Your opinion on "The Future Of Radio"...

[tothedj]

This has been going on for sometime, the radio business is hurting, some stations
in various markets around the United States are cutting or eliminating their staff,
and with revenues and listenership down, how many more could be let go?, I've
been in broadcasting for over 25 years, and have resided in the city i work in for
22 of those, my job is secured for now, but as the end of 2008 approaches, many
of you are asking yourself, "Is my job safe?", and i often wonder this myself every
day.
If you are a broadcaster who is still employed, count your blessings, because many
are not working, and for those who are searching for work, i hope you will find
something worthwhile, especially for your families.

 

[dgendvil]

It could help if they add more syndicated shows like Ryan Seacrest & Tom Kent to help boost ratings again & help save the radio industry from being extinct. I wouldn't say that terrestrial or HD radio is dead just like the last major recession in 1982-83 when WABC dropped it's top-40 format in 1982 & WVNJ changed it's format to Z100 in 1983, & went to first place after being in last place when it signed on, & it's sort of going through a mental crisis right now just like it has been on Wall Street. But I expect the radio industry to survive, & always has been a healthy business for years, & it will stay that way.

 

[Roger That]

230-some-odd million people cume radio in a given week. It ain't going anywhere.

BUT, it doesn't mean that your listeners are still using radio like they used to (they aren't), or that they'll ever use it that way again (they won't.) However, there are a lot of opportunities to still make the experience your listeners have when they DO spend time with you that much more enjoyable.

It's no surprise that it's slumping. When you look at the fundamentals everyone uses, and that most teach, it's no wonder. Some of them haven't changed in DECADES.

Radio will never go away, and will definitely evolve. The question is, when, and to what degree of force will be required from the audience before it does. Do you want to wait until rock bottom is hit before the change happens, or do you want to be proactive about it?

 

[radioboy]

I began the roller coaster ride of working in radio back in 1979 and worked in
the same market for the better part of 24 years. I was out of radio for a few years in the
90s but got a call to come back to a station I'd worked at previously and couldn't
stay away.

However, I wouldn't call the radio industry "healthy." Right here on Radio-Info there are
numerous posts: "Cuts at Cox.." "Bloodbath at..." 'The ax swings at.." and on and on. Things
may improve at some point in the future but I'm not holding my breath.

After my last employer LMA'ed his station, I ended up on the beach, maybe for good. I operate an Internet
station but of course can't make a living from it by any stretch of the imagination. There are just no radio
jobs left to go to.

I mostly don't care for syndicated shows. They will not be the salvation of radio although they
may slow the bleeding in some cases. Of the 5 AM stations in our market, 4 run syndicated shows
via satellite all day. One (Fox Sports) has just under a 1 share; the others do not show in Arbitron.
One FM runs Tesh from 10 to 3 and again overnight; and the same shows repeat over and over.
This station's ratings are going down. Maybe fresh shows would help.

I hope things turn around, but I no longer listen, except to a few stations while traveling. And
I LOVED radio.

I'd like to see broadcasters running stations again. The suits DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

 

[TheBigA]

I'd like to see broadcasters running stations again. The suits DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Suits have always run the stations. Do you think John Kluge was a broadcaster? Let's be serious. He was a suit. How about Bill Paley? Broadcaster or suit? I rest my case.

You want hobbyists running radio? That's what you have in internet radio. You want to make a living at it? Buy a suit. Find a way to get money first. The rest is the fun part.

 

[SirRoxalot]

There's a difference between broadcaster "suits" and beancounter "suits".

Right now, too many beancounters are in charge, and are sucking the life (i.e. compelling content) out of radio by rewarding those at the top of the food chain at the expense of those who create the actual product.

It's a simple equation. Every million that goes to a "high level exec" costs 13 jobs of people making $50K per year - a higher than average radio salary. Reality is that an "extra" million for a "high level exec" likely costs 15-20 radio jobs.

In the short term, the guys at the top get paid very well. In the long run, the product - which is created by people - is diluted. Poorer product attracts fewer listeners, and fewer listeners attract fewer advertisers and/or lower rates. Lower revenue leads to cuts - not in the Executive board room, but at the lower levels - the actual content providers.

Thus, we have Cumulus trading under 2 bucks. We have Cox losing half its value. We have Citadel - run by the biggest bean counter, and most clueless broadcaster - trading at a quarter a share - down from nearly $20 five years ago.

John Kluge and Bill Paley did a lot better because they had a much better understanding of broadcasting as a business, and let broadcasting professionals do their jobs. They didn't dump a gutted Opie & Anthony, and a cadaverous Don Imus on stations who didn't want them, and couldn't sell them. They didn't gut local programming for Ryan Seacrest or voice-tracking.

In my opinion, radio will only get better when the big companies finally collapse under the weight of their own management, and are forced to sell off a significant number of stations to more local or regional broadcasting groups. It's no surprise to me that smaller markets are doing much better than large markets these days. Management there is generally much closer to the source of revenue, and there's less interference from Big Corporate.

 

[TheBigA]

Right now, too many beancounters are in charge, and are sucking the life (i.e. compelling content) out of radio by rewarding those at the top of the food chain at the expense of those who create the actual product.

If "compelling content" was what drove radio, we would have been in this position a very long time ago.

Nobody cares about "compelling content." That's an industry description. People want what they want when they want it, and they don't want you or anyone else telling them what they should like. One man's compelling content is another's boring self-indulgence. Ask Lyle Lovette.

John Kluge and Bill Paley did a lot better because they had a much better understanding of broadcasting as a business, and let broadcasting professionals do their jobs.

You must be joking. Read any biography of Paley. He NEVER let people do their job. He'd call Walter Cronkite while he was on the air to criticize his reporting.

There's a lot of re-writing of history going on in these message boards. They make for entertaining banter. But very little of it is true. Read the real story, and then tell me your fairy tales.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You must be joking. Read any biography of Paley. He NEVER let people do their job. He'd call Walter Cronkite while he was on the air to criticize his reporting.

Did Cronkite ever give in to Paley's demands if they were unreasonable? Nope. Did Paley ever FIRE Walter Cronkite? Nope. Can you say the same about the "captains of industry" that are in charge today? Nope.

There's a lot of re-writing of history going on in these message boards. They make for entertaining banter. But very little of it is true. Read the real story, and then tell me your fairy tales.

The "fairy tales" are the crap we get from corporate who tell us that "everybody will benefit from ________________" and "content is our real product" and "we're here to help you do your job better" and "these changes will make us stronger" and blah-blah-blah.

The "real story" is that many "captains of industry" wanted more profit, and more power, but were smart enough to realize that it WAS the content that made radio - and TV - appeal to the masses. What's happened in radio is that corporate has listened to consultants that told them what they wanted to hear - juke boxes would sell music, and jocks just got in the way of the music. Almost invariably, the top stations in any format in any market are stations that have the most value-added content to music - i.e. air personalities who know how to entertain and inform, and build a relationship with listeners.

You can't compete with the music on somebody's iPod. If you want to attract that listener, you have to offer something more than music. Positioning statements and self-promotion won't do the job. Air personalities that can offer companionship, shared experience, insight about music and life in general, and turn people on to music that they may not have considered before make radio much more interesting than any iPod or Internet stream. THAT'S why people still sample radio. They don't stay on a station because there IS little compelling content from jocks who are allowed to talk 3 or 4 times an hour, and are expected to deliver a station liner at each opportunity.

Consultants started denigrating and de-emphasizing jocks as far back as the '80s. Corporate bought into it because it allow them to keep salaries down, and keep jocks in fear of their jobs. Few talents were able to overcome that practice, and most of them are now either morning jocks or talk show hosts.

 

[mleach]

However, I wouldn't call the radio industry "healthy." Right here on Radio-Info there are
numerous posts: "Cuts at Cox.." "Bloodbath at..." 'The ax swings at.." and on and on. Things
may improve at some point in the future but I'm not holding my breath.

After my last employer LMA'ed his station, I ended up on the beach, maybe for good. I operate an Internet
station but of course can't make a living from it by any stretch of the imagination. There are just no radio
jobs left to go to.

Words like "bloodbath" and the like, they have been used for years. I remember when the then-big three nets (CBS, ABC, and NBC ) all had their own "bloodbaths" back in the 80's, didn't ABC-TV laid off thousands when Cap Cities took over? In 1982 when HBO lost the rights to Showtime for airing films by Paramount Pictures, that cost a number of jobs at HBO, so much so that I remember when Entertainment Tonight called the HBO layoffs "The Flashdance Massacre". Flashdance of course being the big blockbuster movie at the time which HBO wasn't allow to show at all..which resulted in a loss of viewers for both HBO and Cinemax.

Whenever I read about these cuts and such that are currently taking place at many stations around the country, I have to wonder if there is more to it? A station lays off 10 people and then soon they advertise for help..even advertising the same jobs where the people who held those jobs were just laid off. In other words if a station fires their morning team..due as they say thanks to budget woes..and then here comes a new morning team..not syndicated but live...how much savings could be saved here? Maybe that is a trend. I know of one West Virginia radio station who just last year got rid of their entire news team..small one which consisted of two full-timers. Today the same station has a news staff of FIVE....only all five are part-timers. Again where is the savings here? Maybe my old PD was right. Radio will soon be a "part-time" business.

 

[TheBigA]

Did Cronkite ever give in to Paley's demands if they were unreasonable? Nope. Did Paley ever FIRE Walter Cronkite? Nope. Can you say the same about the "captains of industry" that are in charge today? Nope.

You said he let people do their jobs. The fact is he didn't.

Almost invariably, the top stations in any format in any market are stations that have the most value-added content to music - i.e. air personalities who know how to entertain and inform, and build a relationship with listeners.

Not always true. Lot of those "Lite" stations are market leaders. They have liner card readers.

The rest of the story is you can only have one station at the top of the ratings. So what happens to the other 40 or so in the market? Why spend the same amount on talent at all 40 when only a handful are going to be at the top?

The public has a wide range of interests. Some like personalities. Some find them offensive. It's radio's job to serve the people, including those who find personalities offensive or annoying.

 

[pocket-radio]

It all sounds the same stations sounds the same.
Uninformed presenters with verbal diarrhea and bland music formats composed from shallow over researched playlists. Most listeners today treat it as background noise. What a way to cheat advertisers and don't get me started on 8-10 spots played back to back.

No radio station can compete with an ipod, it’s the perfect jukebox.
So what’s left compelling content, yet radio has found another way to cheat listeners with more syndicated content.

 

[TheBigA]

You sound like my mother. To her, all music sounds the same. She can't tell the difference between one singer and another. They all look the same to her too.

So what’s left compelling content, yet radio has found another way to cheat listeners with more syndicated content.

Truthfully, the syndicated stuff is more compelling than the local stuff. Take a look at the typical local TV station. Maybe 4 hours a day of local stuff. All of it news. The rest of the day is national programming. Ask the viewers what they'd prefer: More local news or Seinfeld re-runs. I think we know the answer.

 

[SirRoxalot]

A Little Foresight

You sound like my mother. To her, all music sounds the same. She can't tell the difference between one singer and another. They all look the same to her too.

So what’s left compelling content, yet radio has found another way to cheat listeners with more syndicated content.

Truthfully, the syndicated stuff is more compelling than the local stuff. Take a look at the typical local TV station. Maybe 4 hours a day of local stuff. All of it news. The rest of the day is national programming. Ask the viewers what they'd prefer: More local news or Seinfeld re-runs. I think we know the answer.

As Ronald Reagan one said, "There you go again." There's plenty of local programming that's far more compelling for local listeners than syndicated programming.

It's disingenous to compare TV to radio. The cost of production, the number of people required to produce a show, and the technical facilities required are vastly different.

Seinfeld re-runs are hardly local product. They're inserted because very few TV stations have the money, talent, and facilities to produce local content except for newscasts.

As far as radio is concerned, you'd think that local broadcasters would have learned from the Howard Stern scenario. Put a syndicated show on stations across the country, promote the Hell out of it, and build up an audience. Then watch as that show moves on to a different delivery platform that offers fewer restrictions, cheaper distribution costs, or an even wider audience.

With the coming of cheap, nearly ubiquitous wireless Internet via WiFi, WiMax, cellular access, and other emerging technologies, syndicators won't need radio to distribute their product. What happens to local stations when the syndicator says "Thank you very much" and takes their programming - and audience - to another platform?

Ask those stations who STILL haven't recovered from the loss of Stern.

 

[TheBigA]

There's plenty of local programming that's far more compelling for local listeners than syndicated programming.

It depends on what you call compelling. Then again, you also said "The reason radio is in trouble is because corporations cut locally-produced programming and replaced it with generic crap that sounds the same in market after market after market after market."

I think it's up to the listener to decide. If they feel Ryan Seacrest is better than the local guy he replaced, they will listen. If not, that opens the door for a competing station to counterprogram. That's how radio is done. But I wouldn't prevent Seacrest from reaching an audience because his show may be national.

It's disingenous to compare TV to radio. The cost of production, the number of people required to produce a show, and the technical facilities required are vastly different.

None of those things are relevant to the audience. They don't care about production, they just want to watch entertaining TV. I think radio could learn a lot from TV and its battle with cable. After 25 years of cable, there is still a place for local and network TV. Some of that has to do with must-carry legislation, that required local TV on cable systems. Same with radio...as long as the public has access to it, there will be a place for local radio.

What happens to local stations when the syndicator says "Thank you very much" and takes their programming - and audience - to another platform?

What happens when the local DJ builds his audience on one station, only to take them to a competitor for more money? I know several local guys who've done that in the last few years.

Anyone can get a web site. The catch is to get people to visit it. Right now, even advertisers with big budgets need to drive consumers to their web sites. Broadcasting is one of the best ways to do that.

 

[TheBigA]

see above post for my comments