Why did FM succeed?

[TheBigA]

Most stations are not programmed locally anymore. That is the problem. Localism works, it is just not being tried in many places anymore.

What do you mean by "most?" The majority of radio stations ARE programmed locally. The ones owned by the big guys mostly aren't. But they aren't suffering in the ratings. Meaning that the public doesn't care whether the stations are local. Just that they're good, and they play what they want when they want it.

 

[tomservo]

They don't contradict at all. Most stations are not programmed locally anymore. That is the problem. Localism works, it is just not being tried in many places anymore.

What's the difference in someone earning minimum wage plugging in songs locally versus someone doing to for 15 or 20 stations from an office in Dallas? As long as it's the music people want to hear, the station will do well.

 

[mmnassour]

Points 4 and 5 contradict. On the one hand, you say ipods and internet are growing. On the other hand you say radio needs to be local. Neither ipods not internet are local. Public radio, which depends on its national programming, is also growing. Clearly, this idea that stations need to be programmed localled is wrong. If localism was so popular, listeners wouldn't be turning to internet, satellite, and NPR.

I think his point is that remote-jukebox FM is no match for iPods or Internet radio. This point is, that FM needs to offer something that you can't get off an iPod or the Internet.

But then...I think we've had this discussion before!

 

[Savage]

No, the argument has been stood on its head. People are turning to the internet, satellite and NPR because there IS very little local content on "local radio." Tune to the average corporate-owned station and you'll encounter an automated jukebox-type format with "fourteen in a row" generically imaged by the usual angry-voice liner guy-du-jour, minimal content voicetracked in (often if not typically from outside the market) and a giant gob on tuned-out guaranteed commercials.

The fact that listeners are increasingly failing to gravitate towards this kind of "local radio" proves, rather than disproves, the argument.

It's like a recipe. The more ingredients you remove, the blander and worse is the final product. Want more flavor? Restore the ingredients...artfully. You need to give people reasons to listen....as in "content," delivered with the other factors, all of which are unavailable elsewhere...like satellite or iPods. And of course the "content" has to be useful and appealing to the end listener.

This is not magical, nor mysterious. It's common sense.

 

[tomservo]

Savage, I think that point could be countered by the fact that so many tune out of radio to iPods because they don't want aural 'clutter'. Local content is speech driven and people hate having the music interrupted. Whether that be for a weather forecast or high school football scores or God forbid… six minutes of commercials.

While the mp3 player route is very expensive if one is constantly seeking new music, it eliminates the three most hated things about radio: yakking DJs, long commercial breaks and hearing songs that the listener doesn't like.

That's not to say that every single listener feels that way, but it's enough to cause significant erosion in listenership as the technology improves.

I think localism is important in small towns, but anything from mid-sized cities and on up, how can it be relevant to everyone listening? Remember, everything irrelevant is clutter. If I'm not looking for a new car, all those shouty Kia ads are just clutter. If I'm not in the mood to go clubbing, all those Señor Frog promos are clutter. And clutter drives me (er, the listener) away unless the listener is somewhere where he/she can't change the station, like a dentist's office.

 

[Savage]

Oops, sorry, Zach, I didn't identify who I was countering - actually my comments referenced BigA's about the growth of iPods and satellite, which miss the point.

If you believe in radio as a radio professional, you have to believe that people listen to the radio and to iPods for different reasons. When they just want music, they of course can get anything they want whenever they want it from the web or a storage device, be it a zip drive, a music player, a computer, or a CD or cassette or phonograph record (or, in the case of Local Oscillator, an 8-track .). When they want to be actively/passively entertained and informed, that's where we radio clowns come in.

This has always been the case. It was equally true in Color Radio's days in 1959. All that's changed is the explosion of technological options. When radio de-jocked and eliminated news and other content and replaced live on-air staffs with computers and nameless liner guys, the industry copped out. It removed many of the valid historic reasons why people have listened to radio, simultaneously tying itself to the railroad tracks of satellite and personal music devices.

This is why the sole growth area for mainstream radio has been spoken word programming. People like listening to people on the radio. It's as difficult to get cuddly, rhetorically writing, with a computer as it was with a Gates-55 unit in 1970. They like to learn stuff, be entertained, challenged, amazed. If we don't strive to do this on a daily basis, then....we actually ARE doomed.

 

[Savage]

Another reason why music radio - at least CURRENT music radio - is fading is, there is no longer a mainstream wide-appeal body of popular music. Current music has been Balkanized into subgenres of hip-hop, Latino, dance, and a small gaggle of pop artists of highly questionable appeal to mass-market tastes - Lady GaGa comes to mind.

When I got into this business in the late 1960s, pop music stations had appeal - with appropriate dayparting - from 18 to at least 49. You played Mama Cass, Steve Lawrence and Bobby Goldsboro in midday during the Housewives Hall Of Fame oldies show, and at night it was Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes, Mitch Ryder and Deep Purple. Tying it all together were The Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and a countless number of one-hitters.

The pop music universe has evolved away from mass-appeal programming which is broad enough to support a single format. And you can only play oldies for so long before you're fried your playlist. Radio really has no choice but to reinvent itself in its traditional role. If the medium continues to rely on the music industry for marketable "content," it's in trouble - unless every station goes country.

I think the current industry angst over the Copyright wrangle is misplaced. Why do we want to play their obscene, no-merit crap anyway? Just sayin. You know - like a 60-year old DJ.

 

[local oscillator]

Savage, I agree with MOST of what you've said with one exception: I was never seduced by those new-fangled 8-track players; I always preferred 78's -- the thick ones!

 

[JimmyJames]

Perhaps a valuable yet still related angle for some stations would be to hire DJs who knew and could mix music in an interesting, compelling way.

 

[mmnassour]

That could indeed be a good way to fill time on the radio! An excellent idea, sir!

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps a valuable yet still related angle for some stations would be to hire DJs who knew and could mix music in an interesting, compelling way.

That's become a very subjective talent that kids on the street do for free every day. It's not something a professional does for a salary and benefits.

 

[JimmyJames]

I disagree.

Music supervisors for television and film. DJs in clubs. The sensibility used in producing records, music festivals, or writing about music in print and on the web.

Music discovery and exploration is a valuable niche. And maybe radio should consider it. There's a lot of stations that wouldn't be any worse off for it.

 

[TheBigA]

Music supervisors for television and film. DJs in clubs. The sensibility used in producing records, music festivals, or writing about music in print and on the web.

Those are all interesting professions, but the only thing they share with radio is playing music. If someone wants to pursue those occupations, they should do so. I know a lot of people in those professions, and most are independents, not employees with salaries and benefits.

Music discovery and exploration is a valuable niche. And maybe radio should consider it.

Mass media is not about appealing to niches. Music discovery is best done through personally programmable media, not an FM station.

Even in the old progressive rock days, that was often something a station would do in a specialty show on a weekend.

 

[Tom Wells]

Music discovery and exploration is a valuable niche. And maybe radio should consider it.

Mass media is not about appealing to niches. Music discovery is best done through personally programmable media, not an FM station.

But Why?

How is it different from anything else where do-it-yourself is an option? Lots of times people prefer to have things done for them.

Supposing all resturants went to self-service models for the same reasons. See a problem?

Why continue to serve the lazy who expect the food carried out to them?

Eating is best done through personally programmable food, not restaurants.

I fix my cars myself most of the time, but I suspect you farm such work out. Yes?

Why can't radio serve people who don't care to deal with personal music players?

There's an old story somewhere in my brain about a little pine tree that was upset because it wasn't a blue jay.
Radio shouldn't be jealous that's it's not these other new media devices.
New media should be jealous that it's not radio. (ie; "free infrastructure" network)

 

[TheBigA]

But Why?

You say it all the time: Physics. You can't argue with physics.

Using your restaurant analogy, mass media is great at serving burgers, fries, and shakes. That's what the pipeline is built to do. The minute you start wanting the burger cooked a certain way or onion rings instead of fries, you gum up the works. I'd like the city to give me sparkling water in my sink. That's not what they provide. So I buy the bottled stuff.

New media should be jealous that it's not radio. (ie; "free infrastructure" network)

I agree. I've sat in a lot of rooms with a lot of new media people trying to duplicate the advantages of broadcasting. And what I keep reminding them is that if they succeed, they will simply turn new media into more old media.

 

[tomservo]

The problem with music exploration on terrestrial radio is that people SAY they want new and exciting music, but then when someone provides that, they don't tune in.

That's especially true for top 40/CHR. Working in new songs seems to be an exceptionally difficult task, unless it's a song that's broken on some other medium like YouTube or MTV. (Er, back when TRL was still on, anyway.)

Case in point was the "live 100.5" experiment in Birmingham. When Citadel moved their successful sports format off the signal, they threw on AAA. It's a format that people say they want and has lot of underexposed music, at least as far as terrestrial radio in Alabama goes.

Citadel made a go of it and the station gained some popularity in the social media world, but the ratings never really materialized.

When the announcement leaked that they were moving an AM news/talk format to the signal, all the sudden these droves of people came out for a Facebook campaign to "save our station". Where were these people in the ratings books?

Mass media is better at entertaining the masses, and those of us with niche tastes must find them elsewhere. It was true in 1969 and it's true today.

 

[JimmyJames]

I don't think that's always the case. Think about this. The internet throws more music at people than can possibly be sorted. A ton of it is absolute crap.

Now, a lot of working adults grew up in the album era. It's not that they stopped liking music, it's that they stopped having time to find it. To go to a record store back in the day, or now, look up a bunch of stuff on Hype Machine, youtube, etc etc.

So why couldn't a marketable station be built around the principles of:

1. local information first
2. credible personalities that weren't reliant on gimmicks. (the anti-top 40) so to speak.
3. a certain degree of selection freedom in the music played

I'm not certain Live 100.5 failed. I think Citadel went for the easier format. I see no proof that the concerts and merchants promoted on Live weren't working. Too, these flips often rely too much on social media to do their work for them, thinking if people post about it on facebook, that wins listeners.

It certainly helps but you can't have an approach that doesn't take into account many people abandoned or ignored radio. Find a way to make dusting off the radio worthwhile, and you will get an audience.

It may not be top 5 but I think in many cases it's better than being the third country station or flipping to the fourth or fifth version of "playing whatever we want."

Radio's in an era where it has to start being bold. This is one approach that could be tried, but it's not going to be top 5 in six months.

 

[Savage]

Jimmy, d'accord on much of what you say, particularly point #1. The issue really is this simple: any station playing Fleetwood Mac sounds just like any other station playing Fleetwood Mac. Or an mp3 file playing Fleetwood Mac. Or an iPod playing Fleetwood Mac. (Fleetwood Mac was never available in 78 rpm format AFAIK, which is why Local Oscillator does NOT listen to Fleetwood Mac..... ;D)

What makes your radio station different - and successful - is what happens the moment the VU meter drops below about 40% as "You Make Lovin' Fun" fades and your jock starts to talk. You've got about three seconds there to engage the listener with something great and/or memorable. Otherwise the Dreaded Tuneout Finger Of Fate hovering over the radio faceplate descends....and you're fired, at least temporarily.

What we do is what happens between the songs. It's why we exist. And it's not the mechanical process of stringing songs together, with all due respect. I know it sounds cool to seamlessly mix stuff, but I can't imagine a corporate lawyer or educator or small business owner listening to your station and suddenly exclaiming to someone else in the car: "Wowwww! Holy crap, did you check out that MIX??? OutSTANDING!!"

 

[TheBigA]

So why couldn't a marketable station be built around the principles of:

1. local information first
2. credible personalities that weren't reliant on gimmicks. (the anti-top 40) so to speak.
3. a certain degree of selection freedom in the music played

The combination of music and information doesn't work any more. Why can't I get pizza at McDonalds? They tried it, and people prefer to get pizza someplace else. Same with music and information. Two different functions for two different kinds of people. This kind of full-service AM idea that was popular in the 60s went away once FM came along. You can't be all things to all people. It's been tried and people simply don't sit through it. Even public radio, which isn't built around ratings and commercials, has gone more towards format specialization.

I also think there's a big problem coming up with "credible personalities." Unless you hire certified experts, college professors, former recording artists, or print critics, you're just dealing with people who have personal preferences and tastes. In other words, a radio show with me playing my collection. Lots of fun for me, very boring for someone else. The certified experts aren't, for the most part, good entertainers. And it's not like this stuff hasn't been tried. It has, and usually ends up being the kind of thing you run Sunday night at 11 PM.

 

[local oscillator]

Music and information can easily coexist; they do so every hour of every day on my station. The music needs to be the best it can be, but it can always be duplicated on an ipod or by another station. The content between the songs is indeed where the sky's the limit -- unique programming that cannot be duplicated anywhere else; do it well, and you win. Because so few stations these days are doing it well, winning has never been easier. Unfortunately, that ease is the result of a radio industry with serious self-inflicted problems.