Keller- the reason Ryan's show sounds good on Star is that they have a board op who spends about 2 hours a day editing and assembling the tracks to make them fit perfectly. This is not done on any other voice tracked show anywhere that I know of, and makes the show sound much better than most tracked shows. A live board op formerly did some of this (but not as precisely) on KKSF for the Ramsey morning show, but he was let go to save money, so that one's now completely automated.
-
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
Where're The Listeners?
- Thread starter skyrocker
- Start date
SFStatic said:
I realize they make an extra effort for Seacrest's show. But I assume it would be possible for a jock doing a regular VTed show on a terrestrial radio station to drop in some content more than twice an hour - or even every commercial stop set. Don't they have computer programs that can do this?
Otherwise, what's the point? Why should a station even pretend to have a disc jockey? If stations are going to bother, they should cut the pretense. Jock-less "Jack" formats have more content than some of the VTed shows on local stations.
Mid West Clubber said:
I did not say NO teens listen to Rap. I said no teen I know listens to it. Through my two teen daughters I know about two dozen of their friends well enough to make this statement. Not only do they not like Rap - they detest it. They do listen to some Hip Hop though (and no, it isn't the same).
As for Techno, I know (there is that qualification again) of no male teen or 20-something who listens to Techno on the radio. In clubs, yes. Radio, no. Like the girls, if you ask the boys they will also tell you they detest Rap. If they listen to the radio at all (mostly just in drive time) it will be a favorite morning show or Oldies. One listens to Country but he had a head injury when young. I have never heard any of my five kids listen to the radio outside their cars.
Lkeller said:
Live - maybe. Local - doesn't really matter IMHO. Think back to the late 60's/early 70's when virtually all music radio had live jocks. Who was the most popular on a national basis? Wolfman Jack (who was remote to probably 90+% of his audience). If a jock is good and can get affinity with his audience through phone calls or just on-air personality he can do well and so can his station(s). Doesn't really matter if he is live or VTing.
Obviously a local DJ can build his audience and persona through personal appearances etc. although I'm not sure most listeners flock to the radio booths like we used to do in the 50's. And, from what I've seen in my local market, most live remotes are more commercial than used to be the case.
landtuna said:
That was more or less my point - that a VTed show has the potential to be good. I don't have Sirius or XM, but posters here are always talking about how good these satellite music shows can be - and from what I understand, they're usually VTed by the DJs in their home studios in whatever city they live in.
DJ's never read the time and temp anymore, or read live commercial copy, anyway.
The last time I saw a live DJ remote - about 5 years ago, the DJ (I'll withhold his name) was working on a Saturday in the foggy and windswept parking lot of the San Bruno Lowe's Home Improvement Store. It's also under an SFO flight-path, so its often very noisy.
Everybody was ignoring him - probably because they wanted to get into the store and out of the cold. I felt sorry for the guy.
Lkeller said:
So, you admit that you listen to a radio station for the music and not for the personality? I believe you just said so.
Listening to old airchecks of local greats such as Don Sherwood I assume that people must have listened for his personality and not for the music because the music was dreadful. I remember listening to Sherwood as a little kid and not remembering the music at all. It may well have been that times have changed and that most listeners have no interest in listening to an erratic comic in morning drive when they can hear music or news.
DavidKaye said:
Sorry to squelch your "Ah ha!" moment DK, but I listen for both the music and the jocks. Of course, I'm an old fogey, over 54 radio nerd. Way before i-pods, my cars have had CD players, and my console has been full of CDs for years. But even pre-i-pod, I usually preferred to listen to radio because of the variety of DJs, personalities, features, and even some of the better commercials. I've never been a huge fan of the "comic" DJs (with a few exceptions like Dr. Don Rose), but I've always enjoyed good DJs with smart personalities and a witty way with words - funny and otherwise - McGovern, Flanagan, Ocean, Bill Moen, Carter B. Smith, and many others.
This has become less and less true as radio stations become more homogenized and automated. And because I've become an NPR junkie.
As for music on KSFO and MOR stations being "dreadful" - I don't think the target audience of that era (our parents) would agree with you. My father had a collection of probably 1,000 LP records made by those "dreadful" artists. Sure, some of it sucked, but so did at least a third of the Top 40 in any given month.
DeadAudicy said:
Really! Well because you seem to know so much about the health of radio, tell us how it is a failed business? Failed in your view, or have you access to research and data that have escaped the rest of us?
There seems to be many like you that make these sweeping statements that somehow radio in total is at death's door. The fact remains that radio advertising is down 10% nationwide due to the economy, but listening numbers are actually up! Research indicates that because radio is free then more people are listening, especially to FM recently verses in the past five years. So if you're gauging the health of radio based on this forum, or news of staffing reductions at some groups, then you're parroting wrong information with blinders on. Sure the economy is taking its toll on ALL media, but newspaper advertising is down 22% and you generally don't find people making statements that if the newspaper would just be more entertaining to the readers, papers wouldn't be losing market share.
DeadAudicy said:
Eight-track tapes, cassette tapes and CD's were going to spell the end of radio. Guess what, it didn't happen then either. MP3 devices are just another personal device replacing CD's and cassettes. Do they appeal to younger folks who want to make their own playlists? You bet! But I argue that no radio station has ever, nor can ever play everything that anyone would want at any given moment anyway.
D
DeadAudicy
Guest
My mistake. I should have been more explicit in citing the decline of the business of broadcast radio, already implicit given the thread. And yes, significant weight of the statement comes from my view from within the industry, which industry is putting considerable efforts into exploiting platforms adjacent to broadcast for off-air revenues, at the expense of broadcast. Priorities are shifting to off air revenue cultivation. Apart from that I have the same access as anyone who can glance at an RAB report on revenues past and predicted.
In terms of audience, yes, there was growth, but it was minimal, about a percent. That is total growth 08 over 07...08 being a doubly historical news year. Would you like to compare that gigantic 1% leap to growth in online-radio and other non-broadcast streaming audiences, not to mention mp3 delivery? Speaking of, it is certainly a weak argument to compare cassettes & CDs with the ability to harvest and store several thousand hours of audio with a keystroke, and retrieve any part of it instantly, or see a vid performance of virtually any group in recorded history on a pocket device. Do you really imagine a similarity as affects radio use?
Unsure how that furthers your argument, let alone the discussion, but...no, never heard anyone making that statement.
No one "like me" has ever said that, nor have I. My diagnosis is more analogous to an early stage melanoma. If treated, certainly a good prognosis.
All music is entertainment, but all entertainment isn't music. That might have been the broader point of my post.
D
DeadAudicy
Guest
Sorry, several thousand songs. Several hundred hours...but still.
You nailed it, Skyrocker. Even with the so-called professionals I've endured, at least stations were live 24/7 and owners and GM's at least had some radio experience. Now an air crew can't even manage a foursome in golf, let alone a softball team anymore.
From a listener's standpoint, (the type who likes to be entertained by the jock and cares less about music), the dimwits who choose to do away with the talent and think people just want music-only do a disservice to the audience by taking that creative entertaining element away. I didn't turn on the radio and want to get into the business because some wise-apple with 4 different air names can read liners on 4 different stations for $500/month... it was because I thought "what a great job, all they have to do is play music and talk". I could go on and on about jealous owners and managers making literally 10 times what I made and didn't like to see entertainers do what they were born to do, but the point is made.
From a listener's standpoint, (the type who likes to be entertained by the jock and cares less about music), the dimwits who choose to do away with the talent and think people just want music-only do a disservice to the audience by taking that creative entertaining element away. I didn't turn on the radio and want to get into the business because some wise-apple with 4 different air names can read liners on 4 different stations for $500/month... it was because I thought "what a great job, all they have to do is play music and talk". I could go on and on about jealous owners and managers making literally 10 times what I made and didn't like to see entertainers do what they were born to do, but the point is made.
DeadAudicy said:
If not citing specifics as to your view on the decline of the radio broadcast business was a mistake, it appears you keep making the same mistake over-and-over. Again you make the claim that radio is somehow in decline, yet you site no examples other than the published growth isn't as high as years past.
And the RAB report indicates that radio revenues are in decline because of something other than the economy?
Stations are forced to look at other NTR sources because the traditional ones are frozen right now.
DeadAudicy said:
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with the 1% growth comment, but its pretty much been proven that streaming is not only ineffective when it comes to revenue, but with all the CARP and other fees, a money loser.
You obviously haven't been very connected to broadcast radio lately from inside, but many groups will be dropping streaming soon.
Again, radio doesn't exist to give you or I employment or entertain people outside their listening area. Radio is a business that runs on selling people stuff in the communities in which they operate.
DeadAudicy said:
You seem locked to the idea that a radio station must prinicpally depend on a transmitter in in the 540 to 1700 AM or 88 to 107 mHz FM. The fact is, techology will make that delivery obsolete, with things like the web and WiMax becoming a better platform.
Radio stations are local content providers, not producers of RF on specific bands.
For many many decades, stations have depended on remotes and spoecial events to generate additional revenue. So the idea of looking at synergies that did not exist previously is nothing new.
Similarly, if you look at SEC filings for nearly any American coroporation, you will see declines in revenues. Most of this is the economy, and the fact that in most downturns, advertising and marketing are the first to go.
Audience levels have been fairly constant from the early 50's through the early 90's. There was no growth. Today, the percent of persons using radio is flat, but the time spent with the medium is declining. That's hardly a surprise since there are so many alternatives, many not recognized in these discussions: there are 120 million gaming consoles out there!
And the fact is that most iPods have fewer songs on them than the combined playlists of each owner's favorite radio staitons.
One of the heads of one large radio group has said repeatedly that they are no longer in the business of tall towers and transmitters. Local content is indeed the key (even if this group is providing precious little of that!) Web listening is growing at a great pace, it's up to radio stations to reach out to web and mobile listeners and provide them with content they want.
D
DeadAudicy
Guest
I do? Odd, my point was the exact opposite. I will work on my communication skills. Or maybe just type with all caps so I can be heard more clearly. Don't bother re reading the post, I'll do it for you....
let's see...considerable efforts...adjacent platforms...blah blah blah...priorities shifting yadda yadda...
......Yup, exactly opposite.
The web, yes, in the long run...WiMax delivering web, maybe not so much with g3 & 4 enjoying the momentum now, so WiMax more probably relegated to backhaul and 3rd world.
So what do we have: cell phones as the receiver of choice, on it adequate giggage for a huge collection of mp3s, web access and all the youtube, Pandora, etc...TV shows, movies, and apps for every purpose and sensibility, and of course your bff showing her ta tas live on the 2".
So "radio" stations -- after they've gone charging into the same box with their 15 minute segs of djs yapping about how cool their next station event/contest/feature is (but only after a series of 15 second pre rolls for Orchard Supply, Ed's Credit Reducer, and the Bannana Repulic Concert of the Century starring Hooba Mouth), before gifting their uber researched, well consulted, edited-for-naughty-parts playlist -- have some, to say the least, ground to gain. And they are, with exceptions, failing.
35 years in the business this September, and deeper now than ever. Streaming intentions notwithstanding, my reference was more to online radio, essentially AOL, Yahoo, Play.it, etc. This would be where the larger dollars are being allocated.
The economy, now and always, has its formidable impact on whether businesses fail. You seem, though, to want to use it as an excuse for, rather than an element of the failure. GM is failing...because of the economy?
That a customer base remains static as competing services are growing their base dramatically, is not a good indication of success. Instead of badgering for stats, put 2+2 together with your own imagination. The reliable stats are in revenue, which has been in decline since years before the recognised down economy, which economy is, despite your reluctance, exacerbating the spiral. On-air listenership stats are pretty severe extrapolations, and even at that are often Arbitron corroborated, skewing away from non users anyway.
The original point: Better entertainment is, though difficult, the only winner in the contest for ears. Radio is not delivering better entertainment than what is otherwise readily available (ultimately from the same device). That is a prescription for failure. On the other hand, radio can deliver good entertainment, and can certainly win if managements become more capable of hiring more capable content developers.
DeadAudicy said:
Once simply can't compare GM with radio, nor is your assumption that radio is "failing" correct in the way that GM is. The struggling economy is taking a toll on all business, some more than others. When you look at retail taking a 60% earnings haircut over the past year, radios 10-13% loss of traction looks pretty tame.
Granted radio probably has no business being in the publicly traded business arena, just as was discovered back in the 1930's and 1940's when the large corporations like Crosley, GE, and Westinghouse shed many of their radio properties because Wall Street expected unressonable expectations of growth.
DeadAudicy said:
Not delivering entertainment according to whom? You? Rather than just complaining or blaming with vague comments about how non-entertaining radio is and how the people at the helm don't know what they're doing, then why not offer solutions rather than the same old diatribe? If you consider yourself a good judge on what is superior entertainment for all the key sought after demographics yet don't want to disclose specifics here, then I challenge you to march right down to your GM's office and tell him or her your plans. Of course the tough part, and what your GM will require, is remaining focused on the fact that radio is a business, one apparently paying your bills on a monthly basis. Be sure to then come back and tell us how your meeting goes.
Dead, it seems clearly like you aren't very happy, nor enjoying the radio business anymore. Perhaps it's time for you to look at changing careers? Either that, or come up with your magic bullet that will transform radio into something that is economy proof and resistant to evolving technology.
TVradioguru said:
Sure you can:
GM tried to maximize profits by cutting quality. Radio is firing its local on-air talent. Both diminish customer desire to have their product.
GM focused upon products which maximized profits (SUV's, trucks) and couldn't/didn't change product lines to meet changing customer demand. Radio seems focused on VT and syndication to reduce costs/maximize profits. Customer expectations not being met.
GM battling severe competition from foreign companies. Music radio battling severe competition from alternate sources.
The one area where they diverge is that GM's products are now better than at any time in their existence but their reputation still carries a quality-issue stigma. Radio doesn't seem to be able to re-engineer their product(s) to successfully compete with the competition and are addressing it with cost-cutting rather than innovation.
GM can continue as a viable company if they are able to maintain their current quality and reduce costs so they can compete on the showroom floor. They also need to keep an eye on their markets and build what people will buy.
There will always be OTA radio but it might look a lot different in product and number of stations over the next few decades. Radio is still the easiest and most timely method of delivering essential news, weather and emergency information. It is also nearly irreplaceable as a source for on-the-job "background" entertainment such as ball games and the like. Whether it continues as a viable source for music is undetermined but my guess is probably not. The only "improvement" in radio technology recently has been HD radio and it comes along (with its well-published shortcomings) at a time when most people are content listening to their compressed music formats and could care less about increased fidelity. Given the current generation grew up listening to over-amplified music they will most likely have little hearing range left as they age.
My two cents. YMMV.
This is clearly WAY off topic, but I have a family member in the corporate finance department at General Motors, and has shared with me the real reasons GM is more in trouble than say Ford, or the foreign brands:
1. High labor and retirement costs. Similar to what happenned in the demise of the UK automotive industry back in the 70's and 80's, unions have forced GM plants into rampantly expanding labor costs. In the interest of not losing business through production stoppages, GM laid down during negotiations over the years. As with the UK, labor expenses increased, and quality decreased.
Radio does not have this problem.
2. Increased raw material expenses. With arguably too many marques, GM shared less platforms and engines across lines making margin per marque vary greatly. Saturn is a prime example of a division that started out independant as a role model for the rest of GM. Instead Saturn became a black hole from a margin perspective. In summary, overall too many plants, producing too many brands.
Perhaps one could argue that one problem with radio is the large number of stations nationwide, but they aren't owned by any one company like GM, so the point doesn't hold water. On the flipside, the number of stations increase consumer choices.
3. Poor debt covenants or lack of bank financing for R&D. Large car companies like GM frequently borrow money to re-tool plants for new models. GM's existing loans on the books had strict covenants and payment schedules that, assuming car sales were operating at nominal levels, would be made no problem. Obviously the credit crunch and economy reduced revenues >50%. When you're operating at 10% margins, that big of a loss is significant. Through good or just lucky timing, Ford managed to re-negotiate their loans to less heavy terms prior to the economy starting to tank.
By comparison radio doesn't carry the debt that the big auto makers require for normal business.
It takes well over two years to bring a new car to market. Four years ago the car buying public bought big SUV's and high horsepower in-mass. When gas prices went to $4.00 a gallon in the matter of weeks, those driving a year old Chevy Tahoe or Ram 3500 pickup were shocked with the payments they agreed to make, combined with dropping $125 every few days to fill up. Are you going to tell me THAT is the fault of the auto makers?
I'm not sure if you've seen projections from Toyota, Honda or Nissan, but all of them are down over 50% too. Again, radio only being down 10% should be a good indication that radio remains a solid business, not an indication that it's on deaths door just because it doesn't have DJ's on the air that you personally enjoy.
I could go on and on, but I disagree with your premise that GM's plight parallels radio.
1. High labor and retirement costs. Similar to what happenned in the demise of the UK automotive industry back in the 70's and 80's, unions have forced GM plants into rampantly expanding labor costs. In the interest of not losing business through production stoppages, GM laid down during negotiations over the years. As with the UK, labor expenses increased, and quality decreased.
Radio does not have this problem.
2. Increased raw material expenses. With arguably too many marques, GM shared less platforms and engines across lines making margin per marque vary greatly. Saturn is a prime example of a division that started out independant as a role model for the rest of GM. Instead Saturn became a black hole from a margin perspective. In summary, overall too many plants, producing too many brands.
Perhaps one could argue that one problem with radio is the large number of stations nationwide, but they aren't owned by any one company like GM, so the point doesn't hold water. On the flipside, the number of stations increase consumer choices.
3. Poor debt covenants or lack of bank financing for R&D. Large car companies like GM frequently borrow money to re-tool plants for new models. GM's existing loans on the books had strict covenants and payment schedules that, assuming car sales were operating at nominal levels, would be made no problem. Obviously the credit crunch and economy reduced revenues >50%. When you're operating at 10% margins, that big of a loss is significant. Through good or just lucky timing, Ford managed to re-negotiate their loans to less heavy terms prior to the economy starting to tank.
By comparison radio doesn't carry the debt that the big auto makers require for normal business.
It takes well over two years to bring a new car to market. Four years ago the car buying public bought big SUV's and high horsepower in-mass. When gas prices went to $4.00 a gallon in the matter of weeks, those driving a year old Chevy Tahoe or Ram 3500 pickup were shocked with the payments they agreed to make, combined with dropping $125 every few days to fill up. Are you going to tell me THAT is the fault of the auto makers?
I'm not sure if you've seen projections from Toyota, Honda or Nissan, but all of them are down over 50% too. Again, radio only being down 10% should be a good indication that radio remains a solid business, not an indication that it's on deaths door just because it doesn't have DJ's on the air that you personally enjoy.
I could go on and on, but I disagree with your premise that GM's plight parallels radio.
D
DeadAudicy
Guest
Scold much?
Gooroo, I enjoy our debate tremendously because you are well spoken, thoughtful, and bordering on intelligent, and you make me feel like I might be too, just by participating.
But this new turn away from the discussion into some imagined high noon showdown in the market manager's office wherein I let him and his skype-present corporate majors know everything they're doing wrong and handing them a list of changes, is pretty naive as notions go.
Hope you can settle for a response here, in the more appropriate forum.
There is entertainment on the radio, but not everywhere, and certainly less so now when it is needed most in the face of available and emerging competition for attention. If you're going to compare that competition to Walkmans, you're in a universe I have no interest in approaching. But if you're willing to acknowledge the massive content alternatives now and soon available at a screen touch, read on.
A 22 year old male has a smartphone. It is his main source of portable entertainment. When he is not accessing facebook or twitter, or chatting, he is listening to or watching music, a piece or 2 from The Daily Show and SNL, a little Family Guy and South Park, or one of millions of truly entertaining bits of fun on his device. If this guy is not smack in the center of the curve, he soon will be. Agreed?
Presently he has some ancestral urge to hear something "live and local", he pulls up a radio station stream already listed by the appropriate app. There is a dj performing formatics before a cluster of spots. The jock is very excited about a station birthday party in which our fellow has no interest. The jock is very excited about a song coming up "next" (which means several annoying messages will happen before the music does), a song in which our fellow has some vague interest, and is reminded to check out the video performance on youtube before he forgets.
I'm trying hard with a vivid imagination, to devine the entertainment value of that interlude with radio. Do you disagree whether it is typical?
Say he tuned in during a favorite song (not by coincidence, as research placed it perfectly in a set that would happen for best PPM mileage), just as the song fades out and our fellow was prepared for a brief afterglow, he is bludgeoned by 10 seconds worth of reminder, in echoes and repeats, in stutters and thunders and lasers (still!) that he is in fact listening to the station who's calls are already displayed on his device. He no longer finds the station useful to his day.
In a stunning act of implausable tenacity, our fellow toons in to a morning show the next morning. It is 2 --no, 3...oh there's a fourth -- voices talking about one of the voices having been cut off on the freeway on the way into "the show". Another voice begins to describe a similar experience yesterday afternoon, during which fingers were used. All laugh. One of the voices, a female, chimed in that her child of 7 used that same gesture, and so all involved in the discussion decided they leave it open to the audience to call in with suggestions whether the gesture is a swear word or not.
Our fellow yawned as I am doing now. The examples are real and typical.
Gooroo, this is your radio "entertainment. It has no value to so many people with such thrilling alternatives. I do allow that talk radio shows have their great appeal to those who enjoy the personalities and subjects, which is an example of exception to the dearth of entertainment on the radio, so I refer to pop music radio.
Not at all. You really missed the mark there. Either learn how better to read a person's sensibility through his posts, or entertain alternatives to disposition interpretation.
Pop radio needs talent to present the music. More talent than is currently manning the medium. More cues need to be taken from the Ron Jacobs and Bill Drakes of the past to create a workable formula today. Recognise what is wrong, envision extreme changes to accomodate solutions, lead relentlessly, focus on the vision. Hire entertainers. Demand from individuals daily creative contributions that at once fit the vision, and are far in left field of the vision. Guide doggedly. Collectively be able to form content that equals and surpasses what is already available. Evolve that content constantly. Research and consulting are the sawzall of tools. Use sparingly for a precision product.
Try to think of the above not as a list of bromides, but simply titles of the larger actions they represent. The "magic bullet" doesn't come from a list of neat ideas given on a comments board or in a GM's office, but from application of the above. Only. If it can't be done, it can't be done...the audience doesn't judge which entertainment is possible with today's market realities or whatever, only whether it exists and can be used.
- Status