-
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
Yup
- Thread starter Bongwater
- Start date
Re: Nope
Nope
http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=236468.msg2131623#new
What I say in this thread is that what Bob should say is "Music Digs Its Own Grave."
To THAT I say "Yup."
As I always say, if your complaint is about the music on the radio, what you're really complaining about is the music, not the radio. No radio that I know of is in the music business any more. There WAS a time when RCA and CBS owned radio and records. But no more.
Nope
http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=236468.msg2131623#new
What I say in this thread is that what Bob should say is "Music Digs Its Own Grave."
To THAT I say "Yup."
As I always say, if your complaint is about the music on the radio, what you're really complaining about is the music, not the radio. No radio that I know of is in the music business any more. There WAS a time when RCA and CBS owned radio and records. But no more.
To further my point, consider Pink Floyd. Where would Pink Floyd be today without endless airplay on rock radio in the 70s and 80s?
Now we find out they feel the airplay didn't matter. And they resent all of the airplay they got then, and they resent all the online airplay they get now from Pandora. All they really care about is the money. These guys make the suits in corporate radio sound like Mother Goose:
http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2667807&spid=30800
Music Digs Its Own Grave. Again.
The problem with Bob Lefsitz is he thinks the music is as innocent as he wants it to be. It's not. When you fall in love with music, all you're likely to get is a broken heart.
Now we find out they feel the airplay didn't matter. And they resent all of the airplay they got then, and they resent all the online airplay they get now from Pandora. All they really care about is the money. These guys make the suits in corporate radio sound like Mother Goose:
http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2667807&spid=30800
Music Digs Its Own Grave. Again.
The problem with Bob Lefsitz is he thinks the music is as innocent as he wants it to be. It's not. When you fall in love with music, all you're likely to get is a broken heart.
Yes, the music industry has contributed it's share of problems. Most commercially produced music today has more filler than you can shake a meatloaf recipe at. But there's a LOT more to radio's problem than just the music industry. And the biggest disproof of your argument is as crappy as the music is today, people STILL look for it on YouTube, Pandora or other online channels.
Are Pink Floyd a bunch of ungrateful blowhards? (Hint: They're a famous British rock group with more money than you or I will ever amass in 40 lifetimes.) Maybe so. But that still doesn't change anything about the current state of radio right now. You can ban them off every terrestrial Classic Rock radio playlist in America, but they won't feel a thing and it would be counterproductive anyway. Because they still got bazillions of fans. They will survive very well with or without terrestrial radio. Let it go.
You see, the radio industry likes to blame everything else but itself for it's failing. One week, it's the music industry. Next week it will be technology. The week after, a recession. And on and on. And granted, there is some truth. But not enough yet to pin the blame squarely on one thing or the other. Or all of them. It's the fact radio has lost a lot of what made it a special medium. And it shows. Painfully.
One of them is the wholesale and often shocking dismissal of longtime personalities and formats in favor of cheaper talent, outsourced voicetracking and cookie cutter monikered formats. And when listeners (sans PPM) are visibly upset by these changes, they are ignored. And cheaper programming isn't "innovation", it's just CHEAP.
And these listeners aren't stupid. But the industry treats them that way.
Then there's the age factor. Most of radio's audience tend to be older (there are actually kids who never even used a radio in their lives), but radio keeps shunning the older listeners, trying to reach the kids. But the kids today don't need radio. They think it's pointless to sit through five minutes of commercials and inane liner card chatter to get to whatever song comes next when they can access it instantly. Older listeners are far more patient. They like to keep it simple, but radio keeps driving them away. And they're going. And once they discover the cornucopia of alternatives online, there's no getting them back. It's suicide.
It's not a medium that was meant for times like these. And HD Radio, for all the hype over it 10 years ago has in reality delivered very little and nothing to get excited over. It's not helping.
I don't see commercial corporate terrestrial radio as being relevant 20 years from now - if even on the air as we know it now. You can point to Pandora's problems and laugh, but the genie's out of the bottle and if Pandora goes under there's no way it's going to drive people back to radio. You'll just breed even more resentment towards radio - even if radio had nothing to do with it (and radio's general public reputation is already in the toilet.) And along the way, something new will come along to replace Pandora. It's a losing battle.
Radio is a medium over 120 years old. No one in 1978 could ever have predicted anything we take for granted today. But you're looking at it. And radio will have to adapt. And it's especially frightening when you think of what's out there and what radio is up against. Can radio survive? It can.....But not for very long. Regardless. Technology will still claim it's prize.
And it might be wise for the industry not to throw away valuable listeners, no matter how old and washed up they are. Because as the old saying goes "Be nice to those you meet on the way up. Because you'll NEED them on the way down."
Are Pink Floyd a bunch of ungrateful blowhards? (Hint: They're a famous British rock group with more money than you or I will ever amass in 40 lifetimes.) Maybe so. But that still doesn't change anything about the current state of radio right now. You can ban them off every terrestrial Classic Rock radio playlist in America, but they won't feel a thing and it would be counterproductive anyway. Because they still got bazillions of fans. They will survive very well with or without terrestrial radio. Let it go.
You see, the radio industry likes to blame everything else but itself for it's failing. One week, it's the music industry. Next week it will be technology. The week after, a recession. And on and on. And granted, there is some truth. But not enough yet to pin the blame squarely on one thing or the other. Or all of them. It's the fact radio has lost a lot of what made it a special medium. And it shows. Painfully.
One of them is the wholesale and often shocking dismissal of longtime personalities and formats in favor of cheaper talent, outsourced voicetracking and cookie cutter monikered formats. And when listeners (sans PPM) are visibly upset by these changes, they are ignored. And cheaper programming isn't "innovation", it's just CHEAP.
And these listeners aren't stupid. But the industry treats them that way.
Then there's the age factor. Most of radio's audience tend to be older (there are actually kids who never even used a radio in their lives), but radio keeps shunning the older listeners, trying to reach the kids. But the kids today don't need radio. They think it's pointless to sit through five minutes of commercials and inane liner card chatter to get to whatever song comes next when they can access it instantly. Older listeners are far more patient. They like to keep it simple, but radio keeps driving them away. And they're going. And once they discover the cornucopia of alternatives online, there's no getting them back. It's suicide.
It's not a medium that was meant for times like these. And HD Radio, for all the hype over it 10 years ago has in reality delivered very little and nothing to get excited over. It's not helping.
I don't see commercial corporate terrestrial radio as being relevant 20 years from now - if even on the air as we know it now. You can point to Pandora's problems and laugh, but the genie's out of the bottle and if Pandora goes under there's no way it's going to drive people back to radio. You'll just breed even more resentment towards radio - even if radio had nothing to do with it (and radio's general public reputation is already in the toilet.) And along the way, something new will come along to replace Pandora. It's a losing battle.
Radio is a medium over 120 years old. No one in 1978 could ever have predicted anything we take for granted today. But you're looking at it. And radio will have to adapt. And it's especially frightening when you think of what's out there and what radio is up against. Can radio survive? It can.....But not for very long. Regardless. Technology will still claim it's prize.
And it might be wise for the industry not to throw away valuable listeners, no matter how old and washed up they are. Because as the old saying goes "Be nice to those you meet on the way up. Because you'll NEED them on the way down."
An excellent post 'A'. However, the entertainment value of radio still works even if it isn't music oriented. We have morning shows here in my market that remain very popular year after year (one host has been on the air 29 years and is still going strong). I don't see those types going away anytime soon. The wackadoodle morning zoo types probably won't last because they attract a much small and younger audience and the people who just play music are at the mercy of PPM's.
I am not intimately familiar with hosted Internet radio but my brief and shallow experience with it is disappointing. Seems OTA radio is still where the talent is never mind that it isn't as deep as it once was. Unless Internet radio imitates the OTA variety in some ways it will remain a jukebox and have limited appeal.
I am not intimately familiar with hosted Internet radio but my brief and shallow experience with it is disappointing. Seems OTA radio is still where the talent is never mind that it isn't as deep as it once was. Unless Internet radio imitates the OTA variety in some ways it will remain a jukebox and have limited appeal.
Bongwater said:
Yep. "The Atlantic" did a piece last week on NPR's Glynn Washington and his program "Snap Judgement." The writer asked some of the producers if they listened to the finished show every week.
Yes, said one.
But on the podcast -- I don't own a radio, said the second.
A small minority, perhaps. But one that is almost certain to grow.
A friend of mine had forwarded the article to me early this week and I responded with a thoughtful critique centered on two ideas:
1. Radio is pervasive. Ninety-three (93) percent of Americans use radio every week, and 75% use it every day. We're just a hair behind TV in media usage--TV is at 96 percent--and no one is suggesting that it's even POSSIBLE for television to disappear. Hell, it's everywhere, now--on computers, cell phones... almost as omnipresent as radio. Almost.
2. Society moves really, really, really slow. The internet (graphical interface?) has been part of our lives for more than 20 years, now, hasn't it? (I vividly remember slapping together a station website in 1994). Yet Americans still don't USE the web at the rate they USE radio. How can that be?
Hell, AM isn't even dead, yet. My professor in Broadcast Management assured me that it was, already--and that was 1969!
1. Radio is pervasive. Ninety-three (93) percent of Americans use radio every week, and 75% use it every day. We're just a hair behind TV in media usage--TV is at 96 percent--and no one is suggesting that it's even POSSIBLE for television to disappear. Hell, it's everywhere, now--on computers, cell phones... almost as omnipresent as radio. Almost.
2. Society moves really, really, really slow. The internet (graphical interface?) has been part of our lives for more than 20 years, now, hasn't it? (I vividly remember slapping together a station website in 1994). Yet Americans still don't USE the web at the rate they USE radio. How can that be?
Hell, AM isn't even dead, yet. My professor in Broadcast Management assured me that it was, already--and that was 1969!
Bongwater said:
The only thing radio lost was exclusivity. When you grew up, it was the only way to hear popular music. That's what made it special. Once that exclusivity went away, so did what made it special. What else was there? The DJs? They're still there. Was it the music? Well that's changed too. Was it the users? They've changed. For the most part, when you look at all of the various ways we can get music today, from TV, streaming, satellite, and on air, the one that has changed the least is on air. No one's "blaming" anyone for that. Time's change. Radio is changing. For you, that means losing something that made radio special. But most people don't share your view.
Bongwater said:
Actually the age demographics of radio is largely unchanged from 25 years ago. Talk radio audiences tend to be older. AM radio audiences tend to be older. Public radio audiences tend to be older. They are skewing the numbers a bit now. But if you look at music radio audiences, the demographic spread is largely unchanged. Which is why so many music radio stations target younger audiences. Contrary to the mythology, younger audiences listen to traditional radio. They may not use the traditional devices, but they listen to the content, and a look at the Arbitron numbers proves it. So while there are some kids who may not own a radio, they listen to the content through online streams and mobile apps.
You say "radio keeps shunning older listeners," but if the first half of your sentence is true, that makes the second half false, because the total number of radio users is unchanged. Are you saying all those older radio listeners are actually listening to CHR and hip hop stations? Yes there are fewer commercial options for listeners over 65. That's not a function of radio, but advertisers. Formats like classical, jazz, and doo wop are moving from advertiser supported radio to listener supported radio. They're there, just on different stations. The fact that they exist at all is what is driving the statistics of radio usage. But as I said, advertisers don't want them any more. Radio would love to program to the senior citizens, because, as you said, they're a captive audience. But even with great ratings, they'd make less money. That's the problem you have to solve. But to say "radio keeps shunning older listeners" is factually untrue.
Bongwater said:
Nothing stays the same. It either changes or it dies. So you're probably right. Radio CAN'T stay the way we know it now. There has been a slow evolution from radio as it was in the pre-internet era to what it is now. Unfortunately, you don't like that change. You see change as an attack on your generation. But the users of radio don't. Sure they use Pandora, Spotify, and online radio. They use it because it lacks the things you say made radio special. But what we're also seeing is they also use on-air radio because of several things: 1) It is everywhere. You don't need wifi or a smart phone or a data plan to hear it. 2) It provides a CURATED music mix that is created by a human being, not an algorhythm or computer. Even Lefsitz says that's what's wrong with typical online music streams. He also says listeners are looking for tastemakers, people who will tell you what to listen to. Those only exist in OTA radio. No tastemakers at Pandora. So radio as you knew it will probably continue to change in 20 years. And you'll continue to dislike it, because you don't want it to change. But that doesn't mean it will go away.
And yet, so many advertisers are unmoved by all the statistics.amfmxm said:
Even the Yellow Page industry has statistics that say that 2 out of 3 consumers still use Yellow Pages. It's not even moving the needle. http://blog.theberrycompany.com/blog/berry-marketing/yellow-pages-myths-part-1-the-internet-is-all-you-need Maybe it's because people are skeptical about studies.
Exactly. So you understand how advertisers look at radio usage studies and say - "Of course your studies say that. What else would they say - "Oh, don't buy radio advertising because the only listeners are old people"? And then they go on advertising the way they want to.landtuna said:
I just think people in radio look at their own studies and accuse advertisers of being stupid when they themselves behave the same way when statistics and studies conflict with closely held beliefs.
I'm not sure but I think this reflects our different orientations, mine being small market. Advertisers who aren't buying radio aren't using Arbitron. The radio sales reps are showing it to them and they look at them with all the interest they show the Yellow page ad reps and all their reports, which is to say no interest at all.TheBigA said:
Salty Dog said:
Perhaps this is why larger radio owners are starting to move from local advertising to national in the smaller markets.
It's definitely easier to sell internet numbers than radio numbers. But we're starting to see there's a lot of hocus pocus in those numbers too. Pageviews don't always translate to sales. But the CPM is definitely lower, and advertisers are predisposed to want to buy.
My radio experience is fading into history but my Internet consulting experience is current.TheBigA said:
it's true that people are less likely to challenge Internet numbers. But, lots of people get disappointed in their Internet advertising results just as they often are with radio, and for the reason you state. Pageviews don't equate to sales.
Obvious I know but in this one way, it's just like radio. The radio rep pushes low CPM's, talks up TSL, Cumes blah, blah, blah... and then the commercial sucks. Same with Internet. The Internet reps pushes "clicks" or pageviews or whatever metric is being pushed that day and yet it doesn't don't do anything for you if your landing page sucks, or there is no call-to-action, or your keywords are wrong... or no one answers the phone when prospects call in.
The difference is that, for now, the advertiser is emotionally predisposed towards Internet because the dominant cultural belief is that is where you have to be. That's where I'm going with this. Too many radio executives expect logic to carry the day and they browbeat their reps for not selling more because Arbitron "proves" radio is pervasive. It doesn't work. Advertising sales is more than a math problem to be proven. It's still human persuasion and radio has an uphill perceptual battle similar to that of Yellow Pages. Both old media. Both with lots of statistics to show that they are still important.
Salty Dog said:
But notice those same execs are also investing in new media and online radio. In fact the recent CC study, while glowing about OTA, also said online is their area of biggest growth. Contrary to what Lefsitz says in the OP, the major radio companies haven't ignored the internet. He says "the Luddites in radio still believe the Internet didn’t happen." But that shows how out of touch he is. They recognize its value, and they know their content will work on any device regardless of carrier.
Well, let's look at his background according to Wikipedia: "Bob Lefsetz (born April 22, 1953) is an American music industry analyst and critic, and author of the email newsletter and blog, the Lefsetz Letter. Lefsetz grew up in Fairfield, Connecticut and is a graduate of Middlebury College where he majored in art history. He moved to Los Angeles in the 1970s. After earning his law degree from Southwestern Law School, Lefsetz worked as an entertainment business attorney, and briefly as head of Sanctuary Music's American division. He has worked as a consultant to major record labels. [4] He is based in Santa Monica, California."TheBigA said:
Okay, so like Jerry Del Colliano, he's never run radio stations and makes a comfy living selling a newsletter that informs those who DO run radio stations how to run them. Of course, they aren't the audience. The audience is other bitter people who don't run radio stations.
Yes, radio execs are making investments in Internet, and as their online audience grows, the number of potential competitors multiplies. So they need strong brands. If they have them, the barriers to entry to new competitors is set higher. I can see how it could happen. I'm just not real confident it will.
If over-the-air broadband Internet becomes ubiquitous, and I believe that's a when, not an if, a local group of investors could launch a local Internet radio station on equal footing with traditional broadcasters. It won't be cheap. The only savings would be in transmitters and FCC licenses.
- Status