Technology & Complacency Foster Programming Disregard of Radio’s Personality

Technology & Complacency Foster Programming Disregard of Radio’s Personality

Harold G. Eder II CRO, CTO
Producer

Intellection that people want less talk fostered by products like the IPod and services like the now defunct Limewire is ludacris. Conceptually equivalent to saying a Walkman and FYE Records are the competition. Radio station management’s nerve was struck more with the former then the latter. Realistically a Walkman and IPod are the media that play the product; Limewire and FYE Records deliver said product to the communities. Baffeling how one garnered so much cultural fear than the other? You might say “Well the Internet” NO! Radio, Television, & World Wide Web are the same tool but separate appliances; let’s not digress.
Radio found its personality with public interaction, the first social media we might say. Fundamentals for Modern Radio interaction were:
A) On-Air Listener Requests
B) Timely/Topical/ Engaging DJ Content
C) Live Show Broadcasts
Content is crucial now more than ever. Algorithms or Analytics, take your pick & PPS (pay per spin) has decided what music we play and time we play it; invoking a nearly never used social interaction A). Diminishing time allotted to Disc Jockeys continue to cripple what some personalities say. Tricky though due to 90% wrong philosophy based on technology and 10 % due to either bad content or bad delivery. Content Choice and Delivery is where Talent comes in to play for anyone of us. Mentoring and Training develops the skill. Moving parts make for a challenge in that ten percent of B). Web pages do not harvest the same social interaction as a live broadcast. Reason, Cliché time, you move to the mountain the mountain does not move to you. Layman’s terms the public has to seek out the web page a live show brings the “web page / mountain” to the public. Our view on C) ‘nuff said?!
Complacency in radio has forgotten the social mien. Human beings want to know whom, about, emotionalize with our local broadcasters. Content choices show that inherency, making radio great. Options are vast these days exemplifying why the fundamental attraction and separation is personality. Granted these worldviews come from growing up on 80’s & 90’s radio. Selective ears were never attuned to the music. Listening to what the voices educated, entertained, and sold them. Possibly a little naively but strong enough to want to be and make the next evolution of this medium as great!
___________________________________________________________________________________

The views in this article are that of the Author and not necessarily those of any Association, Employer, or Publisher

Contact Info: Harold G. Eder II
P.O. Box 98
Newtown Square, Pa 19073-0098
[email protected]
C: 610-551-3830
Call Sign: KC3ACC

The post ignores the fact that programmers have always sought to lessen the amount of time personalities talk in music radio. It also ignores the fact that there are now entire stations devoted to personality talk, and in most cases, they are not the most popular stations in their markets. Music is the main attraction, and the presentation of that music has been the main focus of programmer's attention going back to the 1960s. If the premise of this article is that what worked then should work now, then limiting talk in music formatted stations should still be a focus.

Then again, maybe today's audiences aren't as interested in what a DJ has to say, perhaps because he's not saying anything relevant to the listener's interests. Listeners have many options to engage directly with their own friends that they didn't have 30 years ago. They don't need to establish a relationship with an unknown radio personality, when they can more easily engage with people they know. Social media with known friends makes social media with unknown radio personalities unnecessary.

The incredible growth of new media has made some of the attractions of old media obsolete. That includes overly talkative DJs. Objective analysis of audience research proves that the longer a DJ talks, the more likely the audience will tune out. PPM makes it possible to find out exactly how long it takes for listeners to tune out, and the kinds of talk that makes them change the station. If people want to hear voices talking, they have lots of options without cluttering music presentation. There's no "complacency" involved here. It's documented science. We work at it every day.

Mornings are still the exception. Listening to the syndicated fare offered in our market most of the shows offered talk most of the morning (on a music intensive format). However, it is cheaper to plug in syndicated entertainment on a station in a cluster (I heard very few local avails). On the other side of the spectrum, on the locally hosted shows. I heard more local interaction and local avails (and more music during the hour). Interesting content will always be the key, and I think radio is having a issue with that.

i had great confidence in the PPM method, but with all new technologies flaws are being discovered, as mentioned in the last few months.

Diaries, PPM, you are going to have a margin of error. The question is how much?

Groove1670 said:

However, it is cheaper to plug in syndicated entertainment on a station in a cluster (I heard very few local avails).

Click to expand...

Keep in mind the goal isn't to be cheap. No one gets extra points for spending less. The goal is to make more money. So the question is: what method brings in more cash. If you're hearing few local avails, then the station is making less money. That's not good. The other question is which show gets the most listeners? The syndicated one or the local one? I know that Steve Harvey is consistently one of the top rated morning shows, and he happens to be syndicated. Elvis Duran does pretty well. So one can't always assume that syndication is strictly done to save money.

Steve harvey does extremely well. Duran has mixed results depending on the market. It is easier to bundle a syndicated show (if it is a large group in multiple markets) for a better return on investment (agency buys). I'm in market 250+ So budget, ROI, is a factor with a limited revenue opportunities (another case of two many signals in the market).

On a side note. I am curious to see how programmatic buying (it looks like it is going to take off this time). Click, point, place your buy with Duran.

Groove1670 said:

So budget, ROI, is a factor with a limited radio stream (another case of two many signals in the market).

Click to expand...

So do you do local or syndicated? And going back to the OP, how important do you find "on-air listener requests?"

We are 60 miles from the big city. Live in the morning with two hosts that were born in the city. middays are tracked from someone out of state (who lived in the State), and afternoons are tracked by local talent. We are the only game intown so we have much more flexibility. The big city folks (Ha!) walk into clients with their rate card and walk right out (I think they finally gave up when we signed on ) You can walk into every office and restaurant in town and hear us. We were off the air due to transmitter issues around midday Last week (the first time since sign on in 2 years and we got a earful) Local in big markets...not important. In our market very important, and has been very effective in our success. Listeners requests not important, we get more calls for fundrasiers and community announcements. About 6 months ago we reunited a lost dog that belonged to the community leader. We had more calls for that one. But again, this is small (really small) market radio.

DavidEduardo said:

Another interesting one is "Live Broadcasts" which in most cases of a music format station just means a remote...

Click to expand...

My interpretation of that was as opposed to voice-tracked.

But then again, almost all music shows on Sirius are voice-tracked, and it doesn't seem to bother their subscribers.

I don't think the issue is so much complacency as it is a lack of ideas of how to make the product better, and, because of consolidation , lack of competition within the industry. There is competition for media consumers, to be sure, but it seems that radio management is less 'fired up' or equipped to deal with competition from other mediums.

umfan said:

I don't think the issue is so much complacency as it is a lack of ideas of how to make the product better, and, because of consolidation , lack of competition within the industry.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a lack of ideas. Had you attended the NAB Radio Convention in Atlanta, you'd have heard a lot of ideas. The audience really doesn't respond to "new and different" very well. There isn't much that's "new and different" in other media either. The only thing that exists in Pandora or Spotify is the ability to make one's own playlist rather than have one curated. Other media perpetuates the further individualization of music taste.

If you don't think there isn't competition within the industry, then you aren't working in a market where you have two of the major owners competing in the same format. It happens pretty often, and it can get very bitter. Whether or not it leads to "better product" or not is a matter of taste. In radio, competition tends to lead to less creativity, not more.

titles

DavidEduardo said:

I thing that it is amusing that "listener requests" was listed as one of the key factors missing from programming. Most of the industry learned way back in the late 50's or 60's that requests were damaging so they controlled it by "if you request a song we are going to play anyway, we will play it fairly soon". The real request shows that play off the established playlist are few and far between and, generally, don't do very well.

Another interesting one is "Live Broadcasts" which in most cases of a music format station just means a remote... where the jock goes out to some client location and does windy descriptions of that advertiser's business and gives free coffee, hot dogs or whatever to those in attendance.

I want to know what "CRO" and "CTO" mean next to the OP's name. Chief Technology Officer is the more or less common meaning of CTO but CRO may be a German rapper or "Contract Research Organization" but that acronym is not widely known as Mr. Google tells us.

Click to expand...

CRO stands for Certified Radio Operator CTO stands for Certified Television Operator

DavidEduardo said:

Thank you. I was not aware that the SBE had an acronym for its certification programs.

Click to expand...

So I checked the SBE site, discovering that the base-level certification is Certified Radio Operator or Certified Television Operator. News to me! And I've been an SBE member since 1990. Guess they added a few more certifications since then: http://www.sbe.org/sections/CROandCTO.php

I wasn't aware that engineers are also certified programmers. When did that happen?

Having that level of SBE certification, doesn't mean you're officially an engineer either. That being said; I know some people who have all sort of SBE certifications that I wouldn't trust to plug in a computer CPU. But that's a whole different topic.

I have had many discussions about the state of radio. To level the playing field, I grew up listening to radio through the 1960s to today. My first radio was given to me at age 3, so I was a real early fan/listener. I have listened to airchecks from the 1960s and listened to radio today. I admit that many of the 'fond memories' we have of personality radio do not sound as magical today. Lots of folks were just a voice on the radio and what they did was pretty much uneventful.

I still contend we are marketing ourselves to humans. We have certain social requirements that allow us to connect and bond. It is not a radio thing but a human condition. I think radio 'thinking' in general, ignores this.

I was talking with a buddy about connecting to listeners via radio. His thinking was it didn't matter. As he saw it, the less a jock says, the better. In my mind there is a bit of a flaw here. I look at morning shows, syndicated or local, and at talk radio. In my mind both morning shows that more often than not are talk even on music intensive stations and talk radio earn their listeners by being topical and interesting and, here's the key, but exposing enough of themselves to create a bond with listeners either intentionally or by chance. Aren't those personality driven morning shows the anchor for the station, no matter the format? If it isn't important, why have a morning show at all? Why not just do liners and music?

I contend the talk show listener would tell you they listen because the people are liked and because they say what the person thinks, maybe even challenging the listener to explore a subject more, or to get a laugh or eavesdrop on the personality patter. This is not to discount social media which, I think, is the icing on the cake. My take, right or wrong in your mind, is that if there IS 'talent' behind the microphone that understands and can tap in to this 'human condition' can create a listener that might just spend more time listening. Finding that talent might be difficult in today's radio world. After all, in the 1980s I was told we were 'air talent' and our personality was to shine in how we presented the information contained on that 3 by 5 note card. And that talent must know how to do it without upsetting the apple cart, so to speak.

My thinking is if you are no different in 'sound' to your music library or any other all music source, then why listen to radio? If there is not some element to add to the music, then what does radio offer? Other sources allow a more customized approach to music selection that radio cannot offer so to counter this, radio needs to maintain other elements that cause people to choose radio.

I am not advocating the 'good old days' but I am saying that while music is a huge factor in radio, ignoring the other elements that cause listeners to tune to radio cannot be positive for the business. While I believe this to be factual, I am a big advocate of baby steps in making that happen. Listeners don't like change so it has to sort of sneak up on them versus being dramatic. As I have told friends who think they can change radio listeners with their idea of what radio should be, if you can do that, I'll be on board well before you put that first million in the bank. I suggest a lottery ticket instead...better chances.

I'm not saying radio is doing things wrong. Radio is working as it is. The question is how much attention you pay to the undercurrent rumblings. It is true a certain number will listen because it's there, but the question is whether that is by default or desire to listen. I feel we need to pay a bit more attention to desire.

Yes, some will argue radio sucks and will say independent firms that survive by their integrity create figures from thin air instead of reality but those folks never have any evidence. Yes, radio is about like voting for president, not perfect but one candidate might be better than the other and it will always be that way because radio cannot be all things to all people. Even so, that does not mean nobody likes radio. People listen in huge numbers. Now how do we better that?

I think the question to your comment is: Then what is the definition of Radio? Is it entirely the way it's delivered, or is there more to it? I'd argue when you talk about radio in your terms above, you're really talking about what radio was back when you grew up listening to it, not what it can be considered now, or certainly not ten years from now. 'Radio' has already evolved significantly from it's origins, in delivery-forms and content. Going back to the old days when radio was delivered exclusively to a wireless receiver of some sort with long-winded personalities holding a one way conversation with the captive audience is not some sort of magic bullet anymore. Radio will need to continue evolving, reinventing itself as technology, delivery forms, entertainment tastes, and the media business models evolve. We need to remind ourselves that for the most part, the need for radio's constant evolution since the 1920's, is to support a need as a business model.