• 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

NATIONAL RADIO DIVERSITY DAY - DECEMBER 5th

T

TonySantiago

Calling your local radio station, unless it's locally owned, will do nothing but cause headaches for the staff. Calling your congressman is even more pointless. The government has absolutely no role whatsoever in programming decisions. If you're into format mandates, check out Canada.

I'm all for diversity, but I'm also aware that there's a finite availability of radio spectrum, and that spectrum's gonna churn out cash. Radio's an expensive game.
 
reelyreal said:
Calling your local radio station, unless it's locally owned, will do nothing but cause headaches for the staff. Calling your congressman is even more pointless. The government has absolutely no role whatsoever in programming decisions. If you're into format mandates, check out Canada.

I'm all for diversity, but I'm also aware that there's a finite availability of radio spectrum, and that spectrum's gonna churn out cash. Radio's an expensive game.
Click to expand...

That I know, about radio being an expensive game :(

I do agree with you that calling your local radio station would cause more of a headache to a staff that can't really do anything (and THEY hate what's going on too because people are losing their jobs based on all that has been happening). My angle would be to get at the major radio companies in this. The argument has to be presented to them.

Yeah, I know it's an uphill battle but I have said all these years that if you do nothing, nothing will be done.
 
So basically these folks believe they have a right to hear their music for free, and expect others to pay for it.

Here's the simple truth. There's no such thing as free music. The musicians want to get paid. The process for making music costs money. Radio stations cost money. Everything along the way costs money. Everyone has their hand out. Somebody has to pay. If not the users, then who? Those who pay get to make the rules. You can't require profit-making companies to lose money. That's how government ended up owning Amtrak. So it comes down to this: How much money are the people who want certain types of music willing to pay to get it on the radio? If you're willing to pay enough, there will be someone willing to take your money. You can make phone calls and write letters all day and all night. But unless you're willing to pay for it, you might as well save your time.
 
Tony Santiago said:
Join in on the fight for YOUR music. :)
Click to expand...

Tony,

I looked at the links. And I'll add to what has already been posted.

Calling the PD is not going to get you anywhere. The PD is generally hired do to experience in a specific format or type of format; they will not want to hear about a format that would likely get them fired.

Blaming "lack of diversity" on "corporate radio" is absurd. The reasons we have certain formats and don't have others is due to market forces which play for multiple owners or single station owners alike.

Taking a mid-range performing FM and changing formats means going from what is likely a mid-range profit situation to losses for a year or more... when you change format radically, you lose almost all billings and you don't get good rates and good advertisers until you have better ratings than before and for six months or better.

So the cost of a format change is enormous in New York... and unless the new format has a very certain future... it ain't gonna' happen in this environment and this economy.

Formats that used to be the domain of AM are moving to FM because with every year that passes, fewer and fewer people under 55... the ages advertisers seek... are using AM. Formats now on AM that do appeal to under-55's if they are available on FM are being moved. This is happening because the operators of profitable AMs with viable formats don't want to lose the revenue. Moving a good profitable and high rated AM to FM is not risky. And it provides service to non-users of AM who'd like the formats, too.

The attitude in the US for many decades has been one of not intervening with format selection at the regulatory level. Among the comparisons I have heard have been ones that equate format control with telling Hollywood what kinds of movies to make. Silly, isn't it?

The FCC, for a while, protected fine arts stations and effectively prevented their elimination from the FM band. That's sort of reverse diversity regulation, and more reasonable voices prevailed eventually when it was seen that formats had to sustain their existence and those in decline could not be kept alive by regulation; you can't legislate listener taste.

Radio has enough problems, such as an overall decline of about 30% in revenues (in real dollars) since 2006, the exodus of listeners to mobile devices and computers, asphyxiating digital royalties, and more. Don't add to that by causing needless distractions via attempts at format censorship. All that will do is cost the industry time and money, and make it more vulnerable to new media. That does not help the cause you advocate... and any victory will be a Pyrrhic victory at best.
 
TheBigA said:
So basically these folks believe they have a right to hear their music for free, and expect others to pay for it.

Here's the simple truth. There's no such thing as free music. The musicians want to get paid. The process for making music costs money. Radio stations cost money. Everything along the way costs money. Everyone has their hand out. Somebody has to pay. If not the users, then who? Those who pay get to make the rules. You can't require profit-making companies to lose money. That's how government ended up owning Amtrak. So it comes down to this: How much money are the people who want certain types of music willing to pay to get it on the radio? If you're willing to pay enough, there will be someone willing to take your money. You can make phone calls and write letters all day and all night. But unless you're willing to pay for it, you might as well save your time.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for dance music in that sense but YES, I WANT for artists of my music to get paid! Believe me, I think you've known me long enough in here to know that I do realize radio is a business.

All I'm saying here is that there COULD BE a profit. Is it going to be as much as something that is "safe" format? Perhaps, perhaps not. No way of really knowing that unless that chance is taken. And last I've checked, there's this thing callled ADVERTISERS. They are the ones that pay to have their product placed on the station.

There ARE things in the article that I do disagree on but for the most part you have a lot of fans of the music that would want to hear it on the radio, that is if they are not going to the Internet to tune in.

Hey, I'm happy for my show and where I am at. And I also know that if radio DID take a chance on the format, it would be the very last time. And when I wrote this post, this wasn't just about me and MY music. You read how the others are upset that their music isn't represented. I can't give numbers on alternative and country but if there is a base for it and people are demanding, then I believe there is that strong following.
 
Me outside of the quotes.....

DavidEduardo said:
Tony,

I looked at the links. And I'll add to what has already been posted.

Calling the PD is not going to get you anywhere. The PD is generally hired do to experience in a specific format or type of format; they will not want to hear about a format that would likely get them fired.
Click to expand...

I agree on that 100 percent. After all, the PD is under the GM/SM, who is under the CEO who is under the Board of Directors. The PD is only doing what the people above are making him/her do. That's the one thing on that article that the folks running this need to understand. That I get.

DavidEduardo said:
Blaming "lack of diversity" on "corporate radio" is absurd. The reasons we have certain formats and don't have others is due to market forces which play for multiple owners or single station owners alike.

Taking a mid-range performing FM and changing formats means going from what is likely a mid-range profit situation to losses for a year or more... when you change format radically, you lose almost all billings and you don't get good rates and good advertisers until you have better ratings than before and for six months or better.

So the cost of a format change is enormous in New York... and unless the new format has a very certain future... it ain't gonna' happen in this environment and this economy.
Click to expand...

And I understand that too. From all these years I've been on these boards, I have learned that it takes close to a year to study a specific format and to view the financial implications of such format, and that can be for any format, not just dance. My format hasn't been on the air in over 3 years so I'm certainly not expecting anything to happen tomorrow, lol :) . But for the market that New York City is; rhythmic, and the amount of people that have followed dance music along the way, I do feel confident that there can be money made in it. And I'm sure if the country music fans and alternative fans have a good argument supporting their music, then it should be something considered.


DavidEduardo said:
Formats that used to be the domain of AM are moving to FM because with every year that passes, fewer and fewer people under 55... the ages advertisers seek... are using AM. Formats now on AM that do appeal to under-55's if they are available on FM are being moved. This is happening because the operators of profitable AMs with viable formats don't want to lose the revenue. Moving a good profitable and high rated AM to FM is not risky. And it provides service to non-users of AM who'd like the formats, too.

The attitude in the US for many decades has been one of not intervening with format selection at the regulatory level. Among the comparisons I have heard have been ones that equate format control with telling Hollywood what kinds of movies to make. Silly, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Regarding AM to FM, I've paid attention to what's been happening with that over the past couple of years. I know things are headed to spoken-word on the FM. It's kinda the "tip of the iceberg" now but I do see more of it based on what you've said. 1010 WINS on 92.3 Now during the hurricane? In a few years or sooner, I believe it will be 92.3 WINS. The only stations remaining with music will be those formats that do appeal to the above 55 that may not be as savvy with computers/smartphones as the younger demographics. And I know radio is somehow is still taking that shot to the younger folks by creating sources such as iHeartRadio.

Let me clear that up since I didn't write the links above. I would never advocate government telling people what a format should be (I do know about Canada and how the CRTC is in terms of their regulation). For my intent and purposes with what I favor (dance/EDM) I am merely suggesting that such a format should be given some sort of consideration. And quite honestly anyone else looking out for their music would think the same way. That, in my definition would be the "diversity"

DavidEduardo said:
The FCC, for a while, protected fine arts stations and effectively prevented their elimination from the FM band. That's sort of reverse diversity regulation, and more reasonable voices prevailed eventually when it was seen that formats had to sustain their existence and those in decline could not be kept alive by regulation; you can't legislate listener taste.
Click to expand...

I know that was more FCC related in terms of serving the "public good" with fine arts formats, such as what WNYC/WQXR are doing. So let me ask this question and it may sound very basic, but ever since the FCC deregulated the industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has the premise of the airwaves being "for the public" disappeared as well? Maybe I'm asking this wrong but I think you know where I'm getting at.


DavidEduardo said:
Radio has enough problems, such as an overall decline of about 30% in revenues (in real dollars) since 2006, the exodus of listeners to mobile devices and computers, asphyxiating digital royalties, and more. Don't add to that by causing needless distractions via attempts at format censorship. All that will do is cost the industry time and money, and make it more vulnerable to new media. That does not help the cause you advocate... and any victory will be a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Click to expand...

Like I had said for what I have advocated and fought for (dance music), this really is one last ditch effort regarding New York City. And I've said, for my point of view, what I've been fighting on is more of a suggestion than a demand. Okay, while people in here are laughing at the last few words in that last sentence :D, my approach over the last few years has been more about working WITH people in terms giving the format a try, not that WE NEED THIS NOW AND YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING!! For the few dance stations that we do have over the air in this country, I am supportive of them, NOR have I told them what they need to do. I leave radio staff alone in that sense. Don't believe me, ask Party 105. I don't say a THING to Vic Latino or Matt Goldapper; they do what they need to do. They certainly don't need me to say a damn thing, lol :)

I'm not about format censorship, but backhandedly radio corporations are playing that card, IMHO. I know it's a marketplace out there but if they're not considering something new or innovative only to go for something that tons of other stations do just because it is "safe" then backhandedly they ARE censoring, on a financial means per se. Obviously the economy is very messed up right now so we can't expect anything creative or chancy to happen but down the road, as the economy gets better, then MAYBE.

If radio feels that they want to put up a "fight" against the new media, then bring something creative to the table...and once again...ANY format. Not just dance/EDM. Otherwise, I just think it's a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality in that sense and perhaps more companies will create platforms similar to what Clear Channel did with iHeartRadio.

I've always valued your words David and I know you mean well. :)
 
Tony Santiago said:
All I'm saying here is that there COULD BE a profit. Is it going to be as much as something that is "safe" format? Perhaps, perhaps not. No way of really knowing that unless that chance is taken.
Click to expand...

You don't have to smoke crack to know it's bad for you. And you don't have to blow up a radio station to know a format change is not a good idea.

But that's not what this is about. It's about this view that all people have a right or even an entitlement to hear their favorite music for free on the radio. There is no right, and there is no entitlement. Music is a business, and so is radio. All forms of music are available, but there is a cost for a personalized service. That's what this is about. Music has become so fragmented that you can't create OTA radio stations for everybody.

Music lovers want to make this about radio, but it's really about music. When the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences began giving our Grammy Awards back in the 1950s, there were only a handful of categories. Over the years, and especially in the last 15-20 years, the number of categories has exploded geometrically. Last year, they had to cut a few categories, and musicians in those categories objected. That's really what this discussion is about. Radio is simply coping with the fragmentation, and is attempting to deal with it in a practical way. And the only practical way is that the music that has the largest number of fans gets played on the platform that reaches the most people. Personalized music forms, those with limited fan bases, need to take the personal responsibility of paying for their own service.
 
Tony Santiago said:
So let me ask this question and it may sound very basic, but ever since the FCC deregulated the industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has the premise of the airwaves being "for the public" disappeared as well?
Click to expand...

People will take language and twist it to serve their own purposes. Playing music on the radio is not a public service. It's entertainment. There has NEVER been an obligation on the part of broadcasters to serve individuals. You go back to the 1920s and 30s and there were lots of fringe musical styles that didn't get played on the radio. Rock & Roll music didn't get regular airplay until 10 years after its creation. Black music wasn't a format until the 1960s. Those stations that played it often did so after 11PM.

The other mistake here is the assumption that the problem is "corporate radio." There are thousands of non-corporate radio stations in this country, and how many of them are playing dance music now? What we're talking about isn't corporate vs. non-corporate radio, but commercial vs. non-commercial. That fact is that small specialized musical genres are best suited for listener-sponsored stations. That's why you've seen classical move from commercial to non-commercial. That's why you have WFUV and WFMU. That's why jazz is on WKCR and WBGO. That's why the government created non-commercial public radio in 1967.
 
Tony Santiago said:
I know that was more FCC related in terms of serving the "public good" with fine arts formats, such as what WNYC/WQXR are doing. So let me ask this question and it may sound very basic, but ever since the FCC deregulated the industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has the premise of the airwaves being "for the public" disappeared as well? Maybe I'm asking this wrong but I think you know where I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

Big A already stated quite well the fact that nobody is guaranteed free radio for their exact taste.

But the deregulation of 1996 for the most part changed ownership rules. Sure, we also got things like longer license terms and, in the same period, changes in other rules and procedures for filing for and renewing licenses. But the rules never specified "serving an underserved audience segment" or "not playing the same songs as the other guy plays."

The Commission, right or wrong, also disposed of the unwritten quotas on news, Public Affairs and "Other" programming, opting for a vague ascertainment procedure instead. The feeling was that there were now so many stations, at least one or two in any market would take on the job of providing news and information because it was profitable.

But consolidation, mostly, was intended to make radio more viable since at least half of all stations were not making a profit. The ownership caps at the time did not allow for the necessary size for most radio operators to have access to capital or the equity markets, either. Of course, the result was the opposite extreme but that is another subject.

If radio feels that they want to put up a "fight" against the new media, then bring something creative to the table...and once again...ANY format. Not just dance/EDM. Otherwise, I just think it's a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality in that sense and perhaps more companies will create platforms similar to what Clear Channel did with iHeartRadio.
Click to expand...

Radio can't fight new media with towers and transmitters. That is an aging technology and does not fit how consumers which to receive content. Station operators have to move their content, with suitable revisions (like far less commercials, on demand content, etc) to new media and recognize that OTA radio will be a smaller and smaller part of the business in the future.

Consumers want the convenience of a single device which provides, music, radio, programs, news, texting, email, videos, movies and other content... devices like smart phones and tablets. Nobody buys portable radios any more... so the future is actually very very clear.

Oh, and one clarification: since radio can't program for 55+, because there is no revenue there, that demo has been very fast to adopt new media because it offers content not available over the air. 55+ are very vigorous users of new media, in fact. As a sidebar, and as data that shows everyone is moving to new media, it was thought and reported just a few years ago that Hispanics would be left behind by new media due to things like income or education level... while the fact is that a bigger percentage of Hispanics use new media than any other group.

For you, Tony, this change means that the opportunities to provide new media dance options is huge. You don't need a transmitter and an FCC license, even now.
 
TheBigA said:
Tony Santiago said:
So let me ask this question and it may sound very basic, but ever since the FCC deregulated the industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has the premise of the airwaves being "for the public" disappeared as well?
Click to expand...

People will take language and twist it to serve their own purposes. Playing music on the radio is not a public service. It's entertainment. There has NEVER been an obligation on the part of broadcasters to serve individuals. You go back to the 1920s and 30s and there were lots of fringe musical styles that didn't get played on the radio. Rock & Roll music didn't get regular airplay until 10 years after its creation. Black music wasn't a format until the 1960s. Those stations that played it often did so after 11PM.

The other mistake here is the assumption that the problem is "corporate radio." There are thousands of non-corporate radio stations in this country, and how many of them are playing dance music now? What we're talking about isn't corporate vs. non-corporate radio, but commercial vs. non-commercial. That fact is that small specialized musical genres are best suited for listener-sponsored stations. That's why you've seen classical move from commercial to non-commercial. That's why you have WFUV and WFMU. That's why jazz is on WKCR and WBGO. That's why the government created non-commercial public radio in 1967.
Click to expand...

TheBigA. I will only say it this way.

You don't know my music or can claim to be an expert on it. That's why you don't see me talk about country or alternative in a deep fashion other than being format holes in the market. And non-corporate dance/EDM stations? 7.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Big A already stated quite well the fact that nobody is guaranteed free radio for their exact taste.

But the deregulation of 1996 for the most part changed ownership rules. Sure, we also got things like longer license terms and, in the same period, changes in other rules and procedures for filing for and renewing licenses. But the rules never specified "serving an underserved audience segment" or "not playing the same songs as the other guy plays."

The Commission, right or wrong, also disposed of the unwritten quotas on news, Public Affairs and "Other" programming, opting for a vague ascertainment procedure instead. The feeling was that there were now so many stations, at least one or two in any market would take on the job of providing news and information because it was profitable.

But consolidation, mostly, was intended to make radio more viable since at least half of all stations were not making a profit. The ownership caps at the time did not allow for the necessary size for most radio operators to have access to capital or the equity markets, either. Of course, the result was the opposite extreme but that is another subject.
Click to expand...

For the record, I never said I was guaranteed anything (before TheBigA twists MY words for his purpose). Like I had said earlier, it was about suggesting, showing and proving. I'm not putting a gun to ANY of these corporations to demand my format (hopefully not anyone else for their respective formats either). But don't claim (and this is the argument to TheBigA) that there is a specialized taste in what I am doing if you don't FOLLOW my music. I will NEVER claim to know country or alternative or other formats other that what is being put out there as a general taste. I'm sure there's a lot deeper elements in those genres of music but I don't know it. And I certainly won't knock it. I'm not llike that.

Consolidation? That's another beast and yeah, you're right, that's another subject.

DavidEduardo said:
Radio can't fight new media with towers and transmitters. That is an aging technology and does not fit how consumers which to receive content. Station operators have to move their content, with suitable revisions (like far less commercials, on demand content, etc) to new media and recognize that OTA radio will be a smaller and smaller part of the business in the future.

Consumers want the convenience of a single device which provides, music, radio, programs, news, texting, email, videos, movies and other content... devices like smart phones and tablets. Nobody buys portable radios any more... so the future is actually very very clear.

Oh, and one clarification: since radio can't program for 55+, because there is no revenue there, that demo has been very fast to adopt new media because it offers content not available over the air. 55+ are very vigorous users of new media, in fact. As a sidebar, and as data that shows everyone is moving to new media, it was thought and reported just a few years ago that Hispanics would be left behind by new media due to things like income or education level... while the fact is that a bigger percentage of Hispanics use new media than any other group.

For you, Tony, this change means that the opportunities to provide new media dance options is huge. You don't need a transmitter and an FCC license, even now.
Click to expand...

I gotta clear one thing up. We are Latinos. Drop Hispanics please and I'm not just singling you out.

As it is, things have risen on the Internet side with dance music. Stations like where I am, and others such as Fusion Radio, Electric FM, DI (Digitally Imported), and RadioDanz are covering that ground.

It's like I had said.....this was just ONE LAST CHANCE. If a dance/EDM station DID happen, I know it would be the very last time it would ever be on FM. There was also a reason why I even changed the name of my group to "New York Dance Music Coalition". For those that knew the coalition when it started in 1993, it was known as the "Metro New York Dance Radio Coalition". I changed it years ago because I knew that with all of the new media and new distribution outlets that weren't around near 20 years ago, that the thinking was going to change and I had to keep following the trends.

For me, I'm on the ground floor regarding the Internet and I can't be any happier for that. ;D The support that the dance music community has given me is amazing and I am all to happy to help my community back by giving opportunities and chances to those that wouldn't (and that's not just terrestrial radio either).

This was just one last "stab in the dark". If it ever happens, that's cool and when it disappears, I would be totally done with FM in that sense.
 
Tony Santiago said:
You don't know my music or can claim to be an expert on it. That's why you don't see me talk about country or alternative in a deep fashion other than being format holes in the market.
Click to expand...

I don't work for the music business. I'm in radio. Radio is not in the music business, and there's no obligation or requirement for anyone in radio to provide "diversity" in music on the radio. You won't find it in any law, and complaining to Congress won't change it. The fact that there are format holes in New York radio has nothing to do with corporate radio or the TCA of 1996. It's simple economics.

I've spent a career in all formats of radio, including several formats with very small specialized audiences, and during that time, I never expected advertisers to support those smaller formats. That's when I was in non-commercial radio. I was always surprised at how often people would say how important it was for these smaller genres of music, like bluegrass or jazz, to be on the radio, and yet when they were asked to support it, they'd come up with excuses. As I've been saying, if you or anyone else want your music on OTA radio, put together a business plan that demonstrates the ability of your community to pay for the service. The FCC expects a business plan as part of any license application, and the experience of making one would be useful for you. But don't expect or demand someone else to spend their money on a radio station so you can enjoy your music for free.
 
Tony Santiago said:
...But don't claim (and this is the argument to TheBigA) that there is a specialized taste in what I am doing if you don't FOLLOW my music.
Click to expand...

Companies that own multiple stations... even back in the 7/7/7 days... had to pick the best format for each station in each market. It wasn't necessary to like the music or to know it. It was necessary, as it is today, so do some research in each market and find out what the likes are, how well they are being served and how likely they would be to listen to a new station with a certain flavor.

Since the 60's station owners have been doing some form of "Appeal / Satisfaction / Intent" research to look for the best formats. When they find an "opening" they hire the best folks they can find to make a new format happen.

I gotta clear one thing up. We are Latinos. Drop Hispanics please and I'm not just singling you out.
Click to expand...

One of my daughters had a T-Shirt that said, "I'm not Hispanic. I'm not Latino. I'm Puerto Rican."

This is a never ending discussion. For clarity, I use the Census Bureau term for "persons whose heritage includes the use of the Spanish language." And that term is "Hispanic". All major marketers and media, from Univision to Vanidades use "Hispanic" or "Hispanos". The political parties and Hispanic candidates refer to Hispanics... and so on.

Brazilians are Latinos, but not Hispanic. "Hispanic" avoids confusion. Italians and Romanians and Portuguese and French people are Latins, but not Hispanics. The term, although it was "made up" by the OMB in the 70's, is the most precise one we can use at this time.
 
Tony Santiago said:
But don't claim (and this is the argument to TheBigA) that there is a specialized taste in what I am doing if you don't FOLLOW my music.
Click to expand...

Let me explain this again: Radio stations are not in the music business. They don't start radio stations because they want to perpetuate or market music. So they don't have to follow the form of music they play. That's not the point. But it will take someone who follows your music to be willing to lose money on it.

When I lived in DC, people there talked all the time about how the market would be able to support a baseball team. But it was all talk. What finally brought baseball to DC was the willingness of 10,000 people to pay in advance for season tickets, to demonstrate there actually was a market for what they wanted. Those ticket packages were paid for in advance before a stadium was built, before a team relocated, and before a change was made. That's the kind of challenge you have in front of you. Otherwise, you have a specialized taste in music, and you should be proud of it.
 
Having defined radio as business, we are locked into a scenario where diversity is to be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, having defined the business as catering to the lowest common denominator, we ensure that
there is little or no reason to think anymore. It's all metrics, and our every move shall be determined by tangibles.

As predictable as flatulence, we KNOW money "has" to be made, but the public accepted the commercial aspect and still came to expect that radio would show some effort to serve the public's interest.

Deregulation (from one perspective) means "the doing away with all the nice (or safe, or prudent) things that created professional, reliable, safe services and letting economics define that's it's fine to have failures, lost services, and sometimes catastrophes in the name of service to profit before all".

The studied, limited perspective of those who are responsible for "what's in the playlist" either reinforces the
closed-mindedness of the public or reflects it.
 
TheBigA said:
Tony Santiago said:
But don't claim (and this is the argument to TheBigA) that there is a specialized taste in what I am doing if you don't FOLLOW my music.
Click to expand...

Let me explain this again: Radio stations are not in the music business. They don't start radio stations because they want to perpetuate or market music. So they don't have to follow the form of music they play. That's not the point. But it will take someone who follows your music to be willing to lose money on it.

When I lived in DC, people there talked all the time about how the market would be able to support a baseball team. But it was all talk. What finally brought baseball to DC was the willingness of 10,000 people to pay in advance for season tickets, to demonstrate there actually was a market for what they wanted. Those ticket packages were paid for in advance before a stadium was built, before a team relocated, and before a change was made. That's the kind of challenge you have in front of you. Otherwise, you have a specialized taste in music, and you should be proud of it.
Click to expand...

And the funny thing is that it's always been that way. Back in what was called "The Golden Age of Radio" the bluenoses complained about sinful jazz on the radio and that shameless foulmouth Bob Hope (yes, the same Bob Hope considered a great American and patriot later in his career). The highbrows complained about not enough classical music on the air until FM came into being. Everyone over the age of 21 (seeimngly) complained about Top 40 radio and rock 'n' roll, but there was still full-service MOR students on AM. In the 60s, the people who wanted to call rock 'n' roll just "rock" complained about the Top 40 stations' playlists, but they had those FM stations that were playing progressive rock. In the 70s, they complained again about ABC's Rock 'n' Stereo and Lee Abrams' Superstars, but they still had college radio to go to. In the 80s, it was the splitting of AOR into classic and active rock and both formats' not noticing New Wave or punk, but they still had college radio and the few stations that followed KROQ's lead to go to (if they wished). In the late 80s, the black adults that didn't like their urban stations playing hip-hop had the new urban ACs to go to. Perhaps what's bothering the current generation of dissatisfied Actives in modern rock is that, as even the college radio alternatives are shrinking in favor of professional public radio, they don't care too much for the alternatives to terrestrial radio that they have compared to "free" terrestrial radio because they have to pay for them. Perhaps.

What I suspect is that at least the older of the "Corporate Radio Sucks" types are having fond memories of 70s WPLJ and don't realize that it was formatted as heavily as any commercial FM today--the only difference was that it was index cards that DJs could ignore or carts that DJs could misplace on purpose instead of a Selector program and an AudioVault. And by the end of the 70s, sainted WNEW-FM was as formatted and playlisted as PLJ.

And oh yes--it was just as corporate back then as it is now. The big AM stations in NY were CBS, NBC, ABC, Storer, RKO, Westinghouse and Metromedia--only WMCA could be called a Ma-and-Pa. And how many New York FM commercial stations back in the 70s were Ma-and-Pa operations? The only difference was the 7-7-7 rule, but people complained about corporate domination back then, which was why the cross-ownership rules were put in effect.
 
Tom Wells said:
Having defined radio as business, we are locked into a scenario where diversity is to be avoided at all costs.
Click to expand...

Not avoided, just not required. If American radio was government owned, there would be diversity. But just in hiring.

All of radio isn't a business. Just the stations people listen to in large numbers. Then you have public, non-commercial radio. It was specifically created 45 years ago, long before deregulation, because commercial radio was a business. This isn't a recent issue. It's how the industry was founded. Marconi didn't invent it for public service, but to make money. Same with Armstrong. Those who held the patents wanted to make money from their inventions.
 
I think it's safe to say that non-commercial radio is a business as well, just with a different model. That's why much of the music has disappeared in favor of programming that generates more donations (news/talk.)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom