• 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

YOUR "FAIR" SCHEDULE

Right now their owners treat em (for the most part) like gas stations (how little do I have to pay people ?)

The thing is, that tends to be the case regardless of whether it is a local entrepeneur or some faceless corporation that owns a given station. Local owners are as likely to pinch pennies as a corporation. In fact, small scale operations tend to be more likely to operate on the cheap. Look at how many stations owned by a single individual are 100% (or almost 100%) syndicated or automated content.

It might be nice if all radio stations were owned by kindly millionaires who make big piles of money from some other business, and then pump that money into a local radio station as their hobby. But don't hold your breath expecting a flock of Charles Foster Kanes to start running local radio stations as an expensive hobby.
 
You are right when you say ther are no small number of cheap local owners. But, I must also tell you there are an equal number who are willing to spend money to make money.

I've worked for both in my career, both in TV and in radio and I'll take the locals anytime.
 
I must also tell you there are an equal number who are willing to spend money to make money.

Then name them. List them here.
 
I am amazed at how many here seem to come across as if only radio operates in a manner where the owners (be they local yokel or corporate) will pinch pennies and not pay a dime more for anything, etc. This is how all businesses in industry operates too. What has changed in the past thirty years is that the power of the union has decreased and globalization.

Back prior to 1980 the unions were far stronger than they are today. This caused many non-union companies to pay better and give better benefits, etc, because the union was out side of their plant site gate trying to get in. So it was easier for companies to pay better, etc, than have to deal with a union on site. Today, far less people are union employees so the union's influence is far less than thirty years ago. Many will blame President Reagan for this when he busted the Air Traffic Controllers Union when they illegally went on strike. Others will blame the greediness of the union bosses who themselves became big business operators and who have made their companies very unprofitable. I believe the truth is yes the unions got too big for their britches and overstepped themselves and President Reagan put them in their place. In 1950 or 51, the Coal Union almost shut down the nation with a strike. President Truman had to interveine as the nation then ran on coal, including the railroads which were the primary method for transporting goods around the nation and the nations power plants also ran on coal then. So Reagan wasn't the first President to have to adjust the attitude of over zealous union bosses.

Also, today's corporation's are world wide entites, they generally do not have loyalty to anyplace as they have plants, offices, etc all over the globe. So if one country or part of a country becomes too environmentally challenging, or taxation is too high, or unions are too agressive, they simply close down that location and move that work elsewhere.

Let's now talk the radio industry. How many radio markets are unionized today? Only the major markets. Are all the stations in a major market unionized ? With station owners being able to have practically as many stations in a market as they want, this gives them almost a monopoly thus allowing them to control wages in that market. Even the local yokel owned stations are not going to pay substancially higher wages than the megacorporation owned station across town as they probably are getting a similar rate for spots. Many radio companies have other business interests other than just radio, so if they don't make the profit margin they want, they'll just sell off those under performing stations or markets and put their money in something that will give them a better return on their stockholders dollars.

Bottom line in radio as in the industrial world is the same, make as much money for the stockholders or owners as they can. What makes it a bit more frustrating is that radio is not just a business, but an art, but the owners will never allow the art of radio to get in the way of the business of radio. So if they believe they can make more money with national syndicated programming in the short term rather than local programming, they'll go with the syndicated shows. They are not looking at long tern, but the short term, just as most industry does. It's not pretty, but that's how it works.

So radio isn't alone in this. All Americans, no matter their profession, other than government workers face this problem. So figure out how to resolve this for industry and you probably will also have your answer for radio, good luck.
 
As far as some local owner coming in, ditching all of the syndication and pouring hundreds of thousands into developing local talent...keep dreaming (especially as a a standalone). Unless you really can talk some big insurance or mortgage company to start buying radio stations as tax write-offs like happened in the 60s and 70s, its not gonna happen. WLW is a local success story, but this staff has mostly been in place for 20+ years.You're not going to rebuild it in a year.

Our local WHIO had Kent Voss on the air in afternoon drive.He went on to Philadelphia and they tried at least three (local) hosts in that time slot (only one with roots in the area..as RR said somewhere if a station moves someone in from gosh knows where and plops him in a chair in town, is it really 'local'?) and none of gthem worked out. And I don't know that anyone outside the business is really saying "I wish WHIO would drop Hannity and put someone in a chair at 1414 Wilmington Avenue".
 
the answer to your question is that if the guy comes from anywhere, lands at a local station and LEARNS the market then he/she is local.

They talk about local issues and are local talent.

You don't need to spend millions to make lots of money, just don't expect 50% ROI
 
All fine and dandy, but he has to develop an audience and beat the competition. People aren't going to tune out Rush or hannity jsut because someone accross town is "local". They have to put on a better show than Rush or Hannity, and do it long enough to build awareness and change habits. The fact that you talk about last night's city council meeting isn't enough.

The AIM story is interesting...declare any speech that criticizes liberals or "disadvantaged groups" as "hate speech" and you have a FD that covers not only radio but newspapers, the internet and your private conversation with the bartender. Of course then, this will no longer be America.
 
I disagree...people will tune out comedians Rush and Hannity not for a spirited discussion of the city council meeting (yawn) but for one about local politics, issues and interests.

Yes...you do need to have a metro of more then 5000 ...although there are some VERY small stations that do very well.

Obviously you have to do good radio. Rush and Hannity exist because they do intersting radio and are FREE to the (mostly) clear channel stations that carry them.
 
I disagree...people will tune out comedians Rush and Hannity not for a spirited discussion of the city council meeting (yawn) but for one about local politics, issues and interests.

Then name two markets in which a local talk host who talks about "local politics, issues and interests" beats Rush or Hannity head-to-head in the same time slots. In other words, put up or shut up.

Or are you suggesting that that by "people will tune out", you simply mean that you can find two whole people who'll listen to "local politics, issues and interests" over nationally syndicated talk shows.
 
justareporter said:
Rush and Hannity exist because they do intersting radio and are FREE to the (mostly) clear channel stations that carry them.

That's an interesting statement. I thought a "reporter" would check his or her facts before publishing information which is not factual. More often than not, Rush and Sean command barter AND CASH. In many cases, lots of it. And Clear Channel stations are not immune to these charges. By the way, the majority of Sean and Rush's affiliates are not Clear Channel. But you are correct about one thing - they are entertaining. Usually.
 
the barter and cash is for non-CC. For the others it is a "charge" but since it is a CC station it is all in the company. Sorry...you're just wrong.
 
RR: it is not just who beats Rush and hannity...it is whther you are doing intersting, compelling and following the FCC mandate. You keep falling on your proverbial sword trying to sell Hannity and rush as the most popular. They may very well be....but there is no public interest served.

Lots of people like Kool-Aid...doesn't mean it is a good product.
 
They may very well be....but there is no public interest served.

I would submit that radio broadcasting is not and should not be "nasty medicine" forced onto the public whether they want it or not. It is not self-anointed pundits such as yourself who should decide what is or is not in the public's interest. In a democracy, it is the public who decides what is in the public's interest.

Elections to determine if the public's interests are being served are held daily. The ballot is a combination of the on-off switch and the tuning mechanism. The public "votes" on whether their needs are served by deciding whether or not to turn their radios on or not, and what station to tune them to.

You are not above the public.

Lots of people like Kool-Aid...doesn't mean it is a good product.

What, so now you're also an expert on low-cost beverages??? Are you also going to try to get the Federal Beverage Commission to put an end to the Kool-Aid menace, or to insist on a Fairness Doctrine for beverages? Should every grocery and convenience store be compelled to give equal amounts of shelf space to Tang and other powered drink mixes? Or are you working for Kool-Aid's main competitor, Wyler?
 
One sided broadcasting has never been in the public interest. But you know that anyway.

As for being a "self anointed pundit" I would suggest you take a look in the mirror.

And the public doesn't always decide what is in the public's interest. Studies show most wouldn't approve the "Bill of Rights" if put up for a vote and having lived any number of places in the US I can tell you there are still plenty of people in plenty of states that would love to go back to "separate but equal."

But I digress....
 
And the public doesn't always decide what is in the public's interest.

Yes, they do. If the public decides wrong, that is their right.

But I digress....

No, digression is too mild a term. You went so far off in a world of non-sequitur tangent that not even NASA could find you.
 
justareporter said:
the barter and cash is for non-CC. For the others it is a "charge" but since it is a CC station it is all in the company. Sorry...you're just wrong.

Hmmmm, when I was at CC, I had specific budget lines in my programming budget for Rush and Sean (totally well into six figures). Yes, the billing and paying was handled inter-company (at least for Rush), but money went from station to Premere. Just like real money went to other CC owned divisions like outdoor, Prophet, Critical Mass. Think about it - these divisions get a ton of business from CC stations - how would they be in businss if the "charges" they made to CC stations were just imaginary? We may have gotten discounts, even some freebies, but real payment is expected for their services. CC owned or not. As for Sean, he's with ABC/Citadel.

Maybe you should change your handle from "justareporter" to..."justwrong".
 
I stand corrected about Sean. I was thinking about Glenn Beck and for that I stand corrected. I know I'm right about Rush.

As for it being real money.....it really isn't and we all know better....the "real money" is made from servicing stations outside of CC.

But we all know that too.
 
Radio_Realist said:
name two markets in which a local talk host who talks about "local politics, issues and interests" beats Rush or Hannity head-to-head in the same time slots. In other words, put up or shut up.

In Chicago (the number 2 market) Kathy and Judy (9am-Noon) and John Williams (1-4pm) regularly beat Rush (11am-2pm)
Over the past year, during the 11am-2pm time period the WGN local hosts beat Rush in 12+ shares 5.1 to 3.6.

In San Francisco (the number 4 market) local talker Ronn Owens easily defeats El Rush in 12+ shares 6.4 to 3.2.

Earlier in the week RR said

Look at how many stations owned by a single individual are 100% (or almost 100%) syndicated or automated content.

I've got a least a dozen other examples I can share with you of local hosts who beat Rush. But first "put up or shut" and provide us with a list of locally owned stations that only provide syndicated talk. While your putting together that list, maybe you can check the finding in the CAP/FP report that group owners (those who control stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market) aired significantly higher levels of conservative programming than local owners.)
 
In Chicago (the number 2 market) Kathy and Judy (9am-Noon) and John Williams (1-4pm) regularly beat Rush (11am-2pm)

Unfortunately, I don't live in Chicago and therefore can't tune in Kathy and Judy. Does their show's content consistently include mostly topics of "local politics, issues and interests"? Such information can only be obtained by actually listening to entire broadcasts over the long haul, which I don't have the means to do.

In San Francisco (the number 4 market) local talker Ronn Owens easily defeats El Rush in 12+ shares 6.4 to 3.2.

Unfortunately, I also don't live in San Francisco and therefore can't tune Ronn Owens. Does his show's content consistently include mostly topics of "local politics, issues and interests"? Again, such information can only be obtained by actually listening to entire broadcasts over the long haul, which I don't have the means to do.

The point of the exchange was, after all, not about hosts, it was about show topics. You have mentioned hosts, you have not addressed whether or not the hosts you mentioned beat Rush by discussing topics of "local politics, issues and interests".

If those hosts you mention beat Rush by discussing the exact same topics of national politics that Rush talks about, then it only proves that those individuals beat Rush, not that topics of "local politics, issues and interests" attract more listeners than topics of national interest.

But first "put up or shut" and provide us with a list of locally owned stations that only provide syndicated talk.

I'm sure I can find that on some blog somewhere.

While your putting together that list, maybe you can check the finding in the CAP/FP report that group owners (those who control stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market) aired significantly higher levels of conservative programming than local owners.)

Why? What does that have to do with anything? Group owners tend to be larger enterprises, and tend to be more attuned to the bottom line. Group owners also demonstrate significantly higher levels of programming popular music on their music format stations in order to attract larger audiences. Conservative talk attracts bigger audiences in most markets than does liberal talk. Popular music tends to attract bigger audiences in most markets than unpopular music. So, whether a company programs music or talk, the company will tend to program the type of music or talk that gets the best ratings. What's the surprise about that?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom