You mean the medium is the message? Or the massage? Technically, the medium is the medium. The users generate the content.
-
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
Why Radio Is Making A Comeback & The AI Influence
- Thread starter Buddy Shula
- Start date
You mean the medium is the message? Or the massage? Technically, the medium is the medium. The users generate the content.
Of course, this is all about semantics. Definitions of what any "new media" term are varied, and seem to change every day.Perfectly said. Social media is where the users are the media -- often to the extreme of being a digital mirror that others simply watch you admiring yourself in. Classic venues for online group interaction like Usenet, listservs, and web forums should never have their reputations impugned by being equated to it.
Heck, even the most well known news sites, from Fox and Breitbart to Huffington and the NYT have reader comment facilities. Isn't that "social media"? Some will say "yes" and others will disagree. Again, semantics.
It's about generating engagement. That's a key word in media today. That came up when the publisher of the Washington Post criticized his writers. "They're not reading your stuff." He sees the usage figures. He sees the comments generated by the articles. It all tracks back to advertising metrics. Click bait. It's how all digital media works. Some sites pay their writers based on that engagement.
How does it affect radio? Some radio stations are paying talent based on engagement figures. They get paid a percentage of the revenue they create instead of a regular salary. If all they do is host a DJ show, they make less money than if they also do a podcast and social media. The metrics of social media are entering broadcasting. You wonder why veteran talent are retiring? Perhaps that's why.
I meant, and should have written, that the users are the content. So many people casually label the contents rather than the conduits "media" these days that I didn't notice myself doing it.
I went through an experience when social media was new and all our air staff was told by management to open Facebook and Twitter accounts and participate.
Some of the air staff that was great in creating a mood and who tested extremely well in perceptuals just did not have the "Chatty Kathy" personality for social media. Several had problems writing correctly (spelling and grammar) and coherently (looking stupid).
For several morning talents who were true personalities we had to hire someone to write their posts based on on-air comments.
And many were great at it, and enjoyed hearing from listeners, even printing out listener comments and using them in their next show.
But sometimes you don't want a Formula 1 race driver at the wheel of a semi on the Interstate.
I guess it would technically come down to what the provided discussion space was intended to facilitate. If the space was only meant for discussions within the topical scope of the article, then it wouldn't be social media, even if the scene of that activity was social in nature.
Comparatively, social media would be any space provided explicitly for social interaction consisting of people primarily sharing content concerning or related to themselves. It's the difference between "here's a story about apples" and "I like apples so here's a story about them."
There is room for mincing things and splitting hairs, though. Bah. I'll just settle with wadio's definitions as written.
Can you please reply to every quote in the article I provided. I’m anxious to hear how wrong I am.
Disagreeing does not mean either party is "wrong".
I have disagreed with some of the best and best known (not always the same) programmers and had leading billing and rated radio stations; so did they. Picasso did not paint like Rembrand or Monet, and Dickens did not write like James Joyce or Franz Kafka. None of those folks wrote or painted badly; they just did it differently from each other. Different strokes, ya' know.
And I thought that, in post #70 of this thread, that I had responded to your points.
Your approach works in Buffalo, Buddy. That... and the fact that you make radio "work" in 2025 is pretty awesome, dude!
But I don't agree with some of your points, such as "young people becoming tired of the internet". A few may be tired of letting others think for them, a few may find better things to do with their time and a few may not like talking to an array of CPUs doing an AI act on them. But the majority is not rejecting current technology, whether it is streaming on demand video or social media or websites like this.
They're really not. Because in those days you had a space in the dashboard where an aftermarket radio could be installed. That's really not the case for a Tesla (or, really, for any other modern new car).
The TM Stereo Rock format was introduced in the early 70s, when Top 40 stations were still called "rockers", as per your comment. The AM Top 40 where I grew up had jingles reflecting that as late as 1976 ("85, K-T-A-C, rock and roll!"). It was the rise of tightly formatted album-oriented rock (AOR) stations that killed that, because by the end of the 70s, when listeners heard the term "rock" they thought of their local AOR outlet, and many of those stations used the on-air liner "[local area's] best rock" or variants of it.
But I guess at that point it would have been difficult for TM Productions to change the name they'd given to that syndicated format, so it continued under that name until TM Productions exited the business in the mid-80s and sold off their format syndication business to (I think) Drake-Chenault. But I'd guess that most of the stations that carried the format quit using "rock" in their station names and liners prior to that.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Almost every tape-based syndicator ended up selling their client lists to either D-C or Broadcast Programming International at some point in the 1980s. In your case, Wikipedia has a cited reference showing that your recollection is correct; it happened in 1986, with D-C continuing to provide formats and TM being renamed "Programming Consultants".
Unfortunately, the combination of debt service and the advent of satellite-delivered formats did them in, with Drake-Chenault partnering with Jones International in 1989 to launch five such formats, only to end up being acquired two years later by Jones. At that point, the remaining tape-based clients were transferred to (surprise) BPI ... which was then also acquired by Jones eight years later, by which time BPI was only distributed syndicated programs, not formats.
Hmmm. What was happening in the 80s was a conversion from tape to satellite. By the 80s, the radio networks had all converted from phone lines and tape or disc or satellite. Casey Kasem was no longer on 12" vinyl discs. He was either CD or satellite. The syndicators all had access to satellite. Plus by the mid-80s you had Satellite Music Networks and TranStar. Each of them ultimately sold to networks. SMN went to ABC and TranStar went to United Stations and became UniStar. In the 90s, UniStar was bought by Westwood One. By that time, TM was primarily in music distribution and jingle creation.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I should have been a little clearer, obviously.
It was TM Programming that was acquired by Drake-Chenault and renamed Programming Consultants. The rest of TM did continue with jingle production post-1986 and then expanded to music distribution on CD by acquiring Century 21 Programming in 1990, becoming TM Century.
By that time, Dave Scott had already spun off his remaining tape-based clients to BPI. My recollection is that the last GoldDisc library was released in 1994, although the currents-only HitDiscs continued to be released until sometime in the mid-2000s. (If anyone wants to pinpoint the timeline better, I welcome their doing so.)
TM Century was later reorganized into today's TM Studios, which still produces jingles. Including for me.
Thank you David. Sorry I get a little uptight sometimes. I just really care about our industry.
I do too, @Buddy Shula and I just show up the naysayers by doing my job to the best of my ability and proving that local can still work
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I know a few consultants that have the same attitude. One of them is posting now.
I'm surprised because I thought by the mid 60s people weren't even calling it rock and roll any more.
Here we go again, another article about what radio "could have done"
barrettmedia.com
Perry is a smart guy, but he hasn't actually worked at a station in a while. If he did, he's see that radio HAS evolved. It's less focused around one thing. It's become a multi-tiered content business. On-air, online, on demand. Radio IS evolving. No woulda, coulda, shoulda. This isn't a recent thing. It started 20 years ago.
Radio has no reason to restrict itself to towers and transmitters. There's no law preventing radio from televising it's shows on the internet. No law preventing radio stations from streaming. No law that prevents radio talent from doing podcasts or social media. The only thing standing in the way is a boomer mentality that says we have to keep doing what we always did. That's horse & buggy thinking.
I say this all the time: There is no format radio could create, no amount of talent that radio can hire, no amount of PR radio can do that will change the fact that over 90% of the public uses their phone as their primary communications device. The radio isn't the device of choice, and radio companies don't have to tie themselves and their future to a declining device.
Back in the 1930s, the radio companies began transitioning to television. We know how they did it. They moved the talent from radio to TV. It happened right in front of us. The same opportunity exists now. Can you imagine if a radio company had invented the smart speaker or started its own social media platform? It's not outside the realm of possibility, if you will just open your eyes and see the opportunities.
Radio Could Have Evolved — It Just Didn’t
Practically everything changes as technology improves and the public gravitates to the most convenient option.
barrettmedia.com
Perry is a smart guy, but he hasn't actually worked at a station in a while. If he did, he's see that radio HAS evolved. It's less focused around one thing. It's become a multi-tiered content business. On-air, online, on demand. Radio IS evolving. No woulda, coulda, shoulda. This isn't a recent thing. It started 20 years ago.
Radio has no reason to restrict itself to towers and transmitters. There's no law preventing radio from televising it's shows on the internet. No law preventing radio stations from streaming. No law that prevents radio talent from doing podcasts or social media. The only thing standing in the way is a boomer mentality that says we have to keep doing what we always did. That's horse & buggy thinking.
I say this all the time: There is no format radio could create, no amount of talent that radio can hire, no amount of PR radio can do that will change the fact that over 90% of the public uses their phone as their primary communications device. The radio isn't the device of choice, and radio companies don't have to tie themselves and their future to a declining device.
Back in the 1930s, the radio companies began transitioning to television. We know how they did it. They moved the talent from radio to TV. It happened right in front of us. The same opportunity exists now. Can you imagine if a radio company had invented the smart speaker or started its own social media platform? It's not outside the realm of possibility, if you will just open your eyes and see the opportunities.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Adding to that, to strengthen the point further: The only streams that show up in the Nielsens are those that are simulcasts of an AM/FM in the market. None of the national streams get even a 0.1 share, anywhere.
The future, long-term, is a local audience listening to a local station, but via streaming instead of terrestrial radio. Format doesn't matter as much as mode of reception by the listeners. You don't need to change the fact, you just need to migrate over to the platform the audience is using. Same programming, same local advertisers.
It's not much different, philosophically, than playing the songs the majority of the audience wants to hear.
Because you have to encode to be counted by Nielsen's PPM. None of the national streams want to pay for encoding or subscribing to Nielsen, because they themselves operate a subscription business. We'll see what happens in the Cumulus lawsuit. That could change things.
However, if you stream via iHeart or Audacy or TuneIn, they will insert national commercials. You're no longer restricted to your local market. Your stream can now be heard everywhere. People will now listen to your station because of the content, not just because it's local.