Why is doing more not an option at any level?

[smedge2006]

We all know why public stock and private equity radio companies can't/won't add people and develop content.

But I can't understand why an operator who's coming in without a huge debt load isn't adding in the content that others have foresworn -- particularly in spoken word formats -- local news, talent, local talk shows.

It would seem that someone who defied the conventional wisdom would reap great rewards. In the land of the syndicated, the partially-local station could be king.

In a mature industry, it takes time and money to establish a winner. USA Today lost money for its first decade of existence. If there's ever a right time to drop money, it's during a recession when everything is cheaper -- including people.

 

[Shoot From Hip]

Debt service or not, you're still going to have subsantial monthly expenses in creating this kind of format. Which means you either have to have immediate billing to avoid negative cash flow, or you'll have to underwrite those costs yourself until billing improves. In a flaky economy, fewer people will take risks with their own dough.

 

[dustintv]

Best solution: find local people to host shows and work for free.

 

[Bob1370]

"Best solution: find local people to host shows and work for free"

And in terms of quality, you'll get what you pay for.

Quality is not free, neither are quality hosts who can draw an audience. That's a minor piece of bad news, that every decent businessperson should know before signing the contract to purchase any station.

The good news (and it's a MAJOR piece of good news) is, at a time when people are starved for decent programming, quality will have a quick return on any serious investment that's made in putting it on the air.

 

[smedge2006]

Clearly, I don't think stations should be trying to find hosts for free -- or worse yet, asking them to PAY to be on.

But one experiment that could bring up the local content quotient might be to do caller-driven radio during off hours. No host, just Jack-like liners introducing callers who stay on until another caller gets mad enough to call in and bumps them off.

The problem goes beyond the economy. Most radio station owners haven't done anything risky on the air since 1996 if not longer.

 

[Leebo65]

Maybe some of radios wealthier mainstays like DavidEdwarduo or Larry King could finance some of this risk taking.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is an interesting attempt at conversation.

It assumes that what is being broadcast today is for the most part BAD STUFF.

Question #1: Is it BAD STUFF or do those of us who focus on the nuts and bolts of radio just dislike the business methods of today's owners to the point we decide we are not going to like ANYTHING they do?

Question #2: "Pure Democracy" is probably not a good thing. Example: little children with total freedom will eat nothing but candy. Once we got research ability, audience survey methods that are regulated for on-top-of-the-table honesty, does it turn out that what we are hearing on the radio is exactly what listeners want to hear. The question is this: Do those of us who worked in radio through the years like radio that was bent and shaped and colored by the personal prejudices of owners and programmers? Maybe we are incapable of accepting radio that really is what the (spoiled brat) listeners think they want to hear.

Question #3: Would "today's audience" ever find the programming we grew up on interesting? Those of us who grew up in a "Ma and Paw Kettle" kind of civilization reacted to socialization differently than my grandchildren do. If you go back to radio of the 1930s and 1940s for awhile (recordings available at Cracker Barrel) and I doubt that many of us would want to return to that. Play 1980s radio for today's younger audience and see if they clap-for-joy.... or roll their eyes.

Do I like today's radio? Not particularly. Do I like today's movies? Not particularly. Do I like today's clothing styles? Not particularly. Do I like today's worship-style when I look at the churches around me? Not particularly.

In those classic words: HOUSTON: We have a problem!

 

[smedge2006]

This is an interesting attempt at conversation.

It assumes that what is being broadcast today is for the most part BAD STUFF.

Maybe we are incapable of accepting radio that really is what the (spoiled brat) listeners think they want to hear.

Would "today's audience" ever find the programming we grew up on interesting?

I think your post assumes that what is on today is on for any reason other than the owners are in debt to their eyeballs, strapped for cash and trying to do without warm bodies in any way possible. I refer to the quote from a 39-year-old (presumably in the bullseye for most formats) in the NYT article about PPM:

"There’s no good radio,” said Jason Pontius, 39, a technology executive in Oakland, Calif. “Soft rock radio is like, ‘Am I really listening to this?’ But it’s the best thing that’s on.” (Emphasis added.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16radio.html

 

[JimmyJames]

But GRC, the question is also should broadcasters have any obligation or desire to go beyond just what "people know they want" and balance it with "what people might want."

My contention is most aren't even trying to figure out what people might want, they're trying to play only what doesn't offend anyone (I mean cause them to switch off, I'm not talking moral offense) but at times, that comes at the price of developing any compelling reason to be excited about the station or programming.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But GRC, the question is also should broadcasters have any obligation or desire to go beyond just what "people know they want" and balance it with "what people might want."

My contention is most aren't even trying to figure out what people might want, they're trying to play only what doesn't offend anyone (I mean cause them to switch off, I'm not talking moral offense) but at times, that comes at the price of developing any compelling reason to be excited about the station or programming.

Great questions, JimmyJames.

To invoke a long overworked cliche, when I compare your two paragraphs I am left thinking: Is the glass half full or is the glass half empty.

Should broadcasters have any obligation or desire to go beyond just what people know they want? And I would ask the additional question: Was it ever any different than today?

I once worked for a really unique radio station. Two guys who were related partnered in a new radio station. It was successful. But as time went on once said: Let's plow some profit back into this thing and see what it will do. The other said, no, just take the money. Eat. Drink. And be merry. They went their separate ways. The really unique radio station where I worked was the one owned by the guy who said: "Let's plow some profit back into this thing and see what it will do."

Our industry has always had people who fit both of those descriptions. Somehow today's market and today's regulatory system do not encourage the "Let's plow some profit back into this thing" method.... at least not at the individual license level. Some will argue that I will find that concept at the group ownership level. What is good for the group may be sad at the individual license (station) level and at the individual listener level.