• 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

Who Killed Radio's Mom and Pops

amfmxm said:
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.

The way he does it is by doing exactly what they would do. His DJs read liner cards, he runs Delilah at night, and he's extremely conservative with music. He also just shut down his stream, which is going to hurt him in the long run.

This is why I say that the FCC could impose new ownership rules, require big companies to sell stations, and you still wouldn't see many changes in terms of experimental formats, larger playlists, hiring of more local staff, or increase in public service content.

With regards to the newspaper-owned radio stations, I've said for many years that newspapers make great radio owners. The Chicago Tribune, even in bankruptcy, is doing great with WGN. But the FCC decided a long time ago that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to own electronic media in the same market. Too much media concentration. Potential for monopoly. A lot of markets got waivers to allow them to retain their stations, and just about every one is doing great. The Fredericksburg Free-Star in Virginia owns a 3 station cluster that holds 3 of the Top 5 in its market. Someone mentioned WGTY in Gettysburg. Lots of great examples. But until Congress and the FCC loosen the newspaper cross ownership rule (and Copps just reversed his opinion on it), you won't see any new purchases of radio by other media.

SirRoxalot said:
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.

Excuses excuses. You're the guy who keeps saying quality programming is the key. If what you say is true, if you put what people want on a weak signal, they will go out of their way to listen. The point is that there isn't any format that can attract that kind of passion.
 
adma said:
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.

At a conference a few weeks ago, reps from Comcast and AT&T were asked a lot of very pointed questions on this subject, and you could feel the chill in the room. The situation we have now is very temporary. There are no laws that prevent these companies from competing against other content providers, and creating pricing tiers based on service. Be very careful about making assumptions that just because they're not acting like a monopoly now, that they won't exercise their muscle in the future.
 
But to the point of equalling radio's erstwhile shortcomings? Except in an extreme-case scenario--like, if things were to revert to videotex--even a limited internet comes across better than a limited radio playlist...
 
adma said:
But to the point of equalling radio's erstwhile shortcomings? Except in an extreme-case scenario--like, if things were to revert to videotex--even a limited internet comes across better than a limited radio playlist...

As I continue to point out, there are THOUSANDS of radio companies. There are FOUR telecoms. There are fewer telecoms than major radio companies. Telco is more of a monopoly than radio. Yet radio gets the bad rap.

If enlarging radio playlists would add just 5% to the AQH, everyone and Jerry Lee would jump to do it. There is no upside to enlarging playlists. Except for having a DJ who actually listens to his own station and show.
 
TheBigA said:
adma said:
But to the point of equalling radio's erstwhile shortcomings? Except in an extreme-case scenario--like, if things were to revert to videotex--even a limited internet comes across better than a limited radio playlist...

As I continue to point out, there are THOUSANDS of radio companies. There are FOUR telecoms. There are fewer telecoms than major radio companies. Telco is more of a monopoly than radio. Yet radio gets the bad rap.

If enlarging radio playlists would add just 5% to the AQH, everyone and Jerry Lee would jump to do it. There is no upside to enlarging playlists. Except for having a DJ who actually listens to his own station and show.

Which is why I'm taking a macro-view of the whole issue, i.e. this isn't so much about wide vs narrow playlists, this is about the ability to customize and personalize one's own entertainment choices which, in effect, renders the whole time-honored "playlist question" moot. Maybe the telecoms are more of a monopoly; but when it comes to that critical stuff, it's a hands-off monopoly--it's the nature of the beast. Radio playlists at large are a cumbersome artifact by comparison, with an aging and/or increasingly impoverished marketplace--I mean, if the telecoms have to pare things back to *that* level, it'd be like our throwing out our computers and reverting to typewriters.
 
Hey fellas, I'm lost. Is this thread about playlists now? Or telecoms? Or how new media makes radio obsolete? Or "moms & pops?"

And if this section of the board is "radio pros" and "the business of radio," should some of these people be in here, at all?

Later. Gotta go to work. In radio.
 
amfmxm said:
Hey fellas, I'm lost. Is this thread about playlists now? Or telecoms? Or how new media makes radio obsolete? Or "moms & pops?"

And if this section of the board is "radio pros" and "the business of radio," should some of these people be in here, at all?

Later. Gotta go to work. In radio.

Sorry for the previous post. I have enjoyed participating in these conversations for the past couple of years. Some great exchanges with many people who have varying levels of expertise and wide-ranging experiences. Recently, though, these conversations have been dominated by someone who doesn't appear to be a professional broadcaster, but who does have very strong opinions and a very combative style.

And, as a result, whatever exchange of ideas there might have been has become secondary to online "shouting matches." Not much fun. And not terribly interesting.

So I'm going to withdraw from the fray. Good luck to all who decide to tough it out.
 
What we're talking about is changes of market scale, and how it affects something like RADIO, the inherent value within "RF",
and whether something based in an intangible "aether", "bandwidth", can be leveraged for tangible, monetary gain in a medium
which is basically free "aether" , 'bandwidth", yet highly regulated and taxed.

As our system saw to make so that it is a tangible "business", it is subject all economies-of-scale. windfall and suffering.

I made sure to buy a mail-order 300 dollar battery for my '66 Plymouth from a Mom-n-Pop, as well as the box of acid from a tiny little
NAPA hole in the wall auto parts store on the way home from work.

I'm sure I paid more, but in each case I rewarded them for their special work in one case, ad conveience in the other.
In the 80's and 90's I saw a lot of work in Montreal, and they had old-timey convenience stores. 'depannuers', every 3-4 blocks in the
semi-older parts of the metro, with almost anything you could really need in a pinch, beer and wine included.
Contrast that to Chicago, where that died 30 years ago, and my choice is the Sev, or the 24hr Jewel or Dominicks.
I can't walk to the depanneur. So I don't enjoy this consequence of economy-of-scale, and avoid buyig on price only, lest my neighbor lose their livelihood.

I gotta either look at a sick transmitter, or go to bed.
I wished long ago I could have worked in the medium of radio (which I met in mom-n-pops).
As the 1st Class ticket death and engineer requirements hit, I decided upon graduation to stay out of radio.
I'm still sorry, but I'm still happy. I lost my job Jan 23rd, got hired April 20th, and now I work midnights, but kept my payrate.
The kicker is it's dag-near every day except plant shutdowns on major holidays. Lots of overtime, lots of weekends, meaning almost all.
I'm not going to gripe, in this economy. Met my wife this morning on the way home from my midnighter while she went to her day job.
We met at the old family name-gone-mega-yet -local retailer (ABT) and bought a new Frigidaire fridge.

Still wish I were keeping an AM bright and clear in a economy that valued the medium.
BUt totally happy I went to radio engineering school, because I see all other electronics and computers as based in "radio" fundementals.

I most certainly favor the dj who is actively listening to their show, and enjoying it.
And it is about wider playlists somehow, because that's what flavor is about.
Too much self examination ruins the brownies. They must be baked with confidence.

amfmxm don't go! You're making good points.
 
Why Radio & Music Industry Sucks Nowadays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzm50HEmNeM

We've talked about his before, how consolidators have reduced radio to
repeaters, of homogenized playlist. The heart of radio has been ripped out, Innovation and creativity have been killed. And I guess short-term these strategies appear to be working. I look at trends, like 42 million people listening to internet radio and that's a trend that isn't going to slow down. I look at how online revenues have surpassed radio, and it's not going to slow down.

Radio's revenues have been flat and declining for years. Listenership is also flat, radio isn't growing.
Broadcast TV is facing the same challenges as their viewers are watching more online TV and less broadcast.
 
Tom Wells said:
Still wish I were keeping an AM bright and clear in a economy that valued the medium.

An "economy" does not listen to radio... people do. And today, with the quality of the average AM radio made in the last several decades, there is no such thing as a bright and clear AM. And that is why virtually nobody under 50 listens, except for an occasional sports event... but those, too, are moving to FM.

And it is about wider playlists somehow, because that's what flavor is about.


This old and truthless statement comes back over and over.

The fact is that radio is a form of BROADcasting, not narrowcasting. An iPod is narrowcasting; the playlist is likely extensive and fits the taste of one user alone. A BROADcaster has to program for a consensus, picking only those songs that nearly everyone will like. So, by nature, a radio station will play a short list of songs that are popular and broadly liked.

Radio does music testing research to find out which songs are broadly liked, and plays them. There is no interest in playing fewer songs, just in playing the ones that will be generally liked. If, in any format, there were 100, 200, 500 more mass appeal songs, they would be played. But, as you can tell, there are not any more songs that achieve the goal.

When radio stations expand playlists beyond those songs that are mass appeal, they end up playing songs that are disliked by a percentage of the audience. today, those listeners will tune out when they hear those songs, so the more a station expands the library, the lower the audience will be because more and more listeners will hear more songs they don't like.
 
pocket-radio said:
Why Radio & Music Industry Sucks Nowadays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzm50HEmNeM

We've talked about his before, how consolidators have reduced radio to
repeaters, of homogenized playlist. The heart of radio has been ripped out, Innovation and creativity have been killed. And I guess short-term these strategies appear to be working. I look at trends, like 42 million people listening to Internet radio and that's a trend that isn't going to slow down. I look at how online revenues have surpassed radio, and it's not going to slow down.

Radio's revenues have been flat and declining for years. Listenership is also flat, radio isn't growing.
Broadcast TV is facing the same challenges as their viewers are watching more online TV and less broadcast.

You've bundled up the world in a neat little picture that invites easy answers.

I tend to do that myself once in awhile. I just finished a book tonight. As I walked past the "Newly Arrived Books" at the library this week, this book, like a little doggie at the adoption center, reached out and grabbed me. I haven't bought the fellows thinking at this point, but he took my little world and turned it upside down, inside out, and spelled out the secrets of the world in Cheerios.

O.K. A bit overly dramatic. If your mind is ready for some heavy duty thinking, try "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang.

So while I am topsy-turvy I look at your post and first ask a question: 42 million Internet listeners, huh. Today? Each week? Or do 42 million people listens at least for 3 minutes at least once a year? What is the source, the documentation of 42 million Internet radio listeners?

Second question: What if the ownership rules had not changed so drastically. What if no one could own more than say 24 radio stations to this day. With the coming of computing power and people (including the sons and daughters of radio station owners) coming out of college with modern training in statistics and bean counting.... what are the probabilities that even "Mom and Pop Operated Stations" would be doing about the same thing the hated conglomerates are doing? I can tell you that even down here in Appalachia that little county seat radio stations that continue to exist as stand-alone operations, or as members of a 3 or 4 station collection are more and more lashing themselves to "The Bird" and carrying REAL COUNTRY and other syndication.

So I don't see a lot of difference in what Billy Bob Oglethorpe is doing with his frail little Class A FM in Doodlebugberg compared to what ClearChannel is doing in Atlanta.

Are we standing around beating the wrong dead horse?
 
pocket-radio said:
We've talked about his before, how consolidators have reduced radio to
repeaters, of homogenized playlist.

That's BS. Only ONE consolidator has set up a system of national syndication. From the figure I've seen, maybe a couple hundred stations out of their entire chain are part of it. That means a couple hundred out of 14,000 total radio stations. To make such a sweeping generatization about ALL of radio is simply factually false. Unless you can show numbers different than mine, you're lying.

As for the playlists, they're simply based on hit songs. It's not radio's fault that only a limited number of songs have had any kind of impact worth playing. Maybe it's time for radio to start record labels and signing acts.

pocket-radio said:
Listenership is also flat, radio isn't growing.

Not true. Depends on the format and station. I can tell you some formats are growing. They happen to reflect the areas of population that are growing, namely minorities. The caucasian population is flat and isn't growing, at least compared to the Hispanics. Radio's mistake, in my opinion, is not following that population growth in more areas of the country. The big thing I see is that minorities are growing, and they LOVE traditional radio.
 
adma said:

Depends which train analogy. Trains were fine until anti-big business populists caused the government to over-regulate. They came up with laws requiring trains to operate unprofitable routes, provide unprofitable services, and staff at unprofitable levels. Then the big owners got out, no one replaced them, and the government ended up owning trains and most public transit. The same thing happened in NYC with their subway and bus system. There seems to be a basic inconsistency with the goals of public service and private profit. We saw it in trains, and we see it now in radio.
 
amfmxm said:
Recently, though, these conversations have been dominated by someone who doesn't appear to be a professional broadcaster, but who does have very strong opinions and a very combative style.

Once again, I'd really like to know how you have come to these conclusions about my current occupation simply because they disagree with my opinion. Yes, I have strong opinions, and yes I am passionate about them. That doesn't mean I'm not a professional braodcaster.To jump to that conclusion seems arrogant and closed-minded to me. Some people don't like to be challenged in their opinions. Their opinions are very hard and deep, and not subject to discussion. That is not the way the world works. If you are a professional broadcaster, and you aren't willing to hear other opinions or perhaps adjust to changing market condistions, you will be out of work soon. Perhaps it's not MY occupation that should be suspect.
 
"Caucasian population is flat and isn't growing" Well then where have the caucasians gone? Increasingly being diverted to other media. The biggest mistake radio made is worrying more about shareholders value, and focusing on the jukebox business and not the entertainment business. PC does a fine job playing music and never gets sick or asks for a pay raise. Free music is everyplace today, listeners can hear the same music played again and again, or they don't and can migrate to the internet or similar ipod devices.

Those who grow up with digital media will view radio as less relivant, I can't remember the last time I cranked up my Victrola?
 
adma said:

Thanks for the link. Good topic and information to help us back up from our conversation here and look for some big-picture logic. What does the train analogy (the ONE that you linked to) have to say to today's debate about broadcasting?

I think I already see some discussion trying to place the blame for poor train service today compared to say 70 years ago on government regulation which keeps free enterprise from functioning. I would offer the claim: That is a minor issue in rail passenger service. This will look like a tangent, but I will after offering some alternative possibilities about passenger rail service going down hill try to picture comparable tends affecting radio.

1. There was a time when rail was to some extent the only game available. My wife's ancestors migrated from where we live in Georgia today over to Western Arkansas in the era of the Civil War and just after. We have been doing genealogy studies and I am amazed at what the primitive railroads of the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s offered and the circuitous routes that were taken. It had to be hard travel but it was the best available at the time. Today I can drive my car on the Interstate and that in turn gives me a form of local transportation when I get there. I have total freedom to interrupt the trip to deal with upset stomachs, fatigue, constipation or whatever. The train does not react to how I feel. I can fly is time is critical and I am impatient about getting back to being productive.

2. The early, reasonable fast, efficient passenger rail service was THE early cash producer. The freight train was given secondary status and was required to get off the mainline onto a siding and wait and wait and wait until the precious passenger train passed through like a prima-donna. Then freight became the cash cow and today if we ride a passenger train it may be us sitting on the siding waiting for the precious, cash producing freight to roll on by at full speed. This may be the largest single reason why today's cross country passenger schedules are not as fast as as they were three generations ago.

3. We need to slightly debunk the idea that early trains were totally free-enterprise entrepreneur driven and that today's rather sad rail system in burdened down by government. Many of us who grew up or have lived in the Midwest and the West know that the abstract for our farmland that we sold when were not willing to return to Seedtick, OK and Redbug, AR to posses our inheritance.... the abstract dated back to the "rail-road grant". For building railroads across America the Federal treasury doled out mass undeveloped acreages to the railroads to bribe them to build railroad track like there was no tomorrow. Following the collusion between the railroads and the Standard Oil trust, massive anti-trust regulations went into place in the late 1800s and the early 1900's. Those slick railroad schedules of the 1930s, the 1940s were possible because there was massive subsidy and regulation of the railroads. Today's political mood in Washington has basically stripped the railroads of regulation and Federal funding and we wonder why American rail travel today is so 3rd worldish.

Now. Let's 1, 2, 3 the radio broadcasting scene.

1. From broadcasting's inception up until some date... we will disagree what the date is, but somewhere from 1950 to 1980, radio had something of a monopoly. Want the weather NOW, its on the radio. Want the cattle, hog and grain prices out on the farm? Its on the radio. Want to know when the political candidates will be in your county so you can take time to see them? Its on the radio. Will there be school today? Only on the radio. Many homes had no phone. Many homes had no radio. There was no TV. There was no Internet. Your choice was the radio, or the radio, or the radio.

2. Radio used to be on the main line and others were put on the side track. Got a CP to build your town's first radio station? Zoning was a shoe-in. Civic pride demanded fast tracing of such details. We as a community want OUR radio station. Today with cell phone people clogging up the zoning offices and the skyline, lots of luck on moving your tower. Want access to your politicians for interviews? Radio stations used to be ushered in like royalty. Today sit on the the side track. The Lobbyists get their time first, TV second, and maybe we will have some time and energy to see your radio reporter tomorrow.

3. In the early days of radio you had to file as part of your application a study, a report proving that you as the owner/licensee had enough capital available to build and operate the station for maybe a year assuming not the first red cent of advertising came in. You also had to file some justification that there indeed was a base of advertising revenue to support the long station in the long term. Here comes the change. Once you got your station going, you could stone-wall potential competitors for a long time challenging their claim that the community could support a second or third radio station. As much as broadcasters have hated FCC regulations and paperwork, the earlier system was very protective of the existing stations. And that horrendous requirement that you have a First Phone on duty and do all this renewal paperwork every three years made investors thinking about a second and third station in your market (or the 6th or 7th station in larger markets) think long and hard because the burden of all this bureaucracy scared away a lot of would-be competition. In some ways the hated government and regulators were among the best friends early radio had. Today we are enlightened and we have deregulated and starved the budget of the regulators until they don't have the manpower to harass us. And what has that done for us? It's killed our industry.

O.K. The logic is a bit over the top. Life is not all that simple. But many of the simple answers parroted over and over and over again on these discussion boards are pretty rag-tag and full of holes. We need some critical thinking and less political mud-slinging.

Now. Where did I put my slide rule. Need one of those to run a radio station right. ;D
 
pocket-radio said:
"Caucasian population is flat and isn't growing" Well then where have the caucasians gone?

They have not gone anywhere. Non-Hispanic whites are barely keeping equalling the death rate with new births, while Black, Hispanic and Asian families as well as new immigration is producing the growth in the US.

Growth markets have always had high appeal for advertisers, so stations catering to any aspect of the growth population groups will be ahead of the rest.
 
TheBigA said:
adma said:

Depends which train analogy. Trains were fine until anti-big business populists caused the government to over-regulate. They came up with laws requiring trains to operate unprofitable routes, provide unprofitable services, and staff at unprofitable levels. Then the big owners got out, no one replaced them, and the government ended up owning trains and most public transit. The same thing happened in NYC with their subway and bus system. There seems to be a basic inconsistency with the goals of public service and private profit. We saw it in trains, and we see it now in radio.

Ah, but when it comes to the decline and fall of public/intercity transportation in the USA, for every bit of blame laid upon "anti-big business populists", there's a counter-blame to be laid upon big business working in collusion. In any event, the situation with bus/rail mass transportation half a century ago was eerily similar to the situation with TV/radio/newspaper mass media today: whomever one can lay the blame on, big government or big business, ultimately it was a simple matter of obsolescence in everyday life. Private automobiles and air travel did the trick for bus and rail then; the internet et al did it for TV/radio/newspapers today.

Though I find it interesting how within jurisdictions where healthy rail/bus networks remain (like much of Europe and the so-called "third world"), radio is either "healthier" or has made a more organic transition t/w new-media platforms. And if the trajectory of radio in N America is increasingly "ethnic", it echoes that of much of the public transportation usage that remains--otherwise, it's a forlorn relic of last resort.

Still, when it comes to public transport, some jurisdictions have "learned"--like, TheBigA's negative example of NYC's subway/bus system might have been pertinent during its graffiti-ridden 70s nadir, but if he's the sort to propose rationalizing away half its existing bus and/or subway routes today, hoo boy, that's asking for a tar and feathering...
 
Back to trains, the train operators failed because they thought they were in the train business, yet they were in the transportation business. How does this fit with radio? Duh, hello, radio thought they were in the radio business, when in reality they are in the entertainment business.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom