Why when someone leaves a station....

[Johnny Morgan]

Ken, you have just explained but one reason why I'm in law and not in radio as a career. I know I could do it, and could be pretty damn good at it, but the fact is, given a 4-year degree at W&J and my law degree, $19k plus any VT/VO/prod work isn't going to pay the student loans, let alone the rent and car.

So, I moved on to something else I enjoy and do radio as a hobby.

The industry is using its low wage as really a barrier to entry--allowing the companies to work existing talent to the bone, voicetracking them across God's green earth, and saving upwards of $10k a year every time that happens. But at some point, this will all come back to bite them: because of the low wage, otherwise qualified and quality talent are being constructively kept out; veteran talent are being worked hard and will sooner rather than later retire or leave out of exhasution; and the only people waiting in the wings are the sub-quality talent that are willing to bash their ass for $19k a year, plus whatever they can get.

It's kind of a chase to the bottom, really.

And we're forced to listen to the screed that what will cure this is allowing the companies to own MORE stations. To quote Howard Dean, "Arrgghhhh!"

 

[SirRoxalot]

Voice Track Mind

Gentlemen, let me be succinct:

1) You CANNOT sound relatable to a target audience without doing homework.

2) You CANNOT do your homework, and VT a 4 hour shift for another market in 45 minutes.

3) The primary source of "crappy talent" is crappy PDs who can't, or won't, develop talent. I agree that too many PDs are crappy jocks with computer skills who were "promoted above their heads".

4) For a regular daily airshift, a decent local jock who does his homework will beat an out-of-town Superstar VoiceTracker who doesn't. American Top 40 may win a couple hours a week, but it won't win 20 hours a week. The ratings in most markets confirm that fact.

5) The strength of radio has ALWAYS been immediacy. The ability to react to what's happening NOW, whether it's a hot concert or a weather event, has made radio an ACTIVE source of entertainment and information instead of a passive source like podcasts and syndicated shows. If the sh*t hits the fan, I want to hear Joe Sixpack the Local DJ telling me where the sh*t is landing, not John Tesh babbling new-age nonsense, or Delilah doing her update on "Queen for a Day".

The best use of voice tracking is as a training tool for in-house talent who may not be ready for prime time. Give them a chance to correct their mistakes before they air, and a good PD may be able develop talent and save money on the overnight show.

 

[954]

the only people who care if a show is **LIVE IN THE STUDIO** vs voicetracking..........are insecure DJs

Wrong. I'm not an insecure deejay. I'm a demanding listener.

How relevant can it be from 1000 miles away?

... unless you pay no attention to anything but the music.

73s

so, using your logic are we to assume u never watch or listen to any radio or tv programming that's not live & local?

TV is different. I don't watch much TV anyway. Twice this summer,
when I turned on the TV to watch my favorite program, McLaughlin
Group, I was surprised to see the TV was already on channel
2 -- meaning that I hadn't even had the TV on since last week's
program.

OK, I admit I do listen to syndicated talk, because there isn't
any local talk. I WANT LOCAL TALK!

When I listen to web radio, it doesn't pretent to be relevant.
We have no station for classical, jazz, or oldies. (Post-1965 is
not oldies. And smooth jazz isn't jazz.)

But AFAIC, if the local station doesn't have any local relevance, I
might as well be listening to CDs or web radio, sans commercials.

Would Casey Casem or Bill O'Reilly tell me about Hurricane Ernesto?

I suspect JonBenet is still a more important story to them. And it's
irrelevant to me.

73s

 

[AKLes]

But at some point, this will all come back to bite them: because of the low wage, otherwise qualified and quality talent are being constructively kept out; veteran talent are being worked hard and will sooner rather than later retire or leave out of exhasution; and the only people waiting in the wings are the sub-quality talent that are willing to bash their ass for $19k a year, plus whatever they can get.

Won't matter. Bill Gates and friends are already nearing the beta stage of a new product. It'll run with the majority of currently-existing automation programs. It's a fully automated "personality". It can even do credible talk shows, adapting the tone of the automated voice to the attitude of the incoming callers. It requires a data input from AP or some other "recogized" news source. The most source most requested by alpha-test stations is Al Jazeera but that's another story. Negotiations are underway with several newspaper chains for data-feeds but provision is made for an intern to scan local papers where the publishers are not willing to play. Note that the "news" content is NOT for rebroadcast as news; it's to allow the system to do show-prep and rank the probable audience response to each one.

I've been working with the alpha version for several weeks and am using the print version to generate this post. As you'll see, even in the alpha state it's 100% reliable!

The counter to this is an effort by a major Japanese consumer electronics company aimed at the avid but lazy listener. This device monitors your station of choice. You program it, using voice commands, with your attitudes on your favorite issues. When it detects YFI (your favorite issue) coming under discussion it places a call to the station and delivers your position without annoying things like: "Good Morning, Stan, how are you today....". Nope; it cuts right to the chase! If it gets a busy signal; no problem. A light-speed re-dialer does its' thing. Rejected by a screener? Equally not a problem; it just shifts to a different voice and shuffles the wording slightly and calls again and again and again and again and again and.....

 

[radiofriend1]

Cleveland, for example: the midday jock (10a to 3p) on the #1 12+ and #2 25-54 oldies station is voicetracked; he's live on the sister country station (#2 12+ and #1 25-54--in fact, he just got the #1 in his timeslot) in PM drive.

And of the 24 hours of a broadcast day on WMJI, 10 are live. This is the #1 or #2 station in market, a heritage station (not an out-dated oldies operation, but one that's progressed the playlist).

i guess we can say voicetracking hasn't exactly killed wmji, then. they continue to do very very well

[/quote]


Ken's right--the industry is changing, and voicetracking is here to stay. But it doesn't have to be the only source of talent, as some wish it to be.
[/quote]

who are these **SOME** who wish voicetracking is the only source of talent??????????????? i never EVER said that nor do i wish it to be

 

[Johnny Morgan]

WMJI's non-morning show ratings aren't keeping the station afloat. They have the number one by a mile morning show, which keeps their overall and demo numbers up while their other dayparts are much lower.

Those other day parts are voicetracked (again, except for PM drive).

Here's your quote:

time to get real and move into 2006, boyz & girls. not saying all music radio shows should be voicetracked but this notion that "it can't be good in 45 minutes" is a crock and major denial. if u wanna continue living in **THE DAY** go ahead-- those of us who are foward-thinkers will be collecting YOUR paychecks in the future

You are correct--you didn't say that you wanted every show to be voicetracked. But what exactly do/did you mean by "forward thinkers"? The forward thinking is what's happening at WMJI--14 hours of voicetracked audio. Some stations, it's 24 hours of voicetracked audio.

So, where's the line? And why do you get to choose what's better?

 

[radiofriend1]

WMJI's non-morning show ratings aren't keeping the station afloat. They have the number one by a mile morning show, which keeps their overall and demo numbers up while their other dayparts are much lower.

but that's not unusual for a monster, heritage morning show to outperform the rest of the station


You are correct--you didn't say that you wanted every show to be voicetracked. But what exactly do/did you mean by "forward thinkers"? The forward thinking is what's happening at WMJI--14 hours of voicetracked audio. Some stations, it's 24 hours of voicetracked audio.

So, where's the line? And why do you get to choose what's better?

forward thinkers are radio people who aren't stuck in 1982, insisting it can only be entertaining if a jock is standing in a studio for 4 hours doing a show live.

if a station can be better partially voicetracked, why do u have such a problem with it? if you're in a small market and it's voicetracked almost entirely AND it's better sounding/performing radio for THE AUDIENCE, what is the problem?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I have a problem when it goes from "partially" to "mostly". That's one (ore more) less staffer(s); one less slot available for an accomplished market veteran; one less slot available for an aspiring, talented newcomer.

I don't have a problem with a station being better, or even sounding better.

I do have a problem with a station relying solely on out-of-market voicetracked talent to fill holes in programming. Big-market sound may not (in fact, often doesn't) work in small-town America. I've worked in "small-town," yet only 30 minutes from Pittsburgh. There's no way that big-league voicetracking would have been accepted, or worked, or increased ratings.

There is a connection made between a radio station and its listeners. One part of that is the jock (or host) "being" a part of that community. Having Pittsburgh feed a smaller town, or Cleveland feed Mansfield, etc. is not "being" part of that town. No matter how many newspapers you read, trips you take, restaurants you eat in, websites you visit...unless you are immersed in Pittsburgh, or Mansfield, or Lima, or Schenectady, etc., you don't know the town--you aren't "being" your audience.

It's too simple--and here's where program directors who rely on voicetracking en masse fail--to say that larger-market/out-of-market hosts are better sounding or performing. There's more than enough evidence that more jocks are rejected by towns because they don't relate than are accepted because they came with that "New york" mentality.

You obviously are endorsing the homogenization of radio, which is fine. Your bosses, and a large number of corporate media outlets, print, aural and visual, agree with your premise. One standard across the country is one way to go. But we'll see how it turns out. If you want the "Big Town Sound" (apologies to Bill Drake and the WOR-FM guys) everywhere you go, don't complain when (a) small-town audiences turn you off, and (b) the "Big Town Sound" guys retire or move on, and you have no one to replace them.

I got out (actually, never got "in") and have something else to do with my life--law, which pays a hell of alot better. But I'd suggest you worry about your job--remember, as "Big Town" as you may think you are, your boss may have someone else who's "better sounding/performing" voicetracking your show from Phoenix within the year. In which case...the tables may very well be turned. We'll check back in two years...if you change your tune, we may very well say "told you so!"

Just a word for the wise. Do you have a fall-back plan?

 

[radiofriend1]

You obviously are endorsing the homogenization of radio, which is fine. Your bosses, and a large number of corporate media outlets, print, aural and visual, agree with your premise. One standard across the country is one way to go. But we'll see how it turns out. If you want the "Big Town Sound" (apologies to Bill Drake and the WOR-FM guys) everywhere you go, don't complain when (a) small-town audiences turn you off, and (b) the "Big Town Sound" guys retire or move on, and you have no one to replace them.

i do not endorse the homogenization of radio. and it's not all about a **BIG TOWN SOUND** (i never said they HAD to be from a top 10 market but you can get great talent out of charlotte to do a shift in fayetteville) ..... it's about entertaining, relevant talent talking the talk with their target audience. a 26 yr old oldies jock may be local but make ZERO CONNECTION with a 45 or 50 yr old Oldies listener. and with revenues being the way they are in non-major markets, that 26 yr old is often the best available for the money.......OR, snag a passionate, experienced cooker from a bigger market and sound great.

i think u are trying to take my premise to extremes i've not intended. and i'm not worried about my job because i've enthusiastically adapted to radio in 2006 vs being dragged kicking from radio the way they used to do it **BACK IN THE DAY**. much of what u say sounds like auto workers all P.O.'d becuz ford/gm/etc. are cutting back and they feel like they're getting left behind. radio, like the us car companies, got fat and sloppy in the eighties and, unfortunately, are now paying the price.

a lot of this sentiment feels like insecurity about being replaced. good 4 U you're doing law for a living. i choose to remain in radio. doesn't mean i think i will never get fired or replace but i feel like a bit of forward vision has me more valuable and more desirable to any radio worth doing in 2006

 

[Johnny Morgan]

By "Big Town Sound" I don't mean the Top 10--I mean, and you meant, large markets (Charlotte's an excellent example). The talking the talk with the target audience only has so much leeway. Excellent point about a 26-year old oldies jock not being able to relate to the 40/50-year old audience (though as oldies young up, that may well cease to be as big a factor). But the response is not to get a 40 or 50-year old from New York or Boston to "talk" to oldies audiences in Springfield, but to get a 40 or 50-year old from Springfield to talk to Springfield audiences.

Your auto worker analogy may be apt on the surface, but it fails the more we look at it. One big thing the auto makers and radio companies don't have in common--the auto makers didn't say "we need to own 8 car companies in a market to 'compete'." Radio did that--it took it upon itself to say "we need these stations," and then stripped local content from them, feeding instead homogenized standardization from the nearest large market it could find.

This may well be insecurity about being replaced, and with good reason--Clear Channel, for example, has not been shy about kicking to the curb market veterans in favor of "26-year old jocks" voicetracking across God's creation. Other broadcasters, like Salem, have been even less shy than Clear Channel. If it's about relating, the big companies have been doing exactly the opposite of what you suggest. What's happening is not the choice between the cheap, local 26 year old OR more-expensive big-market vet sent elsewhere by VT; what's happened is taking the 26 year old cheap local guy and sending HIM across the country by VT. It's cheap times 2.

I'm not criticizing your stand at all, and as I said, I'm hardly anti-voicetracking. Within a cluster, though it seems more work for the limited staff, it's a damn sight better than sending from Cleveland to farm country Ohio. What I am saying is that if the big companies really are that worried about cost, maybe they shouldn't have bought the smaller stations to begin with.

We all must adapt, and I acknowledge that. I used and use VT myself. It's a good tool to make an otherwise jukebox sound somewhat real. But it's never, ever a replacement for a live, local jock knowing his audience in the moment.

With that, I'm done. I think we've said all we can on this subject.

 

[radiofriend1]

last thing i'll observe on this is when everybody got nervous about consolidation and voicetracking in the mid nineties, i told a lot of people that the only people who should worry, the weenies in our midst. it would be an opportunity to trim the fat, motivate some to become more valuable (and get rid of the 10% who always fell behind anyway). there are still many, many dj's around america who give the bare minimum to their gigs but i'd say most definitely care about being entertaining, topical and relevant for their listeners. and it's the latter who can find great opportunities spreading their talent to other markets.

in a lot of med-sized market clusters voicetracking within and outside the market gives talented, motivated people the opportunity to make a great living in a non-major market. they make good dough, can have a nice lifestyle and be valuable to their cluster and company (and maybe even learn something new about a new format or new station!!!!!).

kinda sounds like the american dream to me. perfect, of course not. but damn good-yes, i think so.

 

[the undork]

DANG!!
I never thought my little question would generate sooo much debate!!
But I guess that's what places like this are really for right? It's a good thing.

I think the thread has veered away from my original question, so I you'll all indulge me while parse my original post...

When a jock moves on, more often than not they still get to keep the job they are leaving by voicetracking. This denies any opportunity for advancement within that station/cluster.

If you will actually read what I wrote here, there is no condemnation of voice tracking. For the record, I do a lot of fill-ins via VT, not only for local talent, but usually for other VT'ers. I am NOT living in THE GOOD OLD DAYS, nor do I think is anybody who posted on this thread. In fact, I really don't remember those days as being all that good anyway. I get more pay and better treatment and working conditions than I ever did before.

The question here is, why can't a person departing open a new opportunity for an up and comer, even if that person IS a VT'er? Also, why does that guy who has switched markets 5 times in the last 10 years and has accumulated 10-11 VT gigs OUTSIDE his home market and taken them with him every time, get to keep them all? Sure, maybe he's great, but how can he localize all of those in one day? In a local cluster, there is one talent who does one hour live on his local station, and that's an all request show he does not have to prep for and he does no other prep other than artist news for the rest of the shift. This talent spends the rest of the day VT'ing 12 other markets, and all they really do is tie up a perfectly good production room all day. I think accumulating so many is a disservice to ALL of the stations involved and can only serve to line the talent's pockets. Nothing wrong with that. We DO thrive on capitalism in this country, but everyone on these boards keeps griping that radio is dead or dying and this is one of thes thigns causing it. If noone is willing to do anything about it, just lament the good old days or condenm those who are being "dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century", then maybe it deserves to die.

I get the position that if you can keep a winning talent on the air then why not, and that it can also save on budget and I further understand the dynamic of getting a more talented person on your air than you could normally afford. However, I also see PD's and others on this board lamenting a lack of good talent as well as opportunities for talent to develop.

The real question here is that I hear PD's and others on these boards griping that one reason VT has proliferated is there is no good talent on the way up. While I agree that truly BAD talent, that has no reason to be there in the first place should be trimmed, the fact is, VT'ing and satellite formats have destroyed the small market, or if you will, minor league training ground of radio. So if you have an opening, say in Temple/Killeen, and a solid, devoloping part timer who would kill for the opportunity is from say, San Antonio, why not give them a shot at that evening shift your guy is leaving behind for Dallas? Or, God forbid, try to be a good PD and develop a local kid?

Honestly though, given today's pay scales you could pay an up and comer less than the per shift rate of a VT'er and get away with it. If the kid has a problem remind him/her of the old concept of paying one's dues.

...and don't talk to me about budget please...I've been an ops manager, albeit in a small market, where, well forget the shoestring, we're talking a FIBER of a shoestring. Yet we still managed to do compelling local radio there, and admittedly, we in part depended on automation and VT'ing, but LOCALLY. We also were successful by inviting the COMMUNITY to be very involved with the stations. I think I made the point here, and it was actually made much better and in more detail further down the thread.

Further, is market 201 really going to get any kind of competitive advantage being VT'ed by market 50?

Well, is it? Or maybe I should revise since 201 would be lucky to have more than one station or 2-3 station cluster. Let's say that maybe 125 scores a point or two from 50, but are 125's expectations so high that they can't put up with an up and comer who is growing and learnign and improving every day?

 

[AKLes]

You obviously are endorsing the homogenization of radio, which is fine. Your bosses, and a large number of corporate media outlets, print, aural and visual, agree with your premise. One standard across the country is one way to go.

I'm using the quote above ONLY to bring up the "homogenization" aspect; this is neither to endorse nor condemn:

"Homogenization" has been an ongoing process which some say started in the 1950's. Ironically it was NOT "homogenization" of radio which was first noted. Rather, it was RADIO which first took on "homogenization". Who among us can recall the radio titan who coined the term: "Creeping Meatballism" (a more descriptive term than mere "homogenization"?

Here's who:

http://www.keyflux.com/shep/madtxt.htm​

 

[kenhawk1160]

The real question here is that I hear PD's and others on these boards griping that one reason VT has proliferated is there is no good talent on the way up. While I agree that truly BAD talent, that has no reason to be there in the first place should be trimmed, the fact is, VT'ing and satellite formats have destroyed the small market, or if you will, minor league training ground of radio.

Very good point, undork. It used to be that when I first entered the biz back in the late 80's, we didn't have the competition back then that we have now. We were able to afford live, local jocks because we were making money, and thus we were able to replenish the talent pool. The minor league farm clubs could still have the inexperienced jocks on and not run the risk of losing sponsors. But we don't have that anymore. Much of the business that did advertise on radio dried up and went under or they moved into other forms of advertising. The smaller broadcasters were then wondering how to make their product better without spending money they now didn't have. Enter satellites and other forms of automation. The talent that's coming up now has to be versatile...they have to prove to management that they're capable of doing more than wasting four hours a day in a studio, with little to do between records. You have to have other marketable skills that you can bring, like copywriting, production, newsgathering, newswriting, promotions, remotes, etc. Like Quincy Jones once said "Check your ego at the door." They want staff announcers, not jocks, these days.

 

[radiofriend1]

The real question here is that I hear PD's and others on these boards griping that one reason VT has proliferated is there is no good talent on the way up. While I agree that truly BAD talent, that has no reason to be there in the first place should be trimmed, the fact is, VT'ing and satellite formats have destroyed the small market, or if you will, minor league training ground of radio.

Very good point, undork. It used to be that when I first entered the biz back in the late 80's, we didn't have the competition back then that we have now. We were able to afford live, local jocks because we were making money, and thus we were able to replenish the talent pool. The minor league farm clubs could still have the inexperienced jocks on and not run the risk of losing sponsors. But we don't have that anymore. Much of the business that did advertise on radio dried up and went under or they moved into other forms of advertising. The smaller broadcasters were then wondering how to make their product better without spending money they now didn't have. Enter satellites and other forms of automation. The talent that's coming up now has to be versatile...they have to prove to management that they're capable of doing more than wasting four hours a day in a studio, with little to do between records. You have to have other marketable skills that you can bring, like copywriting, production, newsgathering, newswriting, promotions, remotes, etc. Like Quincy Jones once said "Check your ego at the door." They want staff announcers, not jocks, these days.

i don't buy that premise and here is why: there are actually MORE radio jobs available today than 25-30 yrs ago because there are a lot MORE STATIONS. for instance say there's a move-in in the Kansas City market.......out in the middle of bumpin KS or MO, it was probably automated for the small town it served........ they move into kc and it's owned by a major group all of a sudden this station is fully staffed. now, multiply that by all the move-ins in kc (there were many), times all the move-ins all over america (hundreds) and in markets where there may have been a dozen stations in 1977, there are 30 in 2006

has voice tracking eliminated SOME jobs? yes, of course.............but the net number of gigs in radio is still way higher than 30 yrs ago.......the math is easy

what is required in today's landscape: be valuable to your cluster.......just like in the '70's when "you did a little of everything", get out of the DO YER 4 & HIT THE DOOR mindset and become more indespensable, learn a new format (and make xtra $$$ vting a new shift!)......become a corporate asset vs. liability

or..............insist the only way to do is radio is sit in a studio for 5 hours, answer your request line, sign your logs and think whimsically about 'the good ole' days' of radio and how u will stand up to big brother and the corprate machine ............and end up getting your butt kicked in by the motivated, forward thinking people across the street

 

[kenhawk1160]

there are actually MORE radio jobs available today than 25-30 yrs ago because there are a lot MORE STATIONS. for instance say there's a move-in in the Kansas City market.......out in the middle of bumpin KS or MO, it was probably automated for the small town it served........ they move into kc and it's owned by a major group all of a sudden this station is fully staffed. now, multiply that by all the move-ins in kc (there were many), times all the move-ins all over america (hundreds) and in markets where there may have been a dozen stations in 1977, there are 30 in 2006

Having more radio stations on the dial does not automatically mean more job opportunities. When the wave of Class A FM's went on the air back in the late 60's to early 80's, there were few, if any, jobs created by those new stations signing on. The FCC at that time had the 50 percent rule in effect requiring that combo AM/FM licenseholders had to originate separate programming for at least half of the broadcast day. Thus, broadcasters were investing in the clunky tape-based dinosaurs that were cheaper than having a whole contingency of on-air people. So, this is really nothing new.

 

[radiofriend1]

Having more radio stations on the dial does not automatically mean more job opportunities. When the wave of Class A FM's went on the air back in the late 60's to early 80's, there were few, if any, jobs created by those new stations signing on. The FCC at that time had the 50 percent rule in effect requiring that combo AM/FM licenseholders had to originate separate programming for at least half of the broadcast day. Thus, broadcasters were investing in the clunky tape-based dinosaurs that were cheaper than having a whole contingency of on-air people. So, this is really nothing new.

of course that doesn't GUARANTEE more jobs---the if u look at the numbers there ARE. do u really think somebody does a move-in to, let's say Charlotte NC, invests lots of $$$ in a new market-grade tower, studios, etc. ...... and then keeps the "clunky-tape based dinosaurs" method of radio? no way-too much at stake. why do the move-in anyway?

think, mcfly, think

 

[the undork]

Great comments all, but still, nobody will tackle my original question, I wonder why that is? ;D

To restate and reword, again...I'll try and boil it down a little more...

WHY, when so many PD's, and from what I've read on this thread others as well, gripe about homogenization, lack of new talent...yada yada yada...do they allow one person to hold 10-11-12+ VT gigs, and keep them as they move from market to market, denying any opportunity for others?

Yes, it makes sense to keep good talent.
Yes, it saves on budget.

Those points have been made to death here. If that's all that matters, then I would just love for people to quit griping about homogenization and lack of talent and accept all of this biz for what it is. It is what it is. Work in it, take home the paycheck, or leave. End of story.

So my conclusion is.........ahhhh..the Hell with it! Who really cares anyway? Like the one guy up the thread said, Bill Gates is sending the robots to replace us all anyway. Just remember all you XM, Sirius and Internet radio lovers, the robots are going to take YOUR jobs too. I mean, it's only a matter of time until Microsoft and Clear Channel merge, then woe unto everyone who isn't a member of the worldwide New Order conspiracy, but we'll all find ways to adapt.

Personally, with all apologies to James Cameron, I believe that the machines will continue to grow in intelligence until someday they turn on us and we will have to destroy them all or die. I'm going to start The Undork's School of Buggy Whip Making. You see, once we've destroyed all the cars and other computer controlled transportation infrastructure and in fact nearly all other technology (and YES, that WILL include ALL of the iPODS), we'll be back to the horse and buggy. That is, if we don't eat all the horses during the Apocolypse and inevitable famine and pestilence which will follow.

It just saddens me to know that there will be no AM, FM, XM, Sirius, Internet, iPOD or robotic entertainment in my buggy. I wonder if I can hire some guy to sit next to me and sing?

This industry...sigh

 

[radiofriend1]

Great comments all, but still, nobody will tackle my original question, I wonder why that is? ;D

To restate and reword, again...I'll try and boil it down a little more...

WHY, when so many PD's, and from what I've read on this thread others as well, gripe about homogenization, lack of new talent...yada yada yada...do they allow one person to hold 10-11-12+ VT gigs, and keep them as they move from market to market, denying any opportunity for others?

Yes, it makes sense to keep good talent.
Yes, it saves on budget.

Those points have been made to death here. If that's all that matters, then I would just love for people to quit griping about homogenization and lack of talent and accept all of this biz for what it is. It is what it is. Work in it, take home the paycheck, or leave. End of story.

So my conclusion is.........ahhhh..the Hell with it! Who really cares anyway? Like the one guy up the thread said, Bill Gates is sending the robots to replace us all anyway. Just remember all you XM, Sirius and Internet radio lovers, the robots are going to take YOUR jobs too. I mean, it's only a matter of time until Microsoft and Clear Channel merge, then woe unto everyone who isn't a member of the worldwide New Order conspiracy, but we'll all find ways to adapt.

Personally, with all apologies to James Cameron, I believe that the machines will continue to grow in intelligence until someday they turn on us and we will have to destroy them all or die. I'm going to start The Undork's School of Buggy Whip Making. You see, once we've destroyed all the cars and other computer controlled transportation infrastructure and in fact nearly all other technology (and YES, that WILL include ALL of the iPODS), we'll be back to the horse and buggy. That is, if we don't eat all the horses during the Apocolypse and inevitable famine and pestilence which will follow.

It just saddens me to know that there will be no AM, FM, XM, Sirius, Internet, iPOD or robotic entertainment in my buggy. I wonder if I can hire some guy to sit next to me and sing?

This industry...sigh

even after all that---not sure what u are truly after

the PERFECT WORLD does not exist

 

[the undork]

I'll make it stone cold down to the bone simple...

Not looking for perfect world. Does not will never exist
Not techno/change/corporate or any other type of phobe
Make some money myself w/ VT. Not against.
Hear people complain no jobs, no opportunity, no talent
Jobs, opportunities out there, many VT but few allowed to hog most deny others opportunity.
Why?
If no answer, quit homogenization griping

Sci-Fi comments attempt defuse hot button issue with humor + indicate absurdity of argument in context of larger world/life. This just chat forum after all.

Ending comment with wink indicating acceptance of IMPERFECT world.

Work for you now?