Will the front offices of radio stations get the message in time?

[Oldbones]

I don't think Mr. 1370 was indicating that a radio station should dictate the music you should or should not like when he said : "telling them what they need to know to get through the day, and making them smile along the way".

Methinks he was suggesting that someone on the radio might give you a heads-up about road conditions, or weather problems, or maybe even the time of day. And throw in a few light wittisims along the way to lishten ones load.

But the fact remains that going back to the way radio was done in 1978 (or whenever you thought it was great) isn't going to win back all these potential listeners anymore than Chrysler is going to get out of its hole by bringing back the Plymouth Valiant.
I don't hear 20 year olds saying that they'd start listening to the radio again if there were live dj's making lame jokes & talking over intros. It's the old radio guys that miss the "good old days".
I wish I knew what (if anything) to do to attract this generation to this quaint old medium called radio...I'll bet a lot of others do too. I'm also guessing that if someone comes up with a format that's attractive to them, most of us old geezers won't like it anymore than middle aged guys liked Elvis in 1956.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The fact also remains that what we're doing NOW ain't workin'. What's that they say about "continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?

A 1978 radio show isn't he answer, but what people in radio did in 1978 might be part of the answer. What did jocks do? Related to the audience. Spoke their language. Talked about things that interested the audience. Sorted through the myriad sources of information that existed then, and picked out the things that their audience might find interesting or entertaining. There was a lot less time spent "selling" the radio station. Jocks were seen a lot less like hucksters, and a lot more like friends.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

The fact also remains that what we're doing NOW ain't workin'. What's that they say about "continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?

A 1978 radio show isn't he answer, but what people in radio did in 1978 might be part of the answer. What did jocks do? Related to the audience. Spoke their language. Talked about things that interested the audience. Sorted through the myriad sources of information that existed then, and picked out the things that their audience might find interesting or entertaining. There was a lot less time spent "selling" the radio station. Jocks were seen a lot less like hucksters, and a lot more like friends.

I never can understand the reason for "selling" the radio station with lines that are often meaningless or sometimes just plain not true. Hey if I hear 'em I'm there, what more do you want? Now if you have something coming up that I may want to hear then buy all means the jock should sell that.

 

[TheBigA]

A 1978 radio show isn't he answer, but what people in radio did in 1978 might be part of the answer. What did jocks do? Related to the audience. Spoke their language. Talked about things that interested the audience.

Only one problem: The audience has changed. So the approach that worked 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago, no longer works. How do I know? There are lots of stations around the country still doing exactly what they did 30 years ago. Some with the same people. And it doesn't work. The audience wants something different, and you can see what they want in what the choose instead of radio.

Once again, and I keep saying this, radio wasn't always DJs playing records. There was a time when they did something else. That lasted about 20 years. Then that stopped working, and they did DJs with records. That worked for 30 or so years. We've been running on the fumes of that tired old model now for 20 years. It's time for something new. No one suggested what worked in the 1930s as a programming idea for the 1980s. So let's not suggest a 1978 model for 2009. Let's park that image next to Fibber McGee & Molly, and move on to something new.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, and I keep saying this, radio wasn't always DJs playing records. There was a time when they did something else. That lasted about 20 years. Then that stopped working, and they did DJs with records. That worked for 30 or so years. We've been running on the fumes of that tired old model now for 20 years. It's time for something new. No one suggested what worked in the 1930s as a programming idea for the 1980s. So let's not suggest a 1978 model for 2009. Let's park that image next to Fibber McGee & Molly, and move on to something new.

We're all waiting for you to show us the way. So far, we're getting over-formatted, overly-repetitious radio combined with syndication and voice-tracking, and it's pretty obvious that audiences aren't buying it. What we're getting is based on reducing costs, not on improving the product to attract a bigger audience, or hold them for a longer period of time.

When the product is failing, you can either reinvent the product, or look back to when the product was successful and determine what changes were made to the product that reduced its popularity. Radio needs to take both approaches. What's painfully obvious is that the reduced quality of the product has had a far more serious impact on revenue than anticipated.

 

[TheBigA]

So far, we're getting over-formatted, overly-repetitious radio combined with syndication and voice-tracking, and it's pretty obvious that audiences aren't buying it.

That depends. Some stations have increased audience, and some haven't. I don't see how you can jump to conclusions based on the evidence. There are lots of stations that aren’t overly formatted or overly-repetitious, and they tend to be at the bottom of the ratings heap.

What we're getting is based on reducing costs, not on improving the product to attract a bigger audience, or hold them for a longer period of time.

Once again, sweeping generalizations. I have no reason to believe that increasing costs or improving product will change the habits of listeners. They will continue to do what they do, regardless of what the local radio station does.

When the product is failing, you can either reinvent the product, or look back to when the product was successful and determine what changes were made to the product that reduced its popularity.

The changes were not made to the product, but to the overall culture. We changed sociologically from people who listened to radio for traffic on the 8s. Now we can get traffic on demand. We listened to radio when we needed a friend. Now we use our phone or laptop. We listened to the radio when we needed information. Now it comes via text to our cell phone. Radio didn’t change…we changed. If you want things to go back to 1978, you need to pass a law requiring everyone to give up cell phones and computers. Let me know how that goes. There is nothing we can do to radio product that will cause people to give up cell phones and computers.

What's painfully obvious is that the reduced quality of the product has had a far more serious impact on revenue than anticipated.

No one cares about the quality of the product. What’s painfully obvious is that advertisers don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. They’re spreading their ad budget to multiple media outlets. That means radio will get a smaller share of the pie. The quality of the product isn’t going to change that. This is not a radio problem. This is a media problem. It's affecting all media, regardless of quality or budget.

 

[Bob1370]

"No one cares about the quality of the product. What’s painfully obvious is that advertisers don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. They’re spreading their ad budget to multiple media outlets. That means radio will get a smaller share of the pie. The quality of the product isn’t going to change that. This is not a radio problem. This is a media problem. It's affecting all media, regardless of quality or budget."

Why are you throwing up the white flag?

In this state we have plenty of examples of music format stations that are doing it right, putting out a quality product based on the same combination of personality, service, localism and attention to local musical tastes that have produced winning stations for the last 60 years. They're in all kinds of formats ranging from country (WYRK in Buffalo, WBEE in Rochester) to urban contemporary (WDKX in Rochester) to classic hits (WCBS-FM in New York). What do they all have in common?

Success. Strong and growing billing even in a down market, and ratings that put them in the top 2 in their respective markets.

Case for investment in programming quality closed, IMHO...

 

[TheBigA]

Why are you throwing up the white flag?

I'm not "throwing up the white flag." I'm responding to a sweeping generalization that "reduced quality of product has had a far more serious impact on revenue than anticipated." I don't believe that the product caused an impact on revenue. I believe the ECONOMY has an effect on revenue. Because the owners of the stations you listed are all having revenue problems (perhaps excepting AP Communications), as is the station you work for, and I don't think anyone feels the quality of WXXI product is the cause.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What IS becoming obvious is that the stations that are able to invest the most in quality programming are doing the best in the revenue battle.

There are three major groups in Buffalo - Entercom, Citadel, and Regent. In the last 10 years, the group that has invested the most in personnel - likely because they DIDN'T overspend as badly while building their empire - is Entercom. Yes, they've gone through cuts. The cuts are not nearly as wide and as deep as Citadel or Regent.

What's happened to revenue over that period of time? Entercom has gone from #3 to #1. Meanwhile, Citadel - who has cut the most personnel both on the air and off - has gone from #1 to #3.

I understand that this is a simplistic analysis of the situation, but you can see the same results in a lot of markets. Citadel cut wide and deep in a lot of markets. What's the result? They had to scramble to come up with a TWO MILLION DOLLAR payment a few weeks ago. Two million should be chump change for a TWO BILLION DOLLAR enterprise.

The old adage "you have to spend money to make money" is becoming clearer daily. The companies that are investing in their product are still making a greater profit than the companies that continue to cut. The cuts are reducing revenue more than they're saving. If the debt service is so burdensome that you can't afford to pay it, you either need to renegotiate the debt or go bankrupt. Corporate executives who simple continue to collect millions while the company burns are simply stealing from the overworked employees who are left.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Those of you hoping for the return of the "good old days" in broadcasting when there were live announcers 24/7 and locally-staffed news departments, might as well wish for the six winning numbers in the lottery because it isn’t going to happen folks!

Management has taken its lumps on here for being the architects of mass firings. In their defense, management, especially at corporate operations, takes their orders from those on top of the food chain. So if the CEO of a mega-media company says cut personnel, the regional VP or GM has to comply or risk losing their jobs.

What upsets individuals who have lost their jobs is that years of services and loyality don’t add up to a hill of beans. But anyone who has worked in broadcasting knows from day one that job security is almost non-existent.

I join the chorus of those who believe it’s not fair that certain people make six figure salaries and receive other perks while others barely scrape by. But it's not like this just happens in broadcasting. Look at Kodak or Xerox as examples.

Also, why would any radio station go out and spend money on personnel if they don't have to?

It's cheaper to run syndicated programs rather than have live hosts. Automation doesn't require vacation pay, health & unemployment benefits, FICA, and sick leave.

 

[cee]

It's cheaper to run syndicated programs rather than have live hosts. Automation doesn't require vacation pay, health & unemployment benefits, FICA, and sick leave.

I agree. They own the stations and like any employer, can hire or not hire at will. On the other hand, I, as a listener, can turn to Ipods, online music and other newer entertainment delivery systems. It works both ways. If in the future, more newer, portable delivery systems for audio entertainment and information become available, will terrestrial radio slowly become a thing of the past? Time will tell.

 

[TheBigA]

I understand that this is a simplistic analysis of the situation, but you can see the same results in a lot of markets.

You're right...it IS simplistic, because it looks at only one market, and makes a snap judgement about money and results.

There are lots of factors that lead to success, not just the money you spend, such as format. Entercom benefits from stations that have the ability to make more money. Citadel has three stations that target demos that, to put it simply, are not going to produce the kind of money they used to years ago. They could have kept staffing exactly the same, and still ended up in 3rd place. If you look in other markets, formats like classic rock and rock are being phased out because they simply don't bring in the bucks any more. Talk and sports have the ability to make more money than classic rock. Plus Entercom has more stations in the market than Citadel.

 

[SirRoxalot]

There are lots of factors that lead to success, not just the money you spend, such as format. Entercom benefits from stations that have the ability to make more money. Citadel has three stations that target demos that, to put it simply, are not going to produce the kind of money they used to years ago. They could have kept staffing exactly the same, and still ended up in 3rd place. If you look in other markets, formats like classic rock and rock are being phased out because they simply don't bring in the bucks any more. Talk and sports have the ability to make more money than classic rock. Plus Entercom has more stations in the market than Citadel.

I'm SURE that Entercom would be willing to trade ALL of their AM stations for TWO of Citadel's full-market-coverage FMs. Entercom has two decent FM signals, one fringe signal, and has managed to make money with an old-line news/talker, and a sports station. Throw in a couple of 1-share AMs.

Citadel has 3 full-market FMs, all of which were significantly more successful 3-4 years ago. Cuts in the last two years have markedly affected ratings and revenue.

I'm afraid that you'll have to make up your mind here. In one thread, you're saying AM is over & done, and talkers are moving to FM because there's no audience left for AM. You're also saying that "programming doesn't matter". In the next breath, programming apparently DOES matter because "formats like classic rock and rock are being phased out". Maybe you'd better look at a book. Classic Rock is the one thing that IS raking in the bucks for Citadel. Shredd & Ragan - who Farid wanted to jettison altogether after replacing them with Opie and Anthony are the only real attraction on WEDG. WHTT was cut to shreds, the Classic Hits format dumped, and ratings headed south along with revenue.

Add the fact that there are a lot fewer sales people, and a lot of experience was lost because of cuts in compensation and you might be closer to WHY Citadel has droped from 1st to 3rd. It's called POOR MANAGEMENT - mostly dictated by CORPORATE. LOCAL management dangled from multiple limbs trying to hang onto people that they KNEW would make a difference. Too often, they lost.

 

[TheBigA]

Citadel has 3 full-market FMs, all of which were significantly more successful 3-4 years ago. Cuts in the last two years have markedly affected ratings and revenue.

I stand by my comments that this combination of formats led to declining ratings and revenue. As long as they stick with these three formats, their cluster will wither and die, regardless of the amount of money they spend or the number of employees they have.

I'm afraid that you'll have to make up your mind here. In one thread, you're saying AM is over & done, and talkers are moving to FM because there's no audience left for AM. You're also saying that "programming doesn't matter".

You're misunderstanding my view. But I imagine that if Entercom bought Citadel's three signals, they'd drop the formats on them, and place their AM formats on those FM signals immediately.

I agree that there's poor management there. Poor programming management for sticking with losing formats. Poor sales management by not merchandising their signals better, and poor management in not motivating their staff, regardless of size, to do better work. But that has nothing to do with pouring money into a cluster. I've worked at stations with small staffs that were better motivated than stations with large staffs and company vehicles. From what I hear, Entercom is a more centralized company than Citadel, with more corporate dictates. But they're better run, in market after market. In other words, it has nothing to do with ownership, but specific people. Entercom's people are just plain better.

 

[heydaybegone]

Entercom's people are just plain better

Ouch

 

[TheBigA]

I was very impressed with them during Katrina in New Orleans. And they've done great work in several other markets. They're also #1 in Rochester. Obviously not a fluke.

 

[cee]

Entercom, Citadel, Clear Channel, The Tony Soprano Broadcasting Network - frankly, who cares? Real or imagined, they all exist to make money and as I find most radio today to be boring and uninteresting - well, who cares?

We need more illegal pirate stations - I find them interesting and probably the future of terrestrial radio, since most people in 10 years or less will getting their audio entertainment from so many other sources.

Commercial radio is of interest to me nowadays like the old Crystal Beach is of interest - a item of nostalgia from those halcyon days of yore.

 

[Element9]

Ace, you're in the right ballpark, but the wrong section and wrong seats. At The Ralph, that'll get you tossed. You were impressed with Entercom's Katrina coverage? Me too. But dare I say they should have been expected to do a good job being 50k and the only AM news-talker in NOLA.

But this is the Buffalo board. So let's stick to the road map, especially since you brought up the signals and cluster strength in the market, etc. Regent actually has the best FM cluster in the market: Four big signals, three of which are performing well, especially with women: Heritage (only) FM Country WYRK, Soft AC WJYE, Heritage Urban WBLK and Jack, which is inconsistent.

Citadel's market cluster problems seem to be attributable to the overall inconsistency in sales. There was a time when Citadel's sales people were as well known and respected as their air talent, but that's changed. Citadel has a few major league street players who carry the weight for a lot of newbies.

You're a sharp guy Ace, but you're on thin ice commenting about specifics in the nuanced Buffalo market. Stick to promoting voice-tracking, down-sizing and national syndicated shows, topics on which you seem to be better versed.

 

[Bob1370]

The Big A said, "I don't believe that the product caused an impact on revenue."

Then you haven't been paying attention to trends in radio over the last few years. Radio revenue was dropping at 2 to 3 per cent per year from 2005 onward, long before the economy hit the rocks, because the programming was going downhill and listeners (whose presence or absence drives a commercial station's revenue) were walking away. There were extreme examples like WCBS-FM in New York, where audiences fell by 60 percent and revenue fell by 70 percent when personality classic hits gave way to automated Jack (while when the personality came back ion 2007, so did all of the audience and a lot of the money, even as hard times were setting in). But every station that has diluted the quality of the product has paid the price. I know of no exceptions.

 

[TheBigA]

You're a sharp guy Ace, but you're on thin ice commenting about specifics in the nuanced Buffalo market. Stick to promoting voice-tracking, down-sizing and national syndicated shows, topics on which you seem to be better versed.

I view that comment the same way Ryan Seacrest reacted to "shut up & play the music."