Wow, we use to have great Radio in ATL, those days are Gone with the Wind

[TheBigA]

Frankly, what you're saying is in my view, truly disturbing: "I'm OK, so who cares about anything else?"

No that's NOT what I'm saying. Don't put words in my mouth. There are lots of veterans just like me who are still working.

You're twisting what I say to suit your POV. So you don't actually want intelligent discussion. You just want to be right, and have everyone agree. Sorry. That's not for me.

 

[caller10]

We could go back to the mid 1980s, when ATL had SIX (count 'em) SIX adult contemporary stations at one point--Peach, B98.5, 94Q, Warm 100, Fox 97, and Lite 106. Each with a separate owner, drooling over that 25-45 baby boomer woman demo.

Six? OMG! OMG! OMG! Truly that sounds like heaven on earth.

 

[TheBigA]

I simply think it is stupid to allocate finite resources to just a few people. There should be, for example, more minority ownership.....someone with more of a clue than Alfred Liggins.

Sure...how do you do that? The banks aren't loaning money, the government doesn't offer small business loans to radio, and the FCC doesn't just want to give stations away. Clear Channel donated a bunch of their Aloha stations to some minority groups. But how do you decide who should get a license and who should not? The American system is based on the ability to pay for your station. That's what owners have done for 90 years. Why should one racial group get a deal no one else got? And just getting a license is the beginning. Say you give someone a license. It costs a lot more to operate. Where does that money come from?

As for your contention that "a few people" own these stations, the fact is that the publicly traded companies have thousands of stock holders. Sure, you have some family-owned companies like Greater Media, and Clear Channel is private. But the rest have lots of owners. I own stock in a few myself. How many critics of broadcast management actually put their own personal money where their mouth is? I'm here to say my money is in with the broadcasters.

It's simply insane to allow a couple of people to set the political and social agenda for this country.

I don't think the radio owners are setting any political or social agendas. I think certain radio hosts are, but they would be on the air regardless of who owned the stations. Rush was on hundreds of stations before deregulation, and nothing has changed. His success isn't a function of corporate conspiracy. No more than Justin Bieber. People like what they like. Having more owners won't change that. You'll just have more owners all doing the same thing, as they did before. But owners are doing whatever gets them ratings. Except for Pacifica. And look how successful they are.

But what's wrong with having a few people own media? This country was just fine when we only had three TV networks. Now we have dozens. What's the difference between having 8 stations each with one owner, or having 40 stations with 8 owners? It's the same number of owners, and the size of their impact is regulated by the government. If there is a monopoly, it's in satellite radio, and that one is permitted by the government. What you can't control is what people think. You can't grant a station license to someone because they represent one group or another. When you put the government in charge of who gets what based on subjective criteria, you open the door for government control of the media. When it's just about the money, it's more objective. Money is the great equalizer. As George Jefferson said, "It doesn't matter if I'm black or white as long as I have green."

 

[taylorengineer]

Big A....your response is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start.
If you don't understand that the media controls the social and political agenda then I'm not sure we can continue the discussion. It was once said that Walter Cronkite had more power than the president and it was true. When Uncle Walter said something....people believed it to be true. When Uncle Walter reported a story it was the talk of the office water cooler the next day. If TV news didn't care....the American people didn't care. Do you argue Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannitty don't set the conservative agenda in this country? Are they not the leaders.....the "instigators"......the "trouble makers?"
In a coup the first casualty is the media. Control the flow of information. He who controls the flow of information indeeds controls the population. This is not "what I believe." It's a fact!
Why do you think all those record reps bought coke and hookers for the PD? Because they thought he was a great guy? Why do the record folks still, to this day, line up to "visit" with radio PD's? Because he serves up great BBQ??!! If it were not for the internet then Clear Channel and Cumulus would have a lock on the music business - they practically do even with the alternative media. If you want your music played on the radio there's just a few people who have the power to make it happen. Can you argue that is not true?
Stockholders own, for the most part, a small part of these "public" companies. But Lew Dickey controls Cumulus....he owns most of the Class A stock which actually has voting power. Bain Capital management controls Clear Channel. If you think you control these companies - or even have a say so...... you're nuts!
I own broadcast stock too....so by your standard I indeed have a right to criticize radio ownership. And by Gawd.....the public owns the frequencies - not you as a holder of a few shares of Cumulus or ClearChannel stock.
It used to be to hold a license you had to provide service to the community. There were news requirements, a limit to commercial material, and the fear of Gawd at license renewal. Radio freqs were NOT auctioned off to the highest bidder.
I agree that there is no such thing as a "fair" system involving human beings. And when I say diversity I'm not only considering skin color. With a cap on every indivdual company then do the math......there will be more owners. Yes - I do want more owners, not fewer. Again....if that concept does not resonate with you I'm not sure how to continue the discussion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[taylorengineer]

It's simply insane to allow a couple of people to set the political and social agenda for this country

Like NBC, CBS, and ABC did for decades?

But as long as spectrum is scarce and must be equitably divided then we should have more diversity in it's licensed use. The winner should not be just whoever has the biggest checkbook.

We could go back to the mid 1980s, when ATL had SIX (count 'em) SIX adult contemporary stations at one point--Peach, B98.5, 94Q, Warm 100, Fox 97, and Lite 106. Each with a separate owner, drooling over that 25-45 baby boomer woman demo.

How many TV channels are there Jabba? In those days 12. That few number of channels does not leave room for much diversity. And that is exactly the problem.....in those days 3 people basically controlled the American system.....well....I guess the president and congress did have some input.....but the chiefs at NBC,CBS,and ABC basically set the agenda, socially and politically.
Market forces will decide who survives. I am for more competition.....not less. Brent would be one happy camper if he had 6 oldies stations to choose from. And why is that bad? If they all make enough money they all stay. If not, the weaker programming will not be as successful and it may fail. Why is that a problem?

 

[taylorengineer]

And Jabba.....I would also add that all 6 stations were very different sounding and were not specifically targeting 25-45 females.

 

[TheBigA]

Big A....your response is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start.
If you don't understand that the media controls the social and political agenda then I'm not sure we can continue the discussion.

But the people control the media. By virtue of the ratings. So who really is in control? You make it sound like a conspiracy theory. I'm here to say it doesn't exist. What you seem to want is the government in control, deciding who gets licenses based on race, opinion, or politics. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

Fox and Rush have power because people watch and listen. Not because they're on TV or radio. You can put other people in the exact same place and it doesn't guarantee they'll reach the same people or have the same success. The media is just that...a medium. It's just the window through which sun can shine through.

If you want your music played on the radio there's just a few people who have the power to make it happen. Can you argue that is not true?

And if they play music the public doesn't like, those people get fired. And as you know, there are many many more places to hear music than on commercial radio. Having access doesn't make you popular. Today everyone has access. In a world where anyone can be an artist, and anyone can have access to an audience, who really is in control? Radio or the audience? I vote for the latter.

It used to be to hold a license you had to provide service to the community. There were news requirements, a limit to commercial material, and the fear of Gawd at license renewal. Radio freqs were NOT auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Today, telecom companies are actually doing that. Broadcasters are still renting while AT&T and Verizon own spectrum. So who really has the power here? Radio? Sorry, we're the poor stepchildren. The reason news requirements went away is because the government felt it cost too much to do all that regulation, and the people wanted less regulation and smaller government. What is this election about? Who benefits from less government? The people? Then why do they keep voting for it? Think of it this way: If a station doesn't do news, then it isn't setting a political agenda. Right?

I do want more owners, not fewer. Again....if that concept does not resonate with you I'm not sure how to continue the discussion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

All I'm saying is more owners doesn't mean diversity if they all think the same way. It's just a lot more people doing the same exact thing. And the government can't make decisions about who gets licenses based on quotas or agendas. That is the absolute wrong way to handle it. So if you're going to insist on achieving diversity, how do you do it? You need to have a plan.

 

[taylorengineer]

I would argue the media, not the people, are the controlling factor. It is indeed a sad commentary on the ability (or lack there of) of the masses to critically think and properly digest outside influences but the proof is all around us. One only has to look at the political landscape and observe how people are so easily manipulated - and both parties do it with ease. To argue that we, the people, are in the driver's seat is incorrect.
People will pretty much listen to what is playing IF they perceive that as acceptable to their peer group. Good example is Madonna. Madge is a creation of the record companies.....she was not out working the bars for years, slowly building a fan base, and then getting the big break. Nope.....a mediocre talent who wandered onto the scene at the right time and played on MTV till we all were ready to puke. Had the record labels not decided she was going to be their new product we would have never heard of her - she is not a talent worthy of stardom.
People generally like what they like because their friends like it too. It's a survival technique and perfectly logical - the "pack mentality." It is true there is safety in numbers. But for this reason it is easy for the pack "leaders" to manipulate the herd.
All I'm saying is we need maximum diversity in leadership in the American "pack." It has been proved so many times in history that consolidation of power is dangerous. Think Hitler......and even today consider Russia's Putin.
To argue that all who control the media think alike is wrong. All business owners want to maximize profits, true. But you will find a wide diversity of approaches to maximizing profits - this is the crux of the argument. We know radio must be profitable - why else would you want to do it? The more diversity in approaches, and plans, for profitability is the key. This is what overrides the cookie cutter mentality which has made radio so boring today and provides more variety in entertainment and information.
I do agree that there is no perfect way to allocate resources. Historically it has always been "he with the biggest pile of money wins." Maybe you are correct in saying there is no better way to do it - at least you have proved yourself clever enough to accumulate a big pile of money! We certainly don't need more stupid folk in charge then we already have.......

 

[jondavidvox]

A....

Look, I'm not trying to denegrate you at all....You're a veteran pro, and I respect you, and your viewpoints.

However, I believe that Radio is in serious trouble. To me, it comes from those who accept the status quo...which is unsustainable.

This is not about you, or me, or yearning for "the good old days..." This is about yearning for a relevant, dynamic, successful, and prosperous medium called Radio.

Regarding your belief that the Listener controls Radio's success....As I said in my original post; form follows function. The major radio corporations are all in the same boat; precariously buried in debt, struggling to service that debt, and cutting the product cost to the lowest possible level. This lowers the level everywhere...

Essentially, the Listener has their choice of mediocre Corporate Radio A, or mediocre Corporate Radio B, or C, or D....The point is, it's all mediocre. Which is why they are looking for alternatives....and finding them. While this process unfolds, there are no apparent plans for Radio's future.

Let's take Talk Radio for example....Currently, Rush is doing fine. So is Hannity, Beck, and Levin. Who takes their place?

The Piper is playing...louder every day.

J-D
TWR

 

[TheBigA]

I would argue the media, not the people, are the controlling factor. It is indeed a sad commentary on the ability (or lack there of) of the masses to critically think and properly digest outside influences but the proof is all around us.

You make it sound very easy. Put something on TV or radio, and people buy it. As one who has spent a career using the media to try and get people to do things, I am here to tell you it isn't that easy. Getting to "yes" is a tough process, made tougher by all the choices people have. It's tough because people made their decisions on subjective rather than objective criteria. Your Madonna example is a case in point. No one forced anyone to buy her records or like her music. It was all subjective. But for every Madonna, there are thousands of other singers who got the same exact exposure in the same exact way, and didn't have the impact she did. Why? Because the people weren't motivated to buy the other music in the same way. It's all subjective.

Same thing with diversity. The diversity you want exists. Just that people choose not to use it. People have the option of non-commercial radio, where profit isn't the main motivation. They choose commercial radio. If the commercials are annoying, they could subscribe to satellite. Millions do. But the vast majority choose the cheaper and easier solution. So there is diversity, and yet people choose to stay with what you call "cookie cutter," and as a result, it's a success. But anyone who works in the sales or programming side of broadcasting will tell you it isn't easy to get people to listen or buy something. Success is based on your ability to get them somehow to do it. I'm here to tell you that the media isn't in control. Perhaps the SUCCESSFUL media is in control. But how did they become a success? Where did the power come from? It came from the ability to get the people to do something. That's where Madonna's success came from. Not MTV. But from the fans who bought her records. The media just gets you access. And today, anyone can get access. They don't need traditional media.

 

[TheBigA]

However, I believe that Radio is in serious trouble. To me, it comes from those who accept the status quo...which is unsustainable.

Read my comments to taylorengineer. They apply to you as well. You think people in broadcasting are in charge. You're wrong. It's the people. They're the ones who love status quo. Look at your own career. You're a hard worker, and put your views and your personality in front of people in lots of markets. You worked hard, made personal appearances, did a blog, tried outside the box ideas, and you still hit the same brick wall.

I spent part of my career in public radio. Why? Because of similar idealism. I was tired of the status quo. I felt it was motivated by ratings and money. So I went to public radio and beat my head against the wall. I refused to accept the status quo. No one was there to tell me "You can't do this." I had full power and control to deliver the best programming and serve the people in the best way I know how. I'd go on air and tell people to donate their money to keep us on the air. Some did, most didn't. We had a lot of success, and the station is still on the air. But I got tired of beating my head against the wall.

We are not in control. THEY are. And if they want status quo, it's our job to give it to them. The listeners like mediocre. Why? Because it's like them. They drive mediocre cars, work mediocre jobs, eat mediocre food, marry mediocre mates, and live mediocre lives. It's all boring pablum day in and day out. The drive the same route to work, go to the same job, and hang with the same people. You'd think they'd want to shake it up, but they don't. People have lots of choices besides corporate radio, but they choose to stay with what's familiar. That’s why people still listen to OTA radio in the face of so many alternatives. The choices exist, but they stay with what they know.

So go ahead and preach on that we’re the ones in control, and we can make a difference by refusing to accept the status quo. Keep beating your head against the wall. But the problem isn’t us. The problem is them. And we need them to make it work. And as long as THEY want status quo, it won’t matter what we do.

 

[trusty]

We have a "wag the dog" here. We just need to identify what's the dog and what's the tail.

 

[ArtyBoy]

The listeners like mediocre. Why? Because it's like them. They drive mediocre cars, work mediocre jobs, eat mediocre food, marry mediocre mates, and live mediocre lives. It's all boring pablum day in and day out. The drive the same route to work, go to the same job, and hang with the same people. You'd think they'd want to shake it up, but they don't. People have lots of choices besides corporate radio, but they choose to stay with what's familiar. That’s why people still listen to OTA radio in the face of so many alternatives. The choices exist, but they stay with what they know.

This is good stuff. Reminds me of one of my favorite bits from George Carlin's "Brain Droppings." "It's especially interesting when you can view them from an airplane. The houses, like the people, all the same. The streets, like their lives, going nowhere. 'Not a through street.'"

Pardon me if that was off-topic. Just had to make that comment.

Terrestrial radio, OTA, whatever you want to call it, is going to be replaced by digital no matter what song list they come up with or what format they switch to. It will be streaming digital apps like IHeartRadio, or downloadable, on-demand content like podcasts.

 

[jondavidvox]

To the Big A.....

WOW.

It really must be lonely at the top.

What market do you work in, and what is your job title? (Looks to me like it would be a good place program a Radio station.)

J-D
TWR

 

[TheBigA]

WOW.

It really must be lonely at the top.

You're the one who doesn't like the status quo. Right?

 

[taylorengineer]

@Jon-David: No need to get personal. Big A makes some legitimate points.
I do believe market forces radio to deliver what listeners want - I've said that time and time again on this forum. Our media is a reflection of the audience and on that point we agree.
Trusty asks the question: which comes first....chicken or the egg. Does media help create this mediocrity in our society or merely reflect the mediocrity which already exists? Are media heads responsible for leadership in the cultural and political arena or are they simply required to maximize profits for their shareholders by delivering what the viewer/listener want?
If spectrum were infinite the obvious answer would be protect, and maximize shareholder value. When these shareholders are using something which belongs to all of us then the answer is not so easy.
I believe media is partly, maybe even largely responsible for the state of our society but we are obviously willing accomplices. I believe also that as you increase diversity in input you will increase diversity in output. But I also understand the points made by Big A and they do have merit.
Thanks for the interesting conversation....

 

[TheBigA]

If spectrum were infinite the obvious answer would be protect, and maximize shareholder value. When these shareholders are using something which belongs to all of us then the answer is not so easy.

My view is that spectrum space is no different than any other natural resource, from water to mining to lumber to grazing to ocean front property. It's all limited, it belongs to all of us, and the government acts as arbitor in its use.

We in broadcasting have created this romantic notion that we exist uniquely to serve the public interest, but those words "public interest, convenience, and necessity" exist in the language of all public resources. The local natural gas company exists for the same reason. They're allowed to profit as a local monopoly in exchange for providing this service.

 

[jondavidvox]

Sorry....No really, I mean it. I guess I just give Listeners more credit than:

"They drive mediocre cars, work mediocre jobs, eat mediocre food, marry mediocre mates, and live mediocre lives.

To me, the hubris of that statements simply begs to be disproved....

Awful. Sorry A....I just can't wrap my brain around that.

Thanks for the call-down, Taylor....I needed that.

J-D
TWR

 

[TheBigA]

To me, the hubris of that statements simply begs to be disproved....

I thought you make public appearances and hang with your listeners. Maybe that was only in Las Vegas.

Nothing wrong with living a mediocre life. I didn't mean it to be critical. But for most people, it's pretty true.

 

[jondavidvox]

A...

Who's to say they live mediocre lives? Do you have any idea of the lives they lead? Based on what?

And yes, I still hang with the Listeners of The Wells Report. They are the people we work for.

A, I hope at some point that you review this line of communication. Respectfully, there may be a few things for you to think about....

The Listeners; "the People outside the Studio Window" are the people we work for. Radio has been letting them down. We, not They have become mediocre, and through the actions of those who think like you, we are trying to infuse/enforce that mediocrity into their lives.

They deserve better. I'm working to see they have it. Every day.

What are you working for?

J-D
TWR