Who Killed Radio's Mom and Pops

[TheBigA]

the previously cited study from Edison & Arbitron released a few weeks ago confirms that radio listening continues to be strong and that online listening enhances radio's strength rather than hurting it.

Are you talking about the study titled "The Infinite Dial?" The one that says this in its first paragraph:

In the latest study from Arbitron and Edison Research, we continue to explore how radio expands its reach beyond the AM and FM bands, and how users of online radio are spending their time with other forms of media.

When they go "beyond the AM and FM bands," that means they are going beyond traditional radio.

Which makes me wonder how it's possible to refer to that study and say that there is "no significant statistical evidence of new media having a negative effect on traditional radio."

The first paragraph of the study alone should qualify as significant. Then when it says 42 million Americans listen to online radio, that seems statistically significant. At least to me. When it says 42% of the public owns an mp3 player, that seems significant. Sure, it pales to 98% who own a radio. But I'd say 42% is significant, especially when the study also says it's growing and not slowing down.

The next question, in terms of negative effect, is has the rise of new media had an effect on advertising budgets. Is it possible that companies that used to use traditional media now use new media to advertise their products? Is it possible that new media has affected TSL for traditional media? Is it possible that the growth of new media has caused traditional media companies to spend time, effort, and money on expanding into new media? Is it possible that the dilution of the audience caused by an infinite number of new radio stations is somehow hurting the profitablility of traditional radio? ESPECIALLY those who have no internet presence? If the answer to those questions is yes, isn't all that significant statistical evidence of a negative effect on traditional radio? I'm just asking.

 

[redneckriviera]

the previously cited study from Edison & Arbitron released a few weeks ago confirms that radio listening continues to be strong and that online listening enhances radio's strength rather than hurting it.

Are you talking about the study titled "The Infinite Dial?" The one that says this in its first paragraph:

In the latest study from Arbitron and Edison Research, we continue to explore how radio expands its reach beyond the AM and FM bands, and how users of online radio are spending their time with other forms of media.

When they go "beyond the AM and FM bands," that means they are going beyond traditional radio.

Which makes me wonder how it's possible to refer to that study and say that there is "no significant statistical evidence of new media having a negative effect on traditional radio."

The first paragraph of the study alone should qualify as significant. Then when it says 42 million Americans listen to online radio, that seems statistically significant. At least to me. When it says 42% of the public owns an mp3 player, that seems significant. Sure, it pales to 98% who own a radio. But I'd say 42% is significant, especially when the study also says it's growing and not slowing down.

The next question, in terms of negative effect, is has the rise of new media had an effect on advertising budgets. Is it possible that companies that used to use traditional media now use new media to advertise their products? Is it possible that new media has affected TSL for traditional media? Is it possible that the growth of new media has caused traditional media companies to spend time, effort, and money on expanding into new media? Is it possible that the dilution of the audience caused by an infinite number of new radio stations is somehow hurting the profitablility of traditional radio? ESPECIALLY those who have no internet presence? If the answer to those questions is yes, isn't all that significant statistical evidence of a negative effect on traditional radio? I'm just asking.

That study also says that online radio users listen to more radio, not less. And it points out that the place most people learn about an online radio station is by listening to traditional radio. Our company steers our listeners to our streaming sites with both on-air and off-air promotion. We're not viewing new media as competition, but rather as opportunity--much the same way we did during the shift of many (not all) listeners from AM to FM years ago. It's worth noting that our AM stations didn't die when that happened--they just changed.

Usage of traditional radio--AM/FM--has indeed dropped by three percent over the past 10 years--all the way down to 92 percent of Americans above the age of 12. And TSL has dropped by ten percent during that same span--all the way down to two-and-a-half hours a day.

Has there been erosion. Sure. Is radio still enormous? Yes, it is.

As Larry Wilson, founder of Citadel and new owner of Portland's KXL/KXTG said yesterday, radio's demise has been greatly exaggerated.

And I'll ask the question, again. Are you actually IN radio? Or are you just bashing from the sidelines? Those of us who are doing radio ever day may see things from a different perspective.

 

[TheBigA]

That study also says that online radio users listen to more radio, not less.

Unfortunately, more use of online radio doesn't necessarily translate to more Arbitron numbers for the mother ship. Right?

So aren't you doing exactly what the New York Times did when they made their content available for free? And you see how that worked out.

We're not viewing new media as competition, but rather as opportunity--much the same way we did during the shift of many (not all) listeners from AM to FM years ago.

That's fine, but once again, aren't you diverting listeners away from the pot of gold? As listeners move from FM to online, what does that do to your spot rate on the FM? And does the increase of audience on the internet replace the loss of income on FM? A listener can only do one thing at a time. Either listen online or to the FM. Where do you make more money?

And I'll ask the question, again. Are you actually IN radio? Or are you just bashing from the sidelines? Those of us who are doing radio ever day may see things from a different perspective.

Who's bashing? You're the one who said all problems in radio are being caused by big radio companies. I see problems in radio being caused by many things, including new media, which is having a negative effect on the profitability of traditional radio. Can mom & pops compete in multi-platform media? So far, it doesn't look like they can.

Answer my questions, and I'll be glad to answer yours. But I think it's pretty obvious what I do.

 

[TheBigA]

Wait, aren't you among those who proposed that "new media" was the salvation broadcast companies? That NTR income would make companies even more profitable?

Show me a quote where I said that.

It seems pretty obvious to me, since you seem to be on here 24/7/365, that you're a paid shill for corporate radio. How else could you spend so much time on here defending corporate?

You have a vivid imagination.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I really don't have time to go back into other threads just so you can say that "I took you out of context", bandy semantics about, or cook up some other lame excuse. I'm WORKIN' here - a LOT harder now that so many other people are gone.

Guys like amfmxm, RNR, adma, aunti-terrestrial, kinetic, and others have been doing a fine job of calling you out. If you ain't a paid blogger, you're so far up the corporate food chain that you don't have an REAL work to do except figure out who to throw in front of the bus in the next round so you can save YOUR ass. You've probably replaced David Eduardo as the most prolific poster on R-I - and that's no surprise considering the shape that HIS company's in. He ain't got time to be hangin' here right now.

Now, carry on. Just don't expect to sell a lot of Kool-Aid to most of these guys.

BTW, "Stewy" answered this question pages ago:

Who really killed the mom-n-pops? Mom and Pop did (in many cases), as posted earlier, they get tired, they were offered money they'd never before dreamed of, cashed in and moved to South Florida (or Arizona). Once the oligopolies started eating into whatever market contained a holdout mom-n-pop, the holdouts soon realized they didn't have deep enough pockets to keep the idiot corps at bay and gave up and sold out.

"Mom & Pop", and the small corporations, got gobbled up by large corporations who threw more money at them than they could possible earn as operators. A lot of these folks could literally bank the money and get more in interest than they could earn as operators. Can you blame them for taking that corporate check? They couldn't figure out how corporate could make a profit with a nut that big. Unfortunately, neither could corporate - which brings us to where we are now.

And where we are now ain't pretty.

I know, recession blah-blah-blah - like no one could POSSIBLY see that coming. Isn't that why these guys make MILLIONS - so that they can look past the end of their nose?

Or, maybe they're too busy yappin' on R-I to pay attention to economic trends...

 

[SirRoxalot]

There's no "victory" for anybody in radio - except for the honchos at the top who are STILL being paid millions in salary and BONUSES for running their companies into the ground.

At the end of the day, I believe that bankruptcy is what will change the industry. I don't take any pleasure in that. I just call it as I see it.

You believe that regional syndication is what will save the industry. I think that will just hasten bankruptcy. We'll see who's right.

And YOU spend WAY more time on here than I do these days. How do YOU change the industry with YOUR attacks?

 

[redneckriviera]

But I think it's pretty obvious what I do.

Actually, it isn't. You did mention (in one of these threads) that you had been a reporter in DC during the mid-nineties (giving you an inside look at the 1996 Telecom Bill sausage-making process).

So you're a reporter?

FWIW, I run a cluster of radio stations and teach at a major university on the side.

Your turn. No names necessary... part of the beauty of these boards is anonymity. But we're all interested now. What is it that you do for a living?

 

[TheBigA]

You believe that regional syndication is what will save the industry.

No I don't and I don't think I've ever said that. You're just putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda.

If these companies want to run their stations with regional or national syndication, or no local employees at all, it's their right under the law. They are licensed to operate as they see fit. If it drives them to bankruptcy, better for their competition. But then again, you don't believe that there's any competition, either.

How do YOU change the industry with YOUR attacks?

I don't "attack" anyone. Certainly not to the degree that others attack me. I have unpopular opinions, and those who don't agree are threatened.

Also, I have no interest in changing the industry from a message board. I fight my battles where it counts.

 

[adma]

Guys like amfmxm, RNR, adma, aunti-terrestrial, kinetic, and others have been doing a fine job of calling you out.

BS...all they've managed to do is get the thread kicked to TIO. If that's what you call a "fine job," so be it.

And to be honest, at times I've been just as prone to "calling him in" as "calling him out", i.e. I fundamentally agree with TheBigA that there's a possibly fatal paradigm shift going on.

Maybe where the agreement ends is my belief that said shift might well be for the better, and not necessarily on TheBigA's "corporate realm" behalf any more than it's on behalf of the mom'n'pops. Fundamentally, we're all our own best mom'n'pop these days. And when it comes to music or whatever that "nobody's" interested in; well, in an age of mass taste fragmentation together with individualized entertainment consumption, everybody's inherently "nobody".

 

[TheBigA]

Fundamentally, we're all our own best mom'n'pop these days.

I agree, and as a result, no one is making money. Except the ISPs. And if you think big corporate radio is bad, wait til you tangle with the telecoms. They make CC and Citadel look like Bo Peep.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Compared to the telecoms, CC and Citadel are mom and pops. But the telecoms ain't in the radio biz. They got out at the "suggestion" of the feds in 1925.

Radio's demise has been rumored before - several times. There's still a place for radio as long as it presents compelling content. The crux of the arguement is that many people believe that content is the problem, not the solution right now, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

There have always been people who dissed radio and searched for a wider variety and/or deeper vein of music in their chosen genre. Is it easier now that you can go on the Internet instead of hitting the bins at your local record store? Sure. But, unlimited choices requires unlimited time to sort through the possibilities. Most listeners don't have unlimited time, and radio offers them quick and easy access to entertainment and information. At one time, that information was timely. Now, not so much.

Radio still draws listeners because it offers the prospect of quality entertainment. Radio is losing listeners because it fails to deliver on that offer. We have our differences on what constitutes "quality entertainment", but the bottom line is that what is being offered now is losing listeners, both in cume and in TSL. That decline is getting sharper as the major players cut programming costs and go to more and more syndicated content.

Radio's strength was in immediacy. Remove the immediacy, and you have "somebody else's iPod". THAT'S the crux of the issue.

 

[TheBigA]

But the telecoms ain't in the radio biz. They got out at the "suggestion" of the feds in 1925.

But the telecoms "own" the internet. So now they're back in the radio biz. And there's not much the gov't can do about that.

There's still a place for radio as long as it presents compelling content. The crux of the arguement is that many people believe that content is the problem, not the solution right now, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

The real problem is that the public's taste for content has become fractionalized. In the old days, two radio stations in a town would get 20 shares, and the rest were non-players. Today, you look at the ratings and you have ten stations all within a tenth of a point of each other. The top station in a town gets a 6 share. Taste in music has splintered. Tolerance for music they don't like is very short. Everyone has an opinion, and negativity rules. Look at these message boards! Lots of ranting, anger, and attacks directed at opinions they don't like. That applies to the media. There's not much radio can do about that. Before you misinterpret what I say, I'm not "blaming" the public. This situation is inevitable when you have an overabundance of content. But the fact is that QUALITY isn't the issue, because if it was, it would be an easier problem to solve.

the bottom line is that what is being offered now is losing listeners, both in cume and in TSL. That decline is getting sharper as the major players cut programming costs and go to more and more syndicated content.

You keep saying that, and there is simply no proof that it's true.

I've made this challenge for years, and no one has been able to deal with it: Find me examples of small stations, not owned by big corporations, that invest in content, invest in lots of local people, give on-air people independence to say and do what they want, and get big ratings. If corporate radio is so bad, and the public hates it so much, why do stations owned by CC and the rest still top the ratings, even in markets where there are locally owned competitors on good quality signals? My point is that the drop in audience and TSL is not related to ownership. It's hurting everyone equally.

 

[in3media_be1]

Some of the posts have been moved to Take It Outside


http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,126547.msg1032471.html#msg1032471

 

[amfmxm]

the bottom line is that what is being offered now is losing listeners, both in cume and in TSL. That decline is getting sharper as the major players cut programming costs and go to more and more syndicated content.

You keep saying that, and there is simply no proof that it's true.

I've made this challenge for years, and no one has been able to deal with it: Find me examples of small stations, not owned by big corporations, that invest in content, invest in lots of local people, give on-air people independence to say and do what they want, and get big ratings. If corporate radio is so bad, and the public hates it so much, why do stations owned by CC and the rest still top the ratings, even in markets where there are locally owned competitors on good quality signals? My point is that the drop in audience and TSL is not related to ownership. It's hurting everyone equally.

LOL. Well, this has turned into a bit of a free-for-all, hasn't it?

To answer the question, certainly there are good examples of small companies doing good, successful radio utilizing bright, talented local air-talents. And if the folks on this board think about it a bit, we can probably all come up with some examples that we are aware of. It must be said, however, that larger companies have indeed snapped up so many of the radio stations in so many markets, even very small ones, that those examples don't necessarily jump out at you like they might have a dozen years ago. Off the top of my head...

In major markets, there is Jerry Lee's WBEB-FM in Philly. He's become a national radio celebrity for holding his own against the giants.

In small markets...

WDWS-AM in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. Great full-service local talk & sports. Owned by the local newspaper, the News-Gazette for 60+ years.

WJAQ-FM in Marianna, Florida. Extremely full-service Country on the FM with people who have been there 30+ years. Local news, sports & everything else. Owned by a fellow down in Sarasota for the last 10 or 15 years. Local, local, local.

WJEJ-AM in Hagerstown, Maryland. One of the best sounding (technically) AM stations in America. Pristine signal. And one of the best local airstaffs, too. Guys who have been there 15, 25, 30 years. They run a comprehensive full-service Adult Standards format with lots of news, local talk and local sports. Owned by a local guy for 30+ years.

No, I don't work for any of them. How many examples do you want?

 

[jackandcoke]

KMA AM & FM, Shenandoah, Iowa. With 5-kw at 960 (I think) it covers a shitload of corn with its day signal, but here's a station that employs a couple dozen people, mostly fulltimers, in a town of 5,000 in southwest Iowa and does local news, talk, farm news, local sports and everything else (obituaries, lost cows). Excellent longtime air people. Owned by Shenandoah's May Broadcasting--the Earl May Seed Company--continuously since 1924. And, yeah, KMA makes a ton-o-money.

WGMD FM, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. This is a Class A in a town with a year-round population of 1,500 people, although it does fill up with tourists in the summer. They've been doing FM talk since before FM talk was the "hot thing" to do. Most of it local, although they do use Rush in mid-day and network stuff after 7 PM. But they do lots of local news & are famous for their local talk. And they rake in the money. Locally owned and operated.

WDAN AM, Danville, Illinois. Owned by the Neuhoff family for 25 years or so. They used to be a fairly sizeable group, but now I think it's just Danville and has been for many years. Very good local news, community info and local sports programming. The morning act may never make it to LA, but everybody in Danville (a town of 30,000 or so) gets up listening to it. They do use some network talk stuff and U. of Illinois sports + MLB, much like small town stations in the midwest have been doing it for 50 years. Good operation.

 

[ratingsgeek]

Here are a couple in Pennsylvania:

Sunbury Broadcasting's WKOK(AM). These guys (the Haddon family?) have owned the station since 1933, and run a 24/7/365 news radio format. Not "news-talk". A real all-news radio station in a town of 10,000 people. Admittedly they do run network stuff at night, but from 6 AM to 7 PM daily they do local/regional news along with national network casts + WSJ and the like. It's very ambitious and very well done, with local reporters, editors and anchors. They've had an FM in Sunbury as well for many years, and recently bought a couple more stations to make a nice little group. But WKOK remains a noteworthy local radio station.

And down in Gettysburg the local newspaper, the Times, has owned WGET(AM) and WGTY(FM) since they first hit the air 60-some years ago. The AM does real local community-service type radio in a news-heavy AC format with local talk and sports + Phils + Penn State with a full staff of local jocks. WGTY, on the other hand, has been the #1 station in the neighboring York market for quite awhile with their locally-done Country format.

 

[davideduardo]

WGTY, on the other hand, has been the #1 station in the neighboring York market for quite awhile with their locally-done Country format.

Just a clarification... WGTY is inside the York market... which consists of all of Adams and York counties. So the station is local and home to the market and licensed to one of the cities within it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The simple reason that the big players get the biggest audiences is that they've snapped up most of the big signals, and they bought the reputations of the best known stations. Corporate bought and/or created the fringe signals to protect the flanks of their big signals, or to try to nip away at the other big players - which are now owned by OTHER mega-corps.

A lot of these stations, and especially the news/talk AM'ers, are a shadow of what they were a few years ago. The staffs have been decimated, resources removed, and syndication plugged in to save money. It's happening to big stations in big markets, where some stations are killing weekend news and replacing local programming with infomercials.

There are very few independents with full-market coverage. That's the biggest reason that they don't do a better job of competing with the mega-corps. There are plenty of examples where it happens because somebody carved out a niche and refused to sell to the big boys. WDKX in Rochester comes to mind. They've been kicking both Entercom and Clear Channel around for years.

 

[davideduardo]

The simple reason that the big players get the biggest audiences is that they've snapped up most of the big signals, and they bought the reputations of the best known stations.

A reputation, like mayonaise, has a very, very short life. Only if each listener was satisfied the last time they tuned in is the reputation kept intact. If the big companies, as you assert, don't do good programming, they will lose the reputation and value in any station name.

A lot of these stations, and especially the news/talk AM'ers, are a shadow of what they were a few years ago.

AM stations are the worst hurt in this deep recession because they were already rapidly "going south." Most had the bulk of the audience in the near-valuless 55 and over demos, and they were being affected by the overall decline in AM listening in every market. When you look at AM icons like KGO, off nearly 30% in revenue in the 7 years prior to the recession, you can see that this AM news / talk issue has been coming for years and should be no surprise when it accelerates in bad times.

The staffs have been decimated, resources removed, and syndication plugged in to save money. It's happening to big stations in big markets, where some stations are killing weekend news and replacing local programming with infomercials.

That is called "staying alive" and is not the Bee Gees song from the 70's. Chrysler in bankruptcy and being sold by the pound; GM close behind. Ad spending off in double digits since early last year. Where do you suppose station owners are going to get the money to sustain big staffs for AMs that already were dying when the economy is so bad?

You're failing to understand that radio, just like Caterpillar and IBM and Sony have had their profits pretty much wiped out so surviving is the first goal. If you want to talk about cuts, look at newspapers.

There are very few independents with full-market coverage.

B-100 in Philly, KKGO in LA, etc. There are quite a few locally or regionally owned stations... but the individual owners in the 90's not only spotted the chance to cash in their chips at good prices, they saw that new technologies such as satellite and the web were not going to make their stations worth more.

Remember, Clear Channel started in the mid-70s' buying failing radio stations... yes, even a 50.000 watt clear channel AM... facilities that were losing money. They were among those who took advantage of the repeal of Fairness to create todays talk format, giving new life to AM when local and traditional owners did not want those Ancient Modulation stations.

But by the 90's the overpopulation caused by so many new facilities and move ins made many owners lust for a beachfront in Antigua or St. Barts.

Now, add new media to a horrible economy and you have a situation that is not really caused by radio operators big or small... but cutting costs is the only alternative.

 

[adma]

Fundamentally, we're all our own best mom'n'pop these days.

I agree, and as a result, no one is making money. Except the ISPs. And if you think big corporate radio is bad, wait til you tangle with the telecoms. They make CC and Citadel look like Bo Peep.

Yeah, I know, they're even stronger embodiments of "evil anonymous corporate conglomerates". However, at least from the consumer's standpoint, that's cancelled out--at least momentarily--by the very nature of the internet, and the usage thereof. Except perhaps through exorbitant user fees, the telecoms haven't been able to hold *that* down; if they were to truly echo the mythic sins of "big corporate radio", they'd be firewalling everything in sight on behalf of an oppressively internalized and strictly mass-geared package that would make circa-1996 AOL blush. Yeah, like that would go over well--and among whom, these days? They'd be like the remaining Soviet Communist "true believers" in the runup to Perestroika.

Which is just as well an argument for how a lot of what radio *has* been assailed for in the past (crappy commercial music programming, above all) was merely an awkward momentary condition, at least for those prone to doing the complaining. Technology has rendered the point of contention obsolete--these days, it's incredible to consider how wishfully beholden so many of us were to that cramped programming device known as radio, and how olden-time it now seems...