-useable entertainment, and the model deteriorates.

If a radio station can present better and more entertainment than an ipod, the station is chosen over the ipod. In my small mind, still totally feasable. And difficult...wherein lies the dearth.

 

[landtuna]

This article suggests a different reason why newspapers are struggling. I think their struggles parallel the problems facing radio. What I wonder is the reason he puts forth for newspapers can also be applied to radio.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215154

There are two very different reasons for the decline in the newspaper business and only one, debt, applies to radio.

The main reason newspapers are being replaced by other means of communication are because newspapers (the news part anyway) are not anything approaching immediate. The best newspapers can do is at least one day after the fact and then limited to one story per day. For the past twenty years or so we have become accustomed to having instant access to news and that news being updated frequently within that day. Newspapers cannot possibly perform that.

The other parts of the newspaper, columnists, opinion, comics, etc. aren't apparently enough to keep us subscribing. That is, if we had time to read the paper at all.

But the reason I personally have not had a newspaper subscription in the past 20 years is because about 1/8th of each page is actually devoted to news, the remainder being advertisements I could care less about. The only purpose the newspaper served was for wrapping material or to line the bacon pan.

When I was growing up (in the 50's) I read the paper every morning at breakfast and spent every Sunday morning reading most everything else (Parade, the comics, etc.). None of my children, nor anyone's children as far as I can tell, read much of anything anymore let alone a daily newspaper. Understandable if you assume they've already heard about the stories via TV or internet. The newspapers did themselves no favors either by reducing the content or eliminating content entirely. Parade, for instance, used to be a small magazine. It can best be described now as a brochure.

But the cited article is incorrect. The printed word is not in jeopardy. Just the means of delivery.

 

[skyrocker]

Thank you for the show-BIZ reminder, TVradioguru. And, what makes up the most basic components of any business? Wouldn't it be the seller and the buyer?

My point is that the buyers are being left out of the discussions, reporting and planning. Clearly, that is all show and no biz. The buyer (with the money) knows instantly when being left out.

"Fix" radio? It's not broken, sir. It's got more potential than ever. If it's sounding as if no one's listening, that's what can happen when folks in charge of guiding the ship, are instead focusing, rather than serving their customers, on avoiding their own scary list of obstacles.

A pitchfork and torch rant? Nah, I don't for a moment think of corporations as "big and bad," rather as potent and full of potential and I'm hardly the only one. A close friend conducts extremely successful seminars helping corporations realign and re-purpose energy when signs of floundering show. She has them making money again in no time. When they're not working properly, you start at the top, simple.

If I could just get back to our listeners for a moment: If one's heart is deprived of what it really wants and needs, it becomes desperately hungry and is moved to search for it. Everyone's heart -- corporate mover, unemployed, blogger, radio broadcaster -- is looking for attention. Attention should be a snap -- comes in infinite varieties, so it sounds easy, but each case is different.

Give what you can.

 

[DavidKaye]

Watch the old movie "Sunset Boulevard" where Gloria Swanson, playing a silent movie star, complains about the advent of sound ruining her career. "In those days we had FACES!"

With every advance of technology something is left behind. Get used to it.

As to companies looking at the bottom line, well DUH, without the bottom line there is no business. CBS has a long corporate memory, a corporate culture that likely will endure. They didn't come into broadcasting yesterday or last week or last year. Their legacy goes back to the beginnings of broadcasting. I mention corporate culture because it's what distinguishes one company from another. It's almost like a genetic memory. I don't expect them to make many missteps.

When people complain about an industry they're often complaining about their own inability to find a place in that industry. It may well be that they simply don't have the skills needed for the latest changes in that industry. I remember when I was a software developer. I wasn't hip or employable to a lot of companies because I didn't know the latest language of the month. Likewise with radio broadcasting. Today's radio is not yesterday's radio. Learn about today's radio.

 

[jprg]

Today's radio = Learning how to program the Scott Studio automation system

 

[davideduardo]

Not be a geezer but Top 40 happened because the teesn got to hear nothing but new music picked out by DJs who loved the music.

Top 40 "happened" because program directors checked record sales and juke box plays, and put on the air only the top 30 or 40 most sold or played songs, plus a couple of picks each week. The DJs had essentially no discretion in playing the songs.

 

[TVradioguru]

Yes indeed. My first commercial "Top 40" gig the music rotation was colored 3X5 cards with a clock on the wall containing the corresponding song colors within the hour. Next we had a playlist derived from a RS TRS-80 PC on "tractor" computer paper. And yes, this was a large market station, and I had NO control over what the station played. I do however believe that I suffered some long-term brain damage from playing When I Need You from Leo Sayer twice an hour!

Anyone who says the jocks in the 60's and 70's picked their own songs were never there, or proof that we managed to pull off the illusion well.

 

[pard]

Not be a geezer but Top 40 happened because the teesn got to hear nothing but new music picked out by DJs who loved the music.

Top 40 "happened" because program directors checked record sales and juke box plays, and put on the air only the top 30 or 40 most sold or played songs, plus a couple of picks each week. The DJs had essentially no discretion in playing the songs.

I think in general one could say: DJs have no discretion.

 

[DavidKaye]

Today's radio = Learning how to program the Scott Studio automation system

Uh, you're two owners behind the times there. First Scott Studios was purchased by Dmarc Automation, and Dmarc Automation was bought by Google. It is now known as Google Radio Automation.

This is obviously an important development because it shows that the radio model is morphing into the Internet model. So, yes, today's job skills would require that a person be familiar with Google Radio Automation.

I'm not kidding. You gotta keep up with this stuff or beg for an hour at the local non-comm to play your record albums at 3:00am at no pay. That's basically the alternative.

 

[radioman148]

>>The DJs had essentially no discretion in playing the songs. >>

Essentially is the keyword. Some DJs were very "essential" to what music was played back in the early days of Rock & Roll.

 

[Mid West Clubber]

I have to go back to something that landtuna said... What do you mean that no teens listen to Rap,,, every teen listens to Rap and hip Hop which is essentially the same thing,, some also like Rhythmic POP music,, and the others are into Alternative-Active Rock.... Essentially no teens I know of listen to techno, and the ones that do got exposed to it by me, and only listen in moderation.. Most people that listen to dance music AKA Techno as you call it are in the 25-40 group,,, and mostly males actually,, some of them,, not all of them are g-a-y,,, nothing wrong with that, im just saying. If All the teens listened to (TECHNO) wouldnt there be alot more stations that play that music on the air,,, I know you have Energy in San Fran, but most of us arent so lucky, and even you guys have a weak signal to deal with, as does every other market that has a Dance station. I wish more people did like TECHNO-dance music, as its my favorite genre.

 

[SFStatic]

Years ago, in Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan (sp) stated that radio was a hot medium...the only one. People felt like they knew the personalities personally, and related to them. Anyone who has ever either done a remote at an event where there were radio station booths and tv ones or even observed same can tell you this. The people would come to the radio booths, talk to the personality like they knew them, get an autographed jock card and station crap. They would look at the tv anchors, but were less likely to approach them and visit with them. Personalities are the glue that holds music radio together. Good personalities, as noted above, will build loyalty and keep listeners coming back. So what does big corporate radio do? Get rid of them, of course!

The suits reason that most tv programming is recorded, so why pay to have a live jock on the radio, and they FAIL to understand the difference between the mediums. I don't agree with those who have posted that radio is over and it's too late. If stations play the hits in their format, have good personalities, reasonable commercial loads, and promote, the listeners will find them. Personalities have already figured out that using the web is the new request line telephone contact. Many have myspace pages, blogs, and take texts, as they should.

The bad news...I believe the web is the second hot medium, so the clock is ticking.

 

[LKellerIII]

The suits reason that most tv programming is recorded, so why pay to have a live jock on the radio, and they FAIL to understand the difference between the mediums. I don't agree with those who have posted that radio is over and it's too late. If stations play the hits in their format, have good personalities, reasonable commercial loads, and promote, the listeners will find them. Personalities have already figured out that using the web is the new request line telephone contact. Many have myspace pages, blogs, and take texts, as they should.

The bad news...I believe the web is the second hot medium, so the clock is ticking.

I agree with all this, but see it a little differently. What bugs me is that many stations often don't even bother with personality or jock-content at all. As many have stated above, this is what makes radio special, and separates it from MP3 players. Without the DJ (personality) your radio station is just an i-pod with commercials and songs you don't want to hear.

I agree that "Live and Local is best," but there's no reason a good voice-tracked show (like Sirius/XM programming) can't have compelling content. Say what you will about Ryan Seacrest, but at least his time-shifted, re-edited show on Star 101.3 has some content. I'm not a fan, but I appreciate the effort - people who like Seacrest will tune in to hear his show, not just the music.

Before Seacrest, they had that voice-tracked Darren McPeake guy who inserted one or two short bits of 30 seconds or less - maybe twice per hour. Otherwise the station was totally automated - in afternoon drive yet. If Clear Channel was paying him for that, they certainly weren't getting their money's worth. Did management think that was good radio? Did they care at all?

There are some stations that at least allow their DJs some time behind the mic for more than just reading liners. Alice is one, or was last time I listened. Despite their "less talk" slogan, KOIT lets their jocks throw in some personality and content from time to time. A year or more ago, I was listening to Wild 94.9 about 8:00 at night, and was astonished at how much time the DJ was allowed to talk. Unfortunately, those stations plays music I'm not interested in hearing for more than a few minutes a week.

But according to David Eduardo, radio doesn't care about my age demographic, anyway...