I don't think anyone expects it to attract an audience "suddenly." But you have to start sometime. When you do, you start at zero and work your way up. I often read that one mistake radio made was not transitioning to digital sooner. Lots of reasons for that. But when it comes to talk radio, if not now, when? How long do you wait? In the meantime, they're not abandoning AM Radio. Still there after 100 years.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WPHT - Is it a radio station or half a YouTube channel?
- Thread starter wadio
- Start date
I don't think anyone expects it to attract an audience "suddenly." But you have to start sometime. When you do, you start at zero and work your way up. I often read that one mistake radio made was not transitioning to digital sooner. Lots of reasons for that. But when it comes to talk radio, if not now, when? How long do you wait? In the meantime, they're not abandoning AM Radio. Still there after 100 years.
I get it, wanting to "be there."
I just don't think the product is. You can be on every platform large and small and if the content isn't being developed, it's still mostly useless. Most news talk stations aren't doing anything about the actual product or demos, they're just simulcasting it someplace else. It's not a draw to an audience that can access far better content creators - even if it's in the general vein of traditional news talk radio's topics or politics. How many +55 "viewers" are there just craving to watch their local MAGA guy sit behind a mic and a computer? What's the draw?
Radio and podcasts and streaming, they're all audio. Video calls for attention. Why would many people choose to play it on Youtube when audio media functions just fine? I'm trying to figure out - if it's not realistic to expand their audience much, and it's not making them money, what is it beyond a slight experiment in "reach?" I don't think it accomplishes much if you're not evolving the actual content or giving them a reason why watching it is better.
I just don't think the product is. You can be on every platform large and small and if the content isn't being developed, it's still mostly useless. Most news talk stations aren't doing anything about the actual product or demos, they're just simulcasting it someplace else. It's not a draw to an audience that can access far better content creators - even if it's in the general vein of traditional news talk radio's topics or politics. How many +55 "viewers" are there just craving to watch their local MAGA guy sit behind a mic and a computer? What's the draw?
Radio and podcasts and streaming, they're all audio. Video calls for attention. Why would many people choose to play it on Youtube when audio media functions just fine? I'm trying to figure out - if it's not realistic to expand their audience much, and it's not making them money, what is it beyond a slight experiment in "reach?" I don't think it accomplishes much if you're not evolving the actual content or giving them a reason why watching it is better.
I don't think it accomplishes much if you're not evolving the actual content or giving them a reason why watching it is better.
Sounds like you're way overthinking this. It's a process. It takes time to develop.
In the meantime, they're still on the radio...it's not going away.
I probably am, it's in my nature. I'm meticulous and always ask why.
That being said, I don't see what they're "developing." They're not developing video programming. It's basically a camera on the radio show. Imus did that on cable ages ago. My point is that radio and streaming, podcasting function well for what they're supposed to do. So does social media and Youtube etc.
Where's the nexus and who's the target audience? Most talk stations reach an older audience. So...is the goal for younger people to suddenly get into the same old style of programming by it being visual? They've moved on. They're not fascinated by radio on TV. Is it for the older audience to watch this? They're content with the content and format as it is, so it's of limited value. Who sits and watches? I have, because I'm in the business. It's mildly interesting to watch the facial expressions and behind the scenes stuff, eyeball the equipment. But that lasts at most one show.
If the content doesn't change to appeal to a new audience, and it's of minimal use to the old audience, then what you have is a placeholder. That's fine. But that's not a strategy. And from my experience, there's management (including at certain major market talk stations I've had dealings with) that seems to think it's more important to chase the platforms themselves than to adapt or develop new content that works for that format.
It makes sense to take a hot topic or lively reaction and clip it as a reel or a visual on social media. But long form streaming of full live shows where the visual elements never change and the target audience isn't likely to bother with it is just a new "thing" to maintain. Who sits and watches a radio show? What's the hook?
That being said, I don't see what they're "developing." They're not developing video programming. It's basically a camera on the radio show. Imus did that on cable ages ago. My point is that radio and streaming, podcasting function well for what they're supposed to do. So does social media and Youtube etc.
Where's the nexus and who's the target audience? Most talk stations reach an older audience. So...is the goal for younger people to suddenly get into the same old style of programming by it being visual? They've moved on. They're not fascinated by radio on TV. Is it for the older audience to watch this? They're content with the content and format as it is, so it's of limited value. Who sits and watches? I have, because I'm in the business. It's mildly interesting to watch the facial expressions and behind the scenes stuff, eyeball the equipment. But that lasts at most one show.
If the content doesn't change to appeal to a new audience, and it's of minimal use to the old audience, then what you have is a placeholder. That's fine. But that's not a strategy. And from my experience, there's management (including at certain major market talk stations I've had dealings with) that seems to think it's more important to chase the platforms themselves than to adapt or develop new content that works for that format.
It makes sense to take a hot topic or lively reaction and clip it as a reel or a visual on social media. But long form streaming of full live shows where the visual elements never change and the target audience isn't likely to bother with it is just a new "thing" to maintain. Who sits and watches a radio show? What's the hook?
As I said, you're overthinking. They're doing what Imus did. That's the depth of the thought process. Why are they doing it? Because they can. Will the video revenue replace the radio revenue? Not anytime soon.That being said, I don't see what they're "developing." They're not developing video programming. It's basically a camera on the radio show. Imus did that on cable ages ago. My point is that radio and streaming, podcasting function well for what they're supposed to do. So does social media and Youtube etc.
Thats a different subject.If you're a young guy, you have no interest in WPHT regardless of platform. Am I right?
But note that the morning hosts on PHT are fairly young guys.
BROAD BRUSH ALERT: Not all talk radio is Sean Hannity and Mark Levin!
Sure, some of it is younger guys doing a third-rate version of Hannity and Levin. There's very little truly unique or innovative about the majority of talk radio today, that's why exceptions are so notable. Now, to be fair, some of these are doing local angles on the issues, or at a state level, but it's generally the same ideology with not a lot of counterpoint.
BROAD BRUSH ALERT: Not all talk radio is Sean Hannity and Mark Levin!
I agree, especially at WPHT. They dropped Levin and don't carry Hannity. They're mostly local.
That's fine. I often listen to Fox Business in the car on SXM and the hosts don't constantly say "Look at this, ... look at that ... like us ... we need x-number of subscribers, etc." They're focused on content, and that's the difference.Remember you can listen to YouTube. Just because there is video doesn’t mean you have to watch. Just as I’m sure many of us have had the tv on, perhaps news, and listened more than we watched it, especially if we were multi-tasking.
Hopefully WPHT will figure that out.