Why work in radio anymore?

[davideduardo]

I NEVER spoke about the "affinity/engagement metric" as defined by the study that you linked to. I used the term "engagement" generically BEFORE you posted your link. I didn't bother challenging you on it because you NEVER admit that you're wrong, even when it's demonstrable that you are. It's just not worth the hassle, and doesn't add anything to the REAL discussion.

You brought in the "engagement" term after I had mentioned that Arbitron had formed a workgroup to create a metric for this quality (which is why I gave the link later, since you had misnterpreted the term), and the first thing the group did was throw out the "engagement" term in favor of "affinity" which is in the press release.

Further, Arbitron has not done a "study" and you would know this if you read the press release. Arbitron has engaged a third party organization to put together a workgroup to establish a criteria and a metric for "affinity" and the group is working on the project, as the press release states. There is not "study."

It's virtually impossible to compare PPM results to diary results, so there's no point in trying.

If you understand that about 50% of your cume gives over 90% of the quarter hours in PPM, it is rather easy to compare.

There's a serious problem that Arbitron faces with the PPM in that it can't distinguish between active, voluntary listening, and passive - or even involuntary listening. In other words, Arbitron has opened a whole new can of worms.

Not really. Many passive listeners are engaged by the station they listen too, even if they did not even pick it. And many people who actively seek out a station are not, overall, engaged. Whether listening is voluntary or not is not necessarily an indicator of affinity (or engagement).

As far as consolidation and cutbacks are concerned, don't make me go back and seek out YOUR OWN POSTS about how LMAs and "evolvling" ownership rules go back into the '80s - precisely when TSL started to fade, and before computers even thought about either connectivity or multimedia.

In the 80's the market caps were not lifted, we just had a small change in total stations allowed... so from 7 AM and 7 FM we went to 14 of each, while the number of stations in the US had gone from about 2000 to 12,000 in the same period. We did not even catch up, and for all practical purposes there was no significant change until 1996, and it took 4 to 5 years for that scenario to play out. During the first almost full decade of TSL erosion, there was no consolidation at the individual market level at all.

I'd bet that more than a few posters on these boards would dispute your assertion that "very few large cuts came in the first couple of years of consolidation". That may be true at the top stations in the major markets, but it's certainly not what's been happening at smaller stations and markets outside the top 20.

Sure there were cuts, caused by things like not needing two business managers when two FMs came into the same building. But there were probably more cuts by far when the FCC allowed remote control of AM directional transmitter sites than during the first few years of consolidation.

 

[davideduardo]

I NEVER spoke about the "affinity/engagement metric" as defined by the study that you linked to. I used the term "engagement" generically BEFORE you posted your link. I didn't bother challenging you on it because you NEVER admit that you're wrong, even when it's demonstrable that you are. It's just not worth the hassle, and doesn't add anything to the REAL discussion.

Since this has "gone personal" I'd remind you to reread your first post where you mention "engagement" and then go to the one posted about 40 minutes before (7;26 AM Sunday) where I state, "The AAAA has recomended standardizing on the CPM as a cross platform measurement. And Arbitron has a very significant advertiser and radio task force working independewntly on an affinity metric (press release on the Arbitron website) to create a measure of engagement or whatever the final term for involvement with a station is. "

The term "engagement" was used several months ago when it was announced that Arbitron was going to look into the creation of a metric and it was going to create a group of outside "experts" to present recommendations. That panel is now at work, well before you used the term "engagement" in a post.

The key issue is that media buying is changing, with things like priming, involvement, mood, texture and such becoming more important than the old metrics. If radio does not adapt to the new buying needs, then the industry will shrink; by adapting, radio would likely be on a much higher percentage of buys.

 

[gr8oldies]

Nah,come on. All we need are DJs. That solves all of our problems. There has been a lot said about staff cuts, and how consolodators are not "developing talent" and I would still ask why all talent has to be employees of radio stations? Folks like Rox especially want almost all syndication to go away. Has anyone thoufght that you would actually stifle your talent by doing just that? OK, you're going to hire a morning show in Buffalo. If that morning show in Buffalo would like to expand their market by, for example, syndicating to Albany, Cleveland or Pittsburgh there are those who wouold say this Buffalo morning team should not be allowed to do that...Cleveland, Albany and Pittsburg should all hire there own morning shows. So, as a consequence, this show from Buffalo has no opportunity to market their talent, and the only alternatives are to pack the U-Haul and move to the next bigger market, go into TV or get out. Since we want radio in the 70s, maybe that's a good idea.

 

[12 In a Row]

Sure, hire lots and lots of live and local d.j.'s, that's what the public demands.
Throw away those silly I-pods, I-phones, blackberry's, do away with the internet.
No one connects one on one like your hometown d.j. Return to the days of yesteryear.

On the TV side, lets demand NO national programming!
Who needs to watch a talent show from Hollywood, we have our own local version on public access.

 

[Surfer]

Did my original question ever get answered?

 

[amfmxm]

Let's face it, radio is having issues. I will not use this forum to discuss all the issues because, I'm aware as most of you are, what the medium's problems are. I was wondering if working in this business is even still worth it? With all the consolidating, layoffs, syndication deals, morale at stations at an all time low and even more folks on the beach looking for jobs now than there ever used to be, one would have to consider if now would be the best time to consider a new career.

While I understand the need for some to find this funny, I'm being serious. Traffic departments are creating "hubs" where spots are scheduled from one location. Programming is a non-existent form and management (if you can call it that) truly has lost touch with both advertisers and station personnel.

Working for the local Wal Mart sounds a hell of a lot better to me than what I get from radio. And, as I'm finding out, it pays better! So, is it time for a large majority of us to find a new career? My resume isn't impressive, that's for sure. I can honestly say I've spend the last 20 years sitting around discussing entertainment gossip and playing music. Unfortunately, Ryan Seacrest I'm not so...

Hey Surfer--

I was wondering when somebody was going to try to wrench this thread back to its core question. Thanks!

Yes, some of us have tried to answer your question--and it is a serious question, indeed--though as you read through these 23 (so far) pages you'll find that the answers cover the full spectrum... from "Hell, Yes!" to "WTF are you thinking? Run as fast as you can!"

I'm one of those who says that there is still plenty of great opportunity in radio. I continue to work in the biz on a daily basis and sign the paychecks. At the local college I interact with students who love radio and I encourage them not to believe what they read in the print media about our impending demise. Somebody's going to make a shitload of money in radio over the next 20-30-40 years... and it might as well be you!

But there are plenty of caveats.

One is that the two primary tasks involved in radio--programming (on-air & off-air) and advertising sales--are talent fields. Talent--like singing or dancing or carrying a football. To a large degree, people are either blessed with these abilities or they are not.

It can be pretty painful to watch kids who want desperately to play in the NBA or NFL but don't quite have the talent required try to hang on and keep banging their heads against the wall. Same thing in radio.

None of us know whether you've got the talent to make a living at this. Maybe you don't. But... maybe you do. And if you do, then you need to make certain you're taking all the necessary steps to have the opportunity to allow that talent to flourish.

I've seen many very talented people who just can't navigate radio's hiring maze--every bit as difficult as that encountered by actors & singers & athletes--and go nowhere.

And I've seen many people who want everything to just fall in their laps. They essentially just don't have the motivation inside to do what needs to be done to move ahead. A couple of years ago I fired a very talented jock--someone with major market ability but a problematic off-air personality--and he's spent the time since anchoring down a barstool, collecting unemployment and/or living off his girlfriend.

It's a tough business. But, ultimately, your success or lack of same will largely come down to you.

If you think it's too much trouble to figure out how to make things work for you, then it may be best to head to Wal-Mart and take a crack at stocking shelves.

But if you are disciplined enough to work at creating opportunity for yourself, there is money--and great radio--to be made.

 

[redneckriviera]

There was a great 3-part article on Salon.com last week about Glenn Beck and his employment experiences as a CHR jock through the eighties and nineties that (more or less) led him into talk radio. Regardless of how you feel about Beck, it's a great read for radio junkies and I think it demonstrates just how difficult it can be for talent to figure out the things they need to do and the direction they need to go to be successful.

Beck is a talent. But it took him many years and plenty of wrong turns to get where he is today.

 

[elchupacabras]

There was a great 3-part article on Salon.com last week about Glenn Beck and his employment experiences as a CHR jock through the eighties and nineties that (more or less) led him into talk radio. Regardless of how you feel about Beck, it's a great read for radio junkies and I think it demonstrates just how difficult it can be for talent to figure out the things they need to do and the direction they need to go to be successful.

Beck is a talent. But it took him many years and plenty of wrong turns to get where he is today.

I worked at a station where Glenn Back had once worked in Utah. I'll never forget the graffiti scrawled on the wall, "Glenn Beck peed here!" I remember the graffiti, but this was in the early 90's and had no idea who the bozo was until he made it big! This was also years after he had been there.

 

[redneckriviera]

There was a great 3-part article on Salon.com last week about Glenn Beck and his employment experiences as a CHR jock through the eighties and nineties that (more or less) led him into talk radio. Regardless of how you feel about Beck, it's a great read for radio junkies and I think it demonstrates just how difficult it can be for talent to figure out the things they need to do and the direction they need to go to be successful.

Beck is a talent. But it took him many years and plenty of wrong turns to get where he is today.

I worked at a station where Glenn Back had once worked in Utah. I'll never forget the graffiti scrawled on the wall, "Glenn Beck peed here!" I remember the graffiti, but this was in the early 90's and had no idea who the bozo was until he made it big! This was also years after he had been there.

Yeah, according to the Salon.com article, Beck was Looney Tunes from the git-go and grew into one of those Guerilla Warfare morning jocks, flirting with suicide and living on drugs, who would-and-did do anything/everything to attack a competitor: crashing a jock's wedding... calling his morning competitor's wife on-air to ask her about her miscarriage...

The Power Pig School of Radio. Wasn't it grand?

So, nothing has changed. But that's for another thread.

This one is about working in radio, and my point was that Beck--to his credit--went out of his comfort zone and took the steps necessary to get himself on a successful career path. For him it meant swallowing his pride and ditching his CHR morning show after 10 years and going (backward in most people's eyes) from a Big Gun FM to its struggling AM in New Haven and learning how to do talk radio. And then he picked up and moved a thousand miles at the drop of a hat to land a big-market gig in Tampa.

So he bit the bullet and did what he had to do. And for those who are questioning whether radio is right for them now, the question is... what are you willing to do?

 

[oaktree]

Re: Why work in radio anymore?

Interesting query to revisit after 23 pages.

It's very very simple, actually, and no one has mentioned it.

Why work in radio anymore?

Because with its deficiencies, its incredible issues, its mounting problems, its agreements and disagreements there is one thing to keep in mind, no matter how good you think you are:

If you don't want to work in radio anymore -- somehow, there is ALWAYS someone who will gladly take your place; many times cheaper.

And if not that -- there's always automation. It never needs a holiday, vacation, day off or trade outs to fast food restaurants.

Why work in radio anymore?

Because if you don't -- bet on it. Somebody else will.

Too many stations, too few "live" options and too many "syndicated" regional or "Premium Choice" opportunities out there if you are just to good to do it.

It's yours to decide in more cases that you can imagine.

Bitching about it and limiting yourself to do "just what you do" isn't going to make it.

Learn aspects that will keep you in radio -- not what you think you do best. That simple.

Others will gladly take your place in the food chain. Always have, always will.

 

[TheBigA]

Did my original question ever get answered?

Someone probably said it in 23 pages of comments, but if you need to ask why you should work in a field, then you probably shouldn't work in it. In other words, if you need to be sold, or talked into it, then it's not for you.

I was talking with a teacher friend of mine, and this subject came up, and she said the same thing. If you need a reason to become a teacher, do something else. The money sucks, the kids will drive you crazy, and the bureacracy will infuriate you.

In another thread, I saw someone debating between several fields and radio. He wanted to know how much people get paid in order to make his decision. If you're basing your decision on money, then you shouldn't choose radio.

The reason you do it is because you HAVE to do it, because you WANT to do it, and because you'd do it for free. I see comments from a lot of people who want to start their own LPFM station just because they want to do it, not for money or anything else. Those are the ones who'll be happy.

 

[smedge2006]

I was talking with a teacher friend of mine, and this subject came up, and she said the same thing. If you need a reason to become a teacher, do something else. The money sucks, the kids will drive you crazy, and the bureacracy will infuriate you.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe that's the reason we have such a problem with education in this country?
And has anyone ever stopped to think that the factors explained in this thread are part of the reason radio has a big problem with its future?

You can't expect people to treat either career like the priesthood and take a vow of poverty and/or masochism with little chance of reward in this life.

 

[TheBigA]

You can't expect people to treat either career like the priesthood and take a vow of poverty and/or masochism with little chance of reward in this life.

Sure you can, and people do.

Or you can become a CEO. Or a bond trader. Or a brain surgeon.

People want to get paid a lot for doing what they like. That doesn't usually happen. At least not if they're an employee. You make a compromise. Either on one side or the other of the equation. My plumber gets paid a lot of money to unclog my toilet. It's because I don't want to do it. We all could learn a lot from plumbers.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Good points BigA. Like many of the silent majority, most who have been in the broadcasting business for more than ten years, probably would say that they have found the business to be personally rewarding. On the filip-side; there are some bitter individuals who either compare 'the good old days' when radio and television had no competition, with current day effects of a struggling economy and increased competition.

As I've told folks who bend my ear with opinion that include: radio and TV are irrelevant and about to become replaced by streaming or websites, I-Pods or whatever. Those folks are certainly entitled to their opinion, but the fact remains that more people are watching free TV and listening to free radio than in the past five years. Some say the reason for the recent growth is the simple point that it is indeed free. In a down economy free always wins over subscription.

Regarding the comments about compensation; I've found that paying someone more money does NOT increase productivity or performance. Those who love what they do, will do what they love...well, no matter how much it pays.

Call me delusional or whatever, but as with any business model, radio and TV are going through a period of revision. Don't want to work in the new world of the business? That's okay, there will be plenty of folks who will.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I think that most people are happy if they're fairly compensated for the work that they do. It's a little tough to swallow that a CEO is worth nearly 39 times what the average worker makes. Who actually produces the product, sells that product, and creates the profit that everyone in the company is supposed to benefit from? And that number doesn't include a lot of the perks like corporate jets, million-dollar bathrooms, and multi-million dollar office suites.

As taxpayes, we support those compensation rates. The companies can write off the entire cost of compensation, reducing their tax liability. The rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

It's not even a matter of competing with other countries. Compensation rates in Europe, Asia, and Australia are considerably lower.

As far as radio is concerned, a lot of people have worked in the business because they love it, and they believe that they're helping listeners get through the day a little more easily. There are very few people that get into radio for the money, at least on the programming side. There are very few programming people that last in the business if money is their focus. What's happened is that the balance of pay has gotten out of whack. Even stockholders have no say in executive pay, and the "old boys club" has gotten greedy. You don't even have to be GOOD at your job as a CEO to make millions. You can collect millions for bankrupting the company.

 

[TheBigA]

I think that most people are happy if they're fairly compensated for the work that they do. It's a little tough to swallow that a CEO is worth nearly 39 times what the average worker makes.

It's not based on worth, but rather risk. If you as a worker took the majority of your salary in stock, you might get a different deal than the one you have. Also, if the company goes broke, the officers are responsible in terms of resulting lawsuits. You want to accept that responsibility? Radio CEOs are no better paid than CEOs of any other kind of company. We are not Europe or Asia, and we don't aspire to live like them. We don't have a Prime Minister or a Queen. We have a less regulated economy. That is generally what this health care debate is about.

With regards to stockholders, as companies move their debt into equity, the stockholders will have an even smaller share of the pie than before. We have radio companies where more than 75% of the equity in the company is now held by bondholders, not stockholders. That's a very different situation. So the stockholders don't matter any more. The people who own the debt are running the company.

 

[smedge2006]

Also, if the company goes broke, the officers are responsible in terms of resulting lawsuits. You want to accept that responsibility? Radio CEOs are no better paid than CEOs of any other kind of company.

I've never seen a CEO sued into poverty. (And in radio, one could say there are those who richly deserve such a fate.) There's a difference between being broke and being poor. As for the yardstick, the comparison should not be to Europe or Asia but what the pay differential was in our own country thirty or so years ago. That ratio was deliberately put out of whack by people like T. Boone Pickens, who wanted CEOs to stop identifying with/empathizing with employees and begin thinking of them the way humans think of ants.

We don't have a Prime Minister or a Queen

Merely a lot of corner-office occupiers who think they are gods.

We are not Europe or Asia, and we don't aspire to live like them.

And as far as the non-executive and non-shareholder class would be concerned, "aspire" is the correct term, as many paycheck Americans are looking "up" at what their counterparts in Europe have.

With regards to stockholders, as companies move their debt into equity, the stockholders will have an even smaller share of the pie than before.

So tell me again why we deified CEOs for thirty years as they hollowed out our economy... and radio stations...

For those who think there are ten people waiting for every radio job -- perhaps among the raised-on-radio generation there are ten out of work pros for every one still employed. But at the entry end, the consensus among people I know still in radio and still looking at resumes... the pool is shallower and dumber. The smart ones know to avoid radio.

 

[gr8oldies]

You take the risk, you get the rewards or you fall hard. You decide you want to live your life as a W-2 employee, you take what comes with that. You say the people you work for are contemptible, so why work for them?

 

[HowardMBurgers]

Well paid corporate management is nothing new.

If you trace the roots of broadcasting back to it's infancy, you'd find that major corporations owned the majority of radio and TV stations. All of these companies had another primary business that radio (and later TV) were used to promote. The CEO's of these early organizations were just like the CEO's and corporate management with the same pay scale ratio to rank and file, as many of the CEO's today and ten years ago.

Everyone has their role, and it would be silly to assume the CEO responsible for the operation of the company, would be paid even double that of the rank and file.

You really don't think the CEO of General Electric should be compensated according to their hierarchy and responsibilities?

 

[gr8oldies]

Seem to remember that when Ben and Jerry's were trying to find a CEO they wanted to pay the socialist way, "no more that xx times the lowest paid worker". They couldn't find anybody who would work for that. If I own stock in the company, I want the best CEO money can buy, not just some middle manager who'll work cheap.