Why does radio suck?

[davideduardo]

Radio's peak heyday was in the period from 1930-1955 with a resurgence from 1964-1980.

That's off by quite a bit. Radio's golden age tapered off between about 1949 and the lift of the TV freeze and the sign on of many new TV stations... 1953 perhaps. The resurgance came with the combination of the onset of rock n roll and the growth of music formats, with 1957 being the likely big upturn. This can be verified in the radio billings reports in Broadcasting Magazine, the Yearbook and Radio Annual from Radio Daily.

By the mid 1950s, netwpork radio shows were on TV, so radio stagnated-until rock and roll radio began showing up in the mid 1960s. This inspired a whole new group of listeners- the 13-25 year olds. Top 40 radio soon followed, with it's tight playlists, jingles and excitement.

Top 40 was born in August of 1952.

FM radio began to come of age in the late 1970s, initially siphoning off the college age crowd with its progressive album oriented sound.

Actally, FM came of age right after the simulcast ban in 1967, and by the late 70's it had more audience than AM did. The first successful FM formats on a mass scale were Beautiful Music, not progressive rock. Progresive rock was not all that commercially successful, and it was not until 1972 and beyond that formatted AOR developed by Lee Abrams made AORs quite successful, too.

Finally, top 40 wound up on FM as well.

Finally? There were FM top 40's back to the 60's, as well as dozens and dozens of FM simulcasts.

The problem became what do we do with twice the number of stations than we had before?

The average market, once FM was viable, ended up with about 3 times the number of viable stations... ones with full market coverage. Most AMs by the end of the 50's had seen suburban sprawl outdistance their signals.

Add to this narrowcasting the fact that thanks to consolidation there's very little competition between stations any more and is it any surprise that people believe that as a whole radio sucks?

I remember Top 40 and AMs that played one song I loved, one that was OK, and one I hated out of every three songs. Specialization has made stations cater to specific taste groups, rather than general ones. For example, Cleveland, OH in the late 50's and early 60s had at any given time 3 Top 40's, 3 MOR's and 2 r&b stations. That's it... three formats. Now there are perhaps 20 formats on decent or tolerable signals... all going after the market's ad revenue. That is competiton.

 

[davideduardo]

). "Rock and Roll radio" showed up in the early 60s (WABC was sailing with it in early '61).

WABC was a late comer... there was Top 40 on WMGM, WINS and WMCA, as well as brief tries on WOV/WADO, etc...

Top 40 began in '52, and rock n roll got folded in starting with Rock Around the Clock, gradually taking over.

 

[davideduardo]

But would it? Or would 40s and 50s have grown into it? I believe the reason that BM died is not what you claim, it is a combination of two things:

1. Not enough new music coming into the pipeline.
2. It didn't die, it was murdered! Murdered by the 28 year old national biyers abd the salespeople who didn't know how to sell it.

There was no new music because it did not sell. That was a hint that the format was dead, I think (and I was there as a syndicator with up to 80-some stations at one time).

Media buyers, irrespective of age, have no power to change demos of a buy specification. In fact, demos come down from the client, usually. Buyers are given the demo, a CPP goal and they negotiate and analyze for r&f, and that is pretty much it.

 

[davideduardo]

If you like Adult Alternative and oldies, my two favorite formats, you're kind of out of luck if you just consider LA/OC radio over the air stations.

AAA has been tried several times in LA, and did not get much above a 1 share. The format is not on the air in LA because it can not sustain itself.

Oldies, like Beautiful Music, moved out of the area where they can sustain themselves to one where they can not be profitable. Just like MOR, standards and such, which did the same earlier in time. That is just part of the evolution of taste and the reality of advertising supported media.

Someone who loved the ANdrews Sisters likely made the same complaint you are making... just four or five decades earlier.

 

[RadioStarOne]

Thanks David for remembering those wonderful ladies of the forties one more time! Laverne, Maxene, and Patty would thank you too! A lot of artists today would love to sell records the way those girls did back then! The Andrews Sisters rocked the world! Just in a different way!

 

[Tom Wells]

Of course, my parents thought Boss Radio "sucked." But they had alternatives such as KPOL or other Beautiful Music stations to listen to back then. That's probably the one thing in radio that is missing today, a lack of age-related diversity in programming. Not everyone over 50 likes talk radio or just oldies.

Of course, in the early Boss Radio years, Beautiful Music was a 35-54 format. When it became 55+, in the mid-80's, it died quite miserably.

Today, Beautiful Music would be a 70+ format.

Beatiful Musuic was stillborn as a format because it is designed for people who aren't really too engaged in the music.
It cherry picked the schmaltziest tunes, and played extra-mellow versions specially created to be even less engaging than the original recordings.
IF the format had been chronocentric, instead of mellow-centric, there would have been some "edge", some remaining aspects that
indicated that the some music "rocked" in 1933, it wasn't all mellow and smooth.

 

[davideduardo]

Beatiful Musuic was stillborn as a format because it is designed for people who aren't really too engaged in the music.

Honestly, who cares if the listeners were engaged with the indvidual songs? They were engaged with the stations that played those songs, and were a very responsive audience. Of course, the fact that there were often two Beautiful Music stations in the toop five or six in many markets indicated the appeal of the format. That most had waiting lists for advertisers also speaks volumes for the format.

It cherry picked the schmaltziest tunes, and played extra-mellow versions specially created to be even less engaging than the original recordings.

Programmers picked songs that created a mood. Relaxed, smooth, easy, nice, were among the terms we used when assebling our formats... like 7-Up was the un-cola, we were the un-radio stations. No screaming, with many stations restricting commercials with jarring jingles or yelling pitchmen.

But, like all contemporary music of the last century or so, it belonged to one generation and did not transcend that limitation.

IF the format had been chronocentric, instead of mellow-centric, there would have been some "edge", some remaining aspects that
indicated that the some music "rocked" in 1933, it wasn't all mellow and smooth.

The whole object of the format was to be mellow and smooth, and that is why it was the most listened to format of the 70's and early 80's.

 

[davideduardo]

Thanks David for remembering those wonderful ladies of the forties one more time! Laverne, Maxene, and Patty would thank you too! A lot of artists today would love to sell records the way those girls did back then! The Andrews Sisters rocked the world! Just in a different way!

And most artists of the last few decades have not even come close to selling the number of records that they did!

 

[recto101]

Too Many people want to have political propaganda talk radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Too Many people want to have political propaganda talk radio.

Even those who may want to agree with you have to point out your post is a bit non-communicative. ;D

How would you define "too many" people?
Do we have any evidence that people who want talk radio actually want political propaganda?
Do we have any evidence that listeners want talk, with or without propaganda? With or without politics?

If we through some magic could for six weeks turn off all talk radio (Put up a "Closed for Remodeling" sign or something) would we then say we have radio that does not suck?

It is our American tradition to insist that the market place is efficient and provides the consumer with what the consumer actually wants.

Does today's radio industry provide a classroom example that the traditional thinking is flawed?

 

[LKellerIII]

It seems to me that there's "too much political talk radio" because the AM band is dying, and station owners can plug in syndicated talk hosts who will still attract enough audience to make the stations profitable - or at least not be money traps. Until there are less AM stations is major markets, or more religions to buy them, there's going to be 'too much' talk radio.

 

[michael hagerty]

Beatiful Musuic was stillborn as a format because it is designed for people who aren't really too engaged in the music.

Honestly, who cares if the listeners were engaged with the indvidual songs? They were engaged with the stations that played those songs, and were a very responsive audience. Of course, the fact that there were often two Beautiful Music stations in the toop five or six in many markets indicated the appeal of the format. That most had waiting lists for advertisers also speaks volumes for the format.

It cherry picked the schmaltziest tunes, and played extra-mellow versions specially created to be even less engaging than the original recordings.

Programmers picked songs that created a mood. Relaxed, smooth, easy, nice, were among the terms we used when assebling our formats... like 7-Up was the un-cola, we were the un-radio stations. No screaming, with many stations restricting commercials with jarring jingles or yelling pitchmen.

But, like all contemporary music of the last century or so, it belonged to one generation and did not transcend that limitation.

IF the format had been chronocentric, instead of mellow-centric, there would have been some "edge", some remaining aspects that
indicated that the some music "rocked" in 1933, it wasn't all mellow and smooth.

The whole object of the format was to be mellow and smooth, and that is why it was the most listened to format of the 70's and early 80's.

Tom:
Beautiful became dominant in the 70s at the expense of the stations you describe...personality-driven, foreground personality MOR stations. Legions of formerly loyal listeners switched to Beautiful as they hit their mid-late 40s...forcing the MORs to chase younger listeners as AC.

I still shake my head when I hear the Sonny Melendrez aircheck where he says the phrase "Grand Funk on KMPC"...after playing one of their records....and in typical chicken-egg fashion, many of the original audience who hadn't defected to Beautiful had to wonder why they were listening to KMET artists from five years before.

Short version...the middle-aged adults of the 70s wanted to relax...and Beautiful gave them the format to do it with.

 

[Tom Wells]

Beatiful Musuic was stillborn as a format because it is designed for people who aren't really too engaged in the music.

Honestly, who cares if the listeners were engaged with the indvidual songs? They were engaged with the stations that played those songs, and were a very responsive audience. Of course, the fact that there were often two Beautiful Music stations in the toop five or six in many markets indicated the appeal of the format. That most had waiting lists for advertisers also speaks volumes for the format.

It cherry picked the schmaltziest tunes, and played extra-mellow versions specially created to be even less engaging than the original recordings.

Programmers picked songs that created a mood. Relaxed, smooth, easy, nice, were among the terms we used when assebling our formats... like 7-Up was the un-cola, we were the un-radio stations. No screaming, with many stations restricting commercials with jarring jingles or yelling pitchmen.

But, like all contemporary music of the last century or so, it belonged to one generation and did not transcend that limitation.

IF the format had been chronocentric, instead of mellow-centric, there would have been some "edge", some remaining aspects that
indicated that the some music "rocked" in 1933, it wasn't all mellow and smooth.

The whole object of the format was to be mellow and smooth, and that is why it was the most listened to format of the 70's and early 80's.

Tom:
Beautiful became dominant in the 70s at the expense of the stations you describe...personality-driven, foreground personality MOR stations. Legions of formerly loyal listeners switched to Beautiful as they hit their mid-late 40s...forcing the MORs to chase younger listeners as AC.

I still shake my head when I hear the Sonny Melendrez aircheck where he says the phrase "Grand Funk on KMPC"...after playing one of their records....and in typical chicken-egg fashion, many of the original audience who hadn't defected to Beautiful had to wonder why they were listening to KMET artists from five years before.

Short version...the middle-aged adults of the 70s wanted to relax...and Beautiful gave them the format to do it with.

I accept that IS what happened, I just never was, and still am not (at 48) ready to mellow out.

And why should there be a a format for the comatose, but not the manic?

I still see excruciatingly mellow music as a detriment to life force and vitality.
Especially when it is "adopted" by someone who formerly liked a "different" type of music.
Too often this accompanies an attitude shift to which seems as though this person is rejecting who, what and how they were
before the magical age at which they went mellow.

The worst aspect is the expunging of the loud and fast songs of our youth, regardless of our epoch.
Give me hot fast 1920 and 1930's jazz mixed in with your 1920's -1930's schmaltz, and I'm OK with that.
Strip out all the youthfulness from the mix. like "Beautiful Music" did, or the 40's channel of XM, and you'll
get the genetically mellow listener , but will repel an active listener not preferring all syrup.

 

[michael hagerty]

Beatiful Musuic was stillborn as a format because it is designed for people who aren't really too engaged in the music.

Honestly, who cares if the listeners were engaged with the indvidual songs? They were engaged with the stations that played those songs, and were a very responsive audience. Of course, the fact that there were often two Beautiful Music stations in the toop five or six in many markets indicated the appeal of the format. That most had waiting lists for advertisers also speaks volumes for the format.

It cherry picked the schmaltziest tunes, and played extra-mellow versions specially created to be even less engaging than the original recordings.

Programmers picked songs that created a mood. Relaxed, smooth, easy, nice, were among the terms we used when assebling our formats... like 7-Up was the un-cola, we were the un-radio stations. No screaming, with many stations restricting commercials with jarring jingles or yelling pitchmen.

But, like all contemporary music of the last century or so, it belonged to one generation and did not transcend that limitation.

IF the format had been chronocentric, instead of mellow-centric, there would have been some "edge", some remaining aspects that
indicated that the some music "rocked" in 1933, it wasn't all mellow and smooth.

The whole object of the format was to be mellow and smooth, and that is why it was the most listened to format of the 70's and early 80's.

Tom:
Beautiful became dominant in the 70s at the expense of the stations you describe...personality-driven, foreground personality MOR stations. Legions of formerly loyal listeners switched to Beautiful as they hit their mid-late 40s...forcing the MORs to chase younger listeners as AC.

I still shake my head when I hear the Sonny Melendrez aircheck where he says the phrase "Grand Funk on KMPC"...after playing one of their records....and in typical chicken-egg fashion, many of the original audience who hadn't defected to Beautiful had to wonder why they were listening to KMET artists from five years before.

Short version...the middle-aged adults of the 70s wanted to relax...and Beautiful gave them the format to do it with.

I accept that IS what happened, I just never was, and still am not (at 48) ready to mellow out.

And why should there be a a format for the comatose, but not the manic?

I still see excruciatingly mellow music as a detriment to life force and vitality.
Especially when it is "adopted" by someone who formerly liked a "different" type of music.
Too often this accompanies an attitude shift to which seems as though this person is rejecting who, what and how they were
before the magical age at which they went mellow.

The worst aspect is the expunging of the loud and fast songs of our youth, regardless of our epoch.
Give me hot fast 1920 and 1930's jazz mixed in with your 1920's -1930's schmaltz, and I'm OK with that.
Strip out all the youthfulness from the mix. like "Beautiful Music" did, or the 40's channel of XM, and you'll
get the genetically mellow listener , but will repel an active listener not preferring all syrup.

Tom: I'm with you...but we're talking about different generations here. The 48 year olds of 40 years ago (now 88, if alive) were raised on melody and stressing out big-time over social upheaval that threatened most of what they believed in. Remember, the danger age for heart attacks in men in the 1970s was 45-52. So a lot of them (but not all) went mellow.

We(I'm 54) were raised with the music that drove them nuts...we're less likely to mellow out. We may not like hip-hop, but we were raised on rhythm. If we escape, it's to some form of rock-based music. Even The Wave is playing stuff that was mainly heard on KHJ and KGFJ back in the day, either by original artists or in new smooth jazz remakes.

 

[ercjncpr]

Ya know....rethinking my earlier comments...

Radio does not suck, it has changed with the times. Just like radio changed between 1950 and 1960. It is not 1965 or 1972 anymore. It is 2010 and radio stations are doing what attracts the 2010 audience. So the premise of the question is wrong. Radio does not suck.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Radio does not suck, it has changed with the times. Just like radio changed between 1950 and 1960. It is not 1965 or 1972 anymore. It is 2010 and radio stations are doing what attracts the 2010 audience.

I don't know how we would measure this, but there are times when it seems that the radio audiences of 1950, 1960, 965 and 1972 were a bit more enamored and excited about radio. The audience of 2010 seems to have a rather ho-hum attitude about radio.

 

[LKellerIII]

Radio does not suck, it has changed with the times. Just like radio changed between 1950 and 1960. It is not 1965 or 1972 anymore. It is 2010 and radio stations are doing what attracts the 2010 audience.

I don't know how we would measure this, but there are times when it seems that the radio audiences of 1950, 1960, 965 and 1972 were a bit more enamored and excited about radio. The audience of 2010 seems to have a rather ho-hum attitude about radio.

Which makes perfect sense when you add in satellite radio, internet streaming, and ipods. I grew up in the 60s as a middle-class kid with an allowance based on the 'chores' I did around the house. That generally netted me about $5.00 per week; only enough money to buy the occasional 45 rpm single ($1.00 in 1960s dollars) or album (about $3.95). I loved radio (DJs, formats, jingles), but for most of my friends, it existed primarily as a way to hear new music when it was released, and to listen to all the music they couldn't afford to buy.

Now that we have internet downloads, accessing the music you want is either free (when you pirate it), or only 99 cents to $1.29 per song (in 2010 dollars). If you like a half dozen or a dozen new songs a month, it's affordable - even for kids on allowances.

My older kids grew up in the 90s (pre-MP3), and they had their favorite radio stations and listened a lot - much as I did in the 60s and 70s. But my youngest daughter (14) rarely listens to radio - she gets her tips on new music through the internet or TV, and she downloads them from i-tunes so she can hear them whenever she wants. I asked her recently what her favorite radio station was, and she looked at me like I'd lost my mind. The question was totally irrelevant to her, and she didn't have an answer, because she only listens to radio in our car when I tune it in. More often than not these days, that's NPR.

 

[radiocph]

Here are some potential answers to the original poster's question. Prepare for a long read:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_11_33/ai_80533149/?tag=content;col1

Interesting article, although you have to pick out the good (the realizationthat radio operates for the benefit of advertisers, not listeners) from the bad (going on and on about how bad music is today--The 80's are over, get used to it).

 

[nmoore6676]

Here are some potential answers to the original poster's question. Prepare for a long read:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_11_33/ai_80533149/?tag=content;col1

Interesting article, although you have to pick out the good (the realizationthat radio operates for the benefit of advertisers, not listeners) from the bad (going on and on about how bad music is today--The 80's are over, get used to it).

The fact that music is bad today is attested to by the fact that music sales are down or at least that is what the recording companies say. That is their justification to squeeze more money out of radio with the performance royalty legislation being pushed through Congress again and backed by the mighty Nancy Pelosi.

I pretty much dropped out of current music in the 80's and now if I listen to music radio it is classic rock, or country with some of the type of stuff like Retro-1260, which I now get on line. Of course I never get to attached to anything Saul puts on AM-1260. Now I have locally a good Oldies station on AM-1480, which doesn't stream and another on line from Cincinnati (WDJO), but their website is always loaded and hard to get into.

 

[davideduardo]

Which makes perfect sense when you add in satellite radio, internet streaming, and ipods. I grew up in the 60s as a middle-class kid with an allowance based on the 'chores' I did around the house. That generally netted me about $5.00 per week; only enough money to buy the occasional 45 rpm single ($1.00 in 1960s dollars) or album (about $3.95). I loved radio (DJs, formats, jingles), but for most of my friends, it existed primarily as a way to hear new music when it was released, and to listen to all the music they couldn't afford to buy.

Now that we have internet downloads, accessing the music you want is either free (when you pirate it), or only 99 cents to $1.29 per song (in 2010 dollars). If you like a half dozen or a dozen new songs a month, it's affordable - even for kids on allowances.

That's one of the best perspectives on this issue I have seen... the simple cost of music relative to spending power.

Add in all the new entertainment sources, and radio is fortunate to still be alive!