A
adma
Guest
pocket-radio said:
Or, they thought they were the entertainment business, rather than just being "in it"--again, similar to the train operators...
-
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
- Thread starter Mufallata Spread
- Start date
Or, they thought they were the entertainment business, rather than just being "in it"--again, similar to the train operators...
pocket-radio said:
Radio is NOT in the entertainment business. Tell me one other part of the entertainment business that is licensed by the government. Recordings? Movies? Theater? Music? None of them. The government license prevents radio from being in the entertainment business. The profit motive prevents radio from being in the public service business. It's that intersection between entertainment and public service where radio has problems.
Are there ownership limits on the number of record labels you can own? The number of theaters you can own? In the same town? Is someone telling recording artists they must be local and can't distribute their entertainment nationally? Come on. Let's be fair.
Different radio companies interpret the radio business differently. Clearly, CBS sees itself as being in the CONTENT business. Not the towers and transmitters business. Which is why it is so willing to sell the transmitters and towers. As was ABC.
But railroad companies had little choice as to what business they were in. At the time they started to collapse (ie, the 1930s), there was no trucking business, planes were not very practical, and cars were pretty new. So you really can't blame the railroad companies. At the time, they had the best system of transportation in the country. Unfortunately, the government made it unprofitable. And the only part of railroading the government screwed up was passenger rail. To this day, there is still money to be made in freight rail, and most of the rail freight companies are making good money. Companies like CSX are very clearly in the transportation business. But NOT passenger rail. There are many towns that have railroads passing through them, but no passenger stations. And it has nothing to do with the companies, misunderstanding their business. It was about the government seeing a source of revenue, and killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
TheBigA said:
Excellent essay, Big A. Let me offer a couple of alternative thoughts for some of the little details.
CSX may understand what business they are in today, but they are the "aggregation" that picked up the broken pieces left behind by the management of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Some of the logic previously presented by others that you are negating in your essay leaves both stories with some valuable insite. At a critical earlier time railroad people may have had difficulty seeing what their role was and what it should be.
There are two government actions that impact this history that, if added to your narrative, might change some of the thinking. Beginning with TVA and other waterways projects in the 1930s, railroads EXCLUSIVE hold on freight business had a new competition in a number of markets. The Federal government subsidized a NEW competition on the railroads. When the Arkansas River received locks and dams in a project of the late 1950s and early 1960s a very astute friend said: "Your hometown in Western Arkansas has just gained new opportunity to escape the economics of the Ozarks and Appalachia. Even if they never install a barge dock in your town, the freight rates will come down. The railroads will be forced to recognize the POTENTIAL barge rates... and now your town can hope for a new industrial base because of lower freight rates. The Federal government subsidized a NEW competition on the railroads.
And your essay conveniently overlooked Mr. Eisenhower's project known as Interstate Highways. Another Federal subsidization of competition to the railroads.
So does this wobbly, far ranging discussion have anything to do with radio? I maintain that not enough people in radio ever flexed their brain-muscles enough in looking at other people challenges and missed opportunities enough to use them as a mirror to see the frailties existing in the broadcasting model. Its not that radio people are dumb. Just too wrapped up in their snug cocoon that was just big enough to contain announcers who could say cute things, and the world of recorded music.
Radio people were not laying awake at night thinking about all the money NASA was putting into space and ruggedizing electronics and miniaturizing electronics which was going to eventually result in a little device smaller than a pocketwatch that I can strap to my arm when I go for a walk and it sends audio into my ears. And I bought it for $19.95 the other day.
I am not immune to lack of insite. In 1963 I was spending some of my spare time at the local library in a small rust belt town where I discovered a set of books published by Bell Labs. Today we would call them "white papers". That is where I first learned that the phone company was digitizing the audio of phone calls and "multiplexing" multiple conversations on a single pair of wires. Did I have visions of what that would someday do for FOR radio... and TO radio. No.
So, if you want to be a little big elastic in your thinking, we can say today that through the NASA Space Program, the Federal government had a hand in subsidizing the eventual destruction on radio broadcasting and you and I have known it.
So what tell-tale signs are we overlooking TODAY that will shape how humans engage in mass communication 20 years from now? The railroads, in a new business format, are still here. Will radio still be here 20 years from now, and what will its business model look like?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I agree, and the rest of your post points out that it's a huge oversimplification to say railroads didn't realize they were in the transportation business. Of course they realized it. Then, as you say, the government was supporting their competition. It's tough to compete against the government, no matter how big & powerful you are.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
In 20 years, the internet will be about 35-40 years old, which will put it at a very mature business. I imagine by that point, chinks will appear in the armor, and there will be new competition to the internet that will allow for even more options than we have today. Nothing stays the same. It either grows or dies. Google is no longer the lean, nimble company it was just a few years ago. I'm already seeing indications that people are viewing them as the next Clear Channel, owning too much stuff and invading personal privacy.
I don't think anyone can plan for 20 years into the future. You need to take the small steps before you take the big ones, and every step leads to the next one. But one thing I know is there's no one single unified vision of the future, especially for radio. Every company has different goals. There will be many approaches, just as there are today.
Hello, Jay Leno, Saturday Night live, Wide world of sports, That football game, lost and who want to be a millionaire, movie of the week are all forms of entertainment shown on your local NBC, ABC, CBS stations, all regulated by the government. Dude take a deep breath, it's just radio. Some listen for news, information, sports or music.. and it's all forms of entertainment. The problem is radio's brand of entertainment can easily be found anyplace these days. Newspapers have the same problem.
Some day the internet will replace everything.
Some day the internet will replace everything.
pocket-radio said:
There was a time in U.S. history when it looked like man-made canals would dominate life and transportation in the country. That lasted maybe less than 10 years.
There was a short period of time when it looked like the steam powered engines would dominate the tractor market of American farmers.
Right now it does look like the Internet will be "the pizza that ate Pittsburgh."
But lurking at the edge of the stage is the issue of copyright and royalties.
And the issue of patents. Who was it that claimed they had a patent on using "one click".
And the issue of taxing commerce on the Internet.
And the issue of possibly charging everybody for their Internet usage base on volume of usage.
And if we put everything on the Internet and the terrorists decide to kill our commerce by hacking the Internet to death.
And if everything ends up on the Internet, what the hell happens to people who live on the isolated far back side of the mountain and can't get Internet?
This is supposedly the richest country in the world but we can't afford to fix transportation, we can't afford to fix education, we can't afford keep our armed forces at current levels, we can't afford health care for our people, we are told we soon can't afford Social Security and Medicare.
If we put everything on the Internet and then find out we can't afford to keep the Internet functioning fully, then a lot of everything goes whirling down the toilet.
This all makes my head hurt.
Agreed The era of we broadcast and you watch or listen is dead. It's now we watch or listen, to what we want, when we want. Arrogance verses technology, uh hmm let me think? Technology is a game changer and it's something nobody really believe would ever happen,
Watch industries that can change, they'll survive and the ones that don't, die!
Watch industries that can change, they'll survive and the ones that don't, die!
Who's Killing RADIO?
I find it hard to believe how many people are willing to write off radio as "dead". Perhaps you're right. GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS or GO BANKRUPT. The sooner the better.
Radio lacks one major ingredient that made it invaluable in the past - IMMEDIACY. THAT was the important element that let short-form radio news compete with TV and newspapers. That was the important element that made the music compelling for so many listeners. The music had immediacy because live, local jocks made it important to what was going on in THAT market at THAT moment. Of course, they needed some "wiggle room" for that to be even more effective.
Radio WAS interactive. Phoners, contesting, WELL-DONE promotions, remotes from major events that fit the lifestyle of the listeners, and dozens of other "old school" practices made radio a LOT more compelling than the sterile VT and/or syndicated pap on air RIGHT NOW in too many markets.
Radio used to be on the street. If there was a major concert, radio was there, providing "atmosphere" and giving people who COULDN'T be there a feel of the excitement for the show. It required talented people who could translate that energy to the audience so THEY could feel that they were part of the event. Radio gave events more weight, more meaning.
Concerts are just one example. There are dozens of events - especially during the summer - where thousands of people gather to share a "scene". PROFESSIONAL communicators with greater access to the back stage area do a MUCH better job of setting the scene and capturing the vibe than any text message or cell phone call.
Of course, all that means having live bodies in the studio, and programmers having the flexibility to go live when it will impact their audience. It requires enough bodies to get an ATTRACTIVE remote set up on location. It requires the flexibility to do a concert replay. It requires programmers who have enough time to plan for events ahead of time, and allocate promo and technical resources for that event. It requires enough sales people so that somebody can line up a client to underwrite that "special event" and make the venture a profitable event.
Try doing ANY of that on you iPod. Or with a Voice Track. Or with syndicated talent. There ARE stations that are STILL doing that kind of radio, and they're doing just fine, thank you very much. Unfortunately, the number of stations ABLE to do that kind of radio (formerly known as GOOD radio) are fewer and farther between because of cuts handed down by corporate.
The only thing wrong with radio is the OWNERSHIP and their MOUNTAIN OF DEBT. Their cost-cutting is KILLING THE MEDIUM.
I find it hard to believe how many people are willing to write off radio as "dead". Perhaps you're right. GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS or GO BANKRUPT. The sooner the better.
Radio lacks one major ingredient that made it invaluable in the past - IMMEDIACY. THAT was the important element that let short-form radio news compete with TV and newspapers. That was the important element that made the music compelling for so many listeners. The music had immediacy because live, local jocks made it important to what was going on in THAT market at THAT moment. Of course, they needed some "wiggle room" for that to be even more effective.
Radio WAS interactive. Phoners, contesting, WELL-DONE promotions, remotes from major events that fit the lifestyle of the listeners, and dozens of other "old school" practices made radio a LOT more compelling than the sterile VT and/or syndicated pap on air RIGHT NOW in too many markets.
Radio used to be on the street. If there was a major concert, radio was there, providing "atmosphere" and giving people who COULDN'T be there a feel of the excitement for the show. It required talented people who could translate that energy to the audience so THEY could feel that they were part of the event. Radio gave events more weight, more meaning.
Concerts are just one example. There are dozens of events - especially during the summer - where thousands of people gather to share a "scene". PROFESSIONAL communicators with greater access to the back stage area do a MUCH better job of setting the scene and capturing the vibe than any text message or cell phone call.
Of course, all that means having live bodies in the studio, and programmers having the flexibility to go live when it will impact their audience. It requires enough bodies to get an ATTRACTIVE remote set up on location. It requires the flexibility to do a concert replay. It requires programmers who have enough time to plan for events ahead of time, and allocate promo and technical resources for that event. It requires enough sales people so that somebody can line up a client to underwrite that "special event" and make the venture a profitable event.
Try doing ANY of that on you iPod. Or with a Voice Track. Or with syndicated talent. There ARE stations that are STILL doing that kind of radio, and they're doing just fine, thank you very much. Unfortunately, the number of stations ABLE to do that kind of radio (formerly known as GOOD radio) are fewer and farther between because of cuts handed down by corporate.
The only thing wrong with radio is the OWNERSHIP and their MOUNTAIN OF DEBT. Their cost-cutting is KILLING THE MEDIUM.
Re: Who's Killing RADIO?
Many of us participating in this conversation have a dream that the world be as rosy as what you perceive it to be.
I know of some "mom and pops" that are surviving quite well because they have good management, and they are not burdened down with impossible debt. But in listening to what they have to say, I gather they are telling us that "life ain't what it used to be."
Some of them are doing well because they invested in capital items at the right time. Many of them know that over the 10, 15 or 20 year period in this new era of audience, finance, technology that when the time comes to acquire a new transmitter or replace a studio that is living on borrowed time, they may find themselves taking of debt or leases that really eat into their current lifestyle.
Yes, the big group owners thought they could really grow by using debt leverage. It was a gutsy business plan to start with but looking at 1998 or 2001 business conditions, I'm sure they had computer modeling that indicated it would work. Unfortunately they didn't include scenarios as bizarre as today's financial conditions.
I don't know how many Mom and Pop operators take the energy and time to develop computer business models. It's not Eistein level math. Just tedious. But those who do have to be gritting their teeth because the models will tell them that room for error is much thinner than it used to be.
(The first computer model I ever saw was for developing a Retirement Residential facility. I have done them for the automobile dealer business plan and for my own proposed radio station. One of the reasons I didn't get it bought is because my model made it quite clear what the maximum was that I could pay for the station. The sell was asking 3.3x what my model said was "skin of the teeth" viable. He held out and got 2.6x from someone else. Those are not CASH FLOW multiples.... but multiples of what I though was do-able. ) I'm waiting to see what becomes of the new ownership situation. ;D
SirRoxalot said:
Many of us participating in this conversation have a dream that the world be as rosy as what you perceive it to be.
I know of some "mom and pops" that are surviving quite well because they have good management, and they are not burdened down with impossible debt. But in listening to what they have to say, I gather they are telling us that "life ain't what it used to be."
Some of them are doing well because they invested in capital items at the right time. Many of them know that over the 10, 15 or 20 year period in this new era of audience, finance, technology that when the time comes to acquire a new transmitter or replace a studio that is living on borrowed time, they may find themselves taking of debt or leases that really eat into their current lifestyle.
Yes, the big group owners thought they could really grow by using debt leverage. It was a gutsy business plan to start with but looking at 1998 or 2001 business conditions, I'm sure they had computer modeling that indicated it would work. Unfortunately they didn't include scenarios as bizarre as today's financial conditions.
I don't know how many Mom and Pop operators take the energy and time to develop computer business models. It's not Eistein level math. Just tedious. But those who do have to be gritting their teeth because the models will tell them that room for error is much thinner than it used to be.
(The first computer model I ever saw was for developing a Retirement Residential facility. I have done them for the automobile dealer business plan and for my own proposed radio station. One of the reasons I didn't get it bought is because my model made it quite clear what the maximum was that I could pay for the station. The sell was asking 3.3x what my model said was "skin of the teeth" viable. He held out and got 2.6x from someone else. Those are not CASH FLOW multiples.... but multiples of what I though was do-able. ) I'm waiting to see what becomes of the new ownership situation. ;D
One of the things that makes it difficult to read this thread is how many posters are so quick to paint radio, and TV and the web for that matter, with a very broad brush. Sweeping generalizations, that generally don't hold up to close scrutiny.
For one thing, there are plenty of radio stations all over the country doing "live" responsible, interactive, community-focused programming. Because those stations continue to be very successful they don't seem to attract our attention. Instead it appears to be much easier to focus on the bare-bones automated or voicetracked stations that admittedly seem to outnumber the ones doing it right.
I can't disagree that the current lending environment makes it tough for moms & pops to even find financing, but then this has always been a game tilted toward rich folks. Even back in the "good old days," it really helped to have wealthy ancestors dump a wheel barrow full of cash in your lap before becoming an "entrepreneur."
For one thing, there are plenty of radio stations all over the country doing "live" responsible, interactive, community-focused programming. Because those stations continue to be very successful they don't seem to attract our attention. Instead it appears to be much easier to focus on the bare-bones automated or voicetracked stations that admittedly seem to outnumber the ones doing it right.
I can't disagree that the current lending environment makes it tough for moms & pops to even find financing, but then this has always been a game tilted toward rich folks. Even back in the "good old days," it really helped to have wealthy ancestors dump a wheel barrow full of cash in your lap before becoming an "entrepreneur."
Who Killed Radio's Mom and Pops?
Mom and Pop when they sold out.
Mom and Pop when they sold out.
Re: Who Killed Radio's Mom & Pops?
You sound like grandpa. Radio used to run original drama, game shows, and a ventriloquist named Edgar Bergen & his puppet Charlie McCarthey. So what? Who cares?
The present is never as good as the past. Every generation thinks what they did was better than now. The music is never as good, the girls were never as pretty, and the sex was never as good. On and on and on.
Here's the fact: Cost cutting isn't killing the medium. Because there are THOUSANDS of radio stations that aren't cutting costs or firing anyone. And they're not doing much better than anyone else. Trying to force radio to be what it once was is what's killing the medium. Please do us all a favor and imagine radio without a past. Focus on what's going on now, and the competition that exists today.
SirRoxalot said:
You sound like grandpa. Radio used to run original drama, game shows, and a ventriloquist named Edgar Bergen & his puppet Charlie McCarthey. So what? Who cares?
The present is never as good as the past. Every generation thinks what they did was better than now. The music is never as good, the girls were never as pretty, and the sex was never as good. On and on and on.
Here's the fact: Cost cutting isn't killing the medium. Because there are THOUSANDS of radio stations that aren't cutting costs or firing anyone. And they're not doing much better than anyone else. Trying to force radio to be what it once was is what's killing the medium. Please do us all a favor and imagine radio without a past. Focus on what's going on now, and the competition that exists today.
Re: Who Killed Radio
I sounds like grandpa, and you sound like an apologist for the practices of the consolidators who are drowning in debt.
"Immediacy" is exactly what radio needs to resurrect if its going to remain a viable medium. Will it sound like it did five years ago, or ten years ago, or twenty years ago? No. One thing is for sure - voice tracking and syndication ARE like "listening to somebody else's iPod". In fact, syndication is only a few years away from NOT NEEDING RADIO FOR DISTRIBUTION. Why would radio want to build an audience for programming that won't need radio anyway?
Carry on with your current practices. They're SO successful and forward-looking that bankruptcy looms over your head like the sword of Damocles. There are people out there who will LOVE to compete with you once stations start selling for 20% of what the consolidators paid for them a few years ago.
I sounds like grandpa, and you sound like an apologist for the practices of the consolidators who are drowning in debt.
"Immediacy" is exactly what radio needs to resurrect if its going to remain a viable medium. Will it sound like it did five years ago, or ten years ago, or twenty years ago? No. One thing is for sure - voice tracking and syndication ARE like "listening to somebody else's iPod". In fact, syndication is only a few years away from NOT NEEDING RADIO FOR DISTRIBUTION. Why would radio want to build an audience for programming that won't need radio anyway?
Carry on with your current practices. They're SO successful and forward-looking that bankruptcy looms over your head like the sword of Damocles. There are people out there who will LOVE to compete with you once stations start selling for 20% of what the consolidators paid for them a few years ago.
Silkie said:
That is an interesting thought. Maybe we should look at how radio and farms are alike. Maybe we should also observe how they are different.
My contribution to the thought is this: There remain a lot of successful family farms that are doing very will, thank you. Can radio learn something from them?
Boy! I really miss milking those damn cows! :-\
Re: Who Killed Radio
No apologies at all. I didn't mention them. Just commented on what you said.
BS. There's immediacy every day on the radio, and it has had NO IMPACT on the medium whatsoever. You probably are so blind to it, you don't recognize it when it happens. Does it happen on EVERY radio station in EVERY town 24/7? No. But it happens on several stations in just about every town, and it's a non-factor in whether a station does well in the ratings. It's the tree falling in the forest, mainly because everyone has become numb to it, and immediacy surrounds them on every device they own. So radio is nothing special anymore. All those techniques that used to work before the internet and cell phones are now old hat.
You have no idea what I do or what I've done. You've created a imaginary enemy that you can attack just like Rush does with liberals. It's childish and silly. In fact, MY practices are successful, and there's no threats of bankruptcy anywhere near me. So keep on wasting your breath yelling at some figment of your imagination.
SirRoxalot said:
No apologies at all. I didn't mention them. Just commented on what you said.
SirRoxalot said:
BS. There's immediacy every day on the radio, and it has had NO IMPACT on the medium whatsoever. You probably are so blind to it, you don't recognize it when it happens. Does it happen on EVERY radio station in EVERY town 24/7? No. But it happens on several stations in just about every town, and it's a non-factor in whether a station does well in the ratings. It's the tree falling in the forest, mainly because everyone has become numb to it, and immediacy surrounds them on every device they own. So radio is nothing special anymore. All those techniques that used to work before the internet and cell phones are now old hat.
SirRoxalot said:
You have no idea what I do or what I've done. You've created a imaginary enemy that you can attack just like Rush does with liberals. It's childish and silly. In fact, MY practices are successful, and there's no threats of bankruptcy anywhere near me. So keep on wasting your breath yelling at some figment of your imagination.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
The people who killed the family farms were the children of the farmers who decided that farming wasn't for them, and moved to the big city where they became cogs in the corporate machine. There were also the people who decided shopping at the chain stores was cheaper than shopping at farmers markets. Just as shopping at the Wal Mart was cheaper than shopping at the local hardware store. How does it relate to radio? People want content that THEY create, not content made by DJs, PDs, and MDs. Get the gatekeepers out of the way. They prove it every day on You Tube, which is WAY more interesting that ANY morning show. And none of it is live or local. Yet it's funny and entertaining. How can that be? Because the people feel an OWNERSHIP in the content they're allowed to create. They have none with radio created by professionals.
I'd really love to see statistics on how many people work in family-owned businesses today. How many people on this board work in the same business as their parents? I bet the number is WAY lower than it was 20 years ago. Not because those businesses went away, but because the next generation simply chose to do something else. I mean, there was a time when people had arranged marriages, and the new couple continued in the family business. That went on for generations, and in some countries, it still happens. Maybe even in some rural parts of this country, it still happens. But it isn't as prevalent as it used to be. So while you're bemoaning the demise of mom & pops, say a prayer for the traditional American family.
Re: Who Killed Radio
Radio's epitaph, it seems to me was written long before the ubiquity of technological advances over the last decade. Things like the internet, and fragmented formats and alternative platforms are not the problem. They're not helping, and they are threatening the economic model, but the real problem is deeper than that, I think, and it's possible there may be no solution.
Plenty of radio owners enjoyed comfortable profits at a healthy rate long before the excessive pyramid schemes of the 90s began to mushroom. The old model of mom & pops, or radio stations that were part of a large family of business enterprises within a corporation portfolio --15 percent profits would've been just fine but certain ambitious parties began to realize they could put out a more mediocre product and make more money rather than provide a great radio station.
The seeds of what we're seeing now were planted when radio went from being a business to being an investment, when the focus moved from sustainable growth to maximizing quarterly profits and placating investors at any cost. No business grows forever but no business could support the outrageous prices investors paid for stations and groups over the last 15 years. Not that this mattered to the greedy short-timers who were making money hand over fist, but when the bubble burst and revenues shrank, it was the diamonds-in-the-teeth crowd that got caught, stuck with a heavy debt load that was unsustainable despite draconian cost-cutting measures.
It's been said that radio makes the mistake of being a one-way conversation box that doesn't communicate with its audience, that doesn't reach out to its customers. We often accuse broadcasters of this self-important attitude. I would postulate that corporate entities are equally guilty of the same malfeasance.
Corporate broadcasters were so busy flipping radio properties for higher and higher prices, they had little interest in using the nineties to put some of their profit into R&D and try to anticipate what was coming in the age of digitization. They never worked to make their product better and more essential --in fact, in some cases, they resisted the idea-- and it was at that critical moment before the internet arrived that all they did was take profits and they did it because the analysts on Wall Street said this was a very, very lucrative sector and we're going to take every dollar that we can out of it. That might be how you take care of investors but it's not how you take care of your customers, be they listeners or advertisers, and it's the customer that grows your business, not the investor. This has happened with dozens of industries and economic sectors: Record companies, newspaper companies, banking, real estate. The result is a group of people who managed to turn a thriving business into a penny stock. And now they're sitting around, putz in hand and not a pot to piss in wondering, "Well, what do we do now?" I know: Fire more people! Renegotiate the debt load. Come up with a smoke and mirrors package to head off any impending threats from Congress about localization or consolidation. Maybe we can find a buyer! These solutions are destined to be failures because they're old school solutions of a different era, just like the radio some accuse others of longing for. If anyone is mired in the past, it's the owners.
It's a facile argument to claim that people want to turn back the clock but it seems to me contributors on here are neither that naïve nor that nostalgic. However, I don't think anyone on this thread or on these boards has a concrete clue as to how radio will get out of the mess in which it finds itself, or even if it ever can, nor can any of us say with any degree of certainty that what is happening now wouldn't have happened anyway. But the excessive greed that drove the current crop of corporate captains has surely hastened the process.
SirRoxalot said:
Radio's epitaph, it seems to me was written long before the ubiquity of technological advances over the last decade. Things like the internet, and fragmented formats and alternative platforms are not the problem. They're not helping, and they are threatening the economic model, but the real problem is deeper than that, I think, and it's possible there may be no solution.
Plenty of radio owners enjoyed comfortable profits at a healthy rate long before the excessive pyramid schemes of the 90s began to mushroom. The old model of mom & pops, or radio stations that were part of a large family of business enterprises within a corporation portfolio --15 percent profits would've been just fine but certain ambitious parties began to realize they could put out a more mediocre product and make more money rather than provide a great radio station.
The seeds of what we're seeing now were planted when radio went from being a business to being an investment, when the focus moved from sustainable growth to maximizing quarterly profits and placating investors at any cost. No business grows forever but no business could support the outrageous prices investors paid for stations and groups over the last 15 years. Not that this mattered to the greedy short-timers who were making money hand over fist, but when the bubble burst and revenues shrank, it was the diamonds-in-the-teeth crowd that got caught, stuck with a heavy debt load that was unsustainable despite draconian cost-cutting measures.
It's been said that radio makes the mistake of being a one-way conversation box that doesn't communicate with its audience, that doesn't reach out to its customers. We often accuse broadcasters of this self-important attitude. I would postulate that corporate entities are equally guilty of the same malfeasance.
Corporate broadcasters were so busy flipping radio properties for higher and higher prices, they had little interest in using the nineties to put some of their profit into R&D and try to anticipate what was coming in the age of digitization. They never worked to make their product better and more essential --in fact, in some cases, they resisted the idea-- and it was at that critical moment before the internet arrived that all they did was take profits and they did it because the analysts on Wall Street said this was a very, very lucrative sector and we're going to take every dollar that we can out of it. That might be how you take care of investors but it's not how you take care of your customers, be they listeners or advertisers, and it's the customer that grows your business, not the investor. This has happened with dozens of industries and economic sectors: Record companies, newspaper companies, banking, real estate. The result is a group of people who managed to turn a thriving business into a penny stock. And now they're sitting around, putz in hand and not a pot to piss in wondering, "Well, what do we do now?" I know: Fire more people! Renegotiate the debt load. Come up with a smoke and mirrors package to head off any impending threats from Congress about localization or consolidation. Maybe we can find a buyer! These solutions are destined to be failures because they're old school solutions of a different era, just like the radio some accuse others of longing for. If anyone is mired in the past, it's the owners.
It's a facile argument to claim that people want to turn back the clock but it seems to me contributors on here are neither that naïve nor that nostalgic. However, I don't think anyone on this thread or on these boards has a concrete clue as to how radio will get out of the mess in which it finds itself, or even if it ever can, nor can any of us say with any degree of certainty that what is happening now wouldn't have happened anyway. But the excessive greed that drove the current crop of corporate captains has surely hastened the process.
- Status