• 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

VALLEY RADIO NEEDS AN OVERHAUL ASAP!! - Nevermind, I've given up

I think this is the worst valley radio has EVER sounded. Little to no uniqueness, originality, nor individuality, music sucks and there's so much crossover from station to station and it's all the worst, vanilla songs that are played, as if we've not heard them a gazillion times already and radio corporations and record companies actually believe we like this crap?? Sorry, won't buy into your musical Stockholm Syndrome anymore and I know there are many others out there like me. You can't even go to a station's website and stream without listening to 7 commercials before a song even plays - by the time commercials end, the song you wanted to listen to has already ended. I know these things are not exclusive to Phoenix radio, but I used to pride myself on knowing that there were some good stations here in the Phoenix market and I supported you for as long as I could with the hopes that some last vestiges of good Phoenix radio would tide me over. I do not really believe that anymore. It's like no one is even trying or seems to care to put out a good product anymore.

Regards,
You're dead to me and I'm signing off
 
The listeners that the stations target aren't complaining, and apparently the advertisers are happy. That's all that matters.
 
I think this is the worst valley radio has EVER sounded.

I was going to say, "...yet you offer no constructive advice" but then I realized you did not even put the message into context. You seem to be saying that nobody is happy with radio, when, in fact, it is you who are unhappy. You don't mention that perhaps the listeners to regional Mexican music or classic hits or country may be, in their vast majority, quite happy.

Most car buyers choose white, black or grey. A few would like chartreuse, and they are SOL because it is not profitable to make very niche colored vehicles.

Little to no uniqueness, originality, nor individuality, music sucks and there's so much crossover from station to station and it's all the worst, vanilla songs that are played, as if we've not heard them a gazillion times already and radio corporations and record companies actually believe we like this crap??

Actually, the answer is "yes". Stations research their music and they play what listeners to their format like. That's why, in general, these are the same tunes similar listeners download or stream on Spotify.

Sorry, won't buy into your musical Stockholm Syndrome anymore and I know there are many others out there like me.

How do you know this? Because a coupla' your friends agreed with you while you were sharing a few cold ones or doing the Colorado thing?

You can't even go to a station's website and stream without listening to 7 commercials before a song even plays - by the time commercials end, the song you wanted to listen to has already ended.

It's been pretty well documented that the commercial time on music stations is about the same as it was back when KRUX and KRIZ were the dominant stations.

I know these things are not exclusive to Phoenix radio, but I used to pride myself on knowing that there were some good stations here in the Phoenix market and I supported you for as long as I could with the hopes that some last vestiges of good Phoenix radio would tide me over.

Which stations? Your post is amazingly non-specific. "Doctor, I don't think I feel good".

It's like no one is even trying or seems to care to put out a good product anymore.

You know our motivations and concerns how?
 
Last edited:
Don't let the door slap you too hard on the way out. For just $15 a month, you can get 100 channels of commercial free music. Go ahead. Give them your Visa number. I bet after 6 months, you'll complain about them too.
 
Don't let the door slap you too hard on the way out. For just $15 a month, you can get 100 channels of commercial free music. Go ahead. Give them your Visa number. I bet after 6 months, you'll complain about them too.

Your cable or satellite subscription also has commercial free music channels, and they're included. Then there's TuneIn, with thousands of stations all over the world, for free once your internet or cellphone data plan is paid for.

Don't like Phoenix radio? Don't listen. I'm out of the Sacred Sales Demos[sup]TM[/sup], so there's only a few music stations I can tolerate (KOOL, KSLX, the Mountain, the Lumberyard; KCDX is no longer audible in Mesa). They play some stuff I don't care for, but a lot of stuff I do like as well.

I built a Part 15 station out of a spare PC and a USB-powered FM transmitter, and broadcast my own music to myself. No commercials, no complaints (other than from my Beatles- and Doors-hating girlfriend), and I can play whatever I like. The OP can do the same. But as far as the real stations are concerned, those four mentioned above are as good at it gets for me. That's the way it goes. Time marches on. So does Newsweek. :D
 


I was going to say, "...yet you offer no constructive advice" but then I realized you did not even put the message into context. You seem to be saying that nobody is happy with radio, when, in fact, it is you who are unhappy. You don't mention that perhaps the listeners to regional Mexican music or classic hits or country may be, in their vast majority, quite happy.

Most car buyers choose white, black or grey. A few would like chartreuse, and they are SOL because it is not profitable to make very niche colored vehicles.



Actually, the answer is "yes". Stations research their music and they play what listeners to their format like. That's why, in general, these are the same tunes similar listeners download or stream on Spotify.



How do you know this? Because a coupla' your friends agreed with you while you were sharing a few cold ones or doing the Colorado thing?



It's been pretty well documented that the commercial time on music stations is about the same as it was back when KRUX and KRIZ were the dominant stations.



Which stations? Your post is amazingly non-specific. "Doctor, I don't think I feel good".



You know our motivations and concerns how?

Oh David...

I'm a Spotify listener and I do not listen to the same stuff I hear on terrestrial radio. I guess you missed the "I" in "I" when I said I think this is the worst that valley radio has ever sounded. If you take that personally and want to take ownership of that, then that is on you. I'm not buying that research BS when there are too many suits involved who ensure that certain music is play ad nauseam until people DO like it. After all, there's a lot of money invested in it - radio corporations in bed with record companies = $$$. In addition, I doubt you are qualified to make such a faulty assumption that indicates that a vast majority of listeners are happy. How could you possibly know this? What kind of advice can I offer that I haven't already offered for years? Broaden the music? Stop playing the same artists over and over? Take chances? Is it possible that actually playing music that people want to hear rather than forcing them to listen to music you want them to hear could still allow everyone to profit? Do you believe that listenership would continue to decline over the years if consumers did not feel the need to look elsewhere? BTW, I did not mean to indicate that individual contributors are not trying...it just appears that the industry as a whole has become lackluster. Knowing that there is more competition in other forms out there, wouldn't you try to do more to gain a competitive advantage?

Ya know, I have been a member of this forum for quite a long time and have made quite a few contributions. I have supported valley radio for years. Am I not entitled to express my opinion, throw my hands up in the air, and say I'm done without others getting so butt-hurt over it? This is how I feel and anything you say really isn't going to make any difference to me... LOL.
 
Last edited:
Don't let the door slap you too hard on the way out. For just $15 a month, you can get 100 channels of commercial free music. Go ahead. Give them your Visa number. I bet after 6 months, you'll complain about them too.

and you are???
 
I'm not buying that research BS when there are too many suits involved who ensure that certain music is play ad nauseam until people DO like it. After all, there's a lot of money invested in it - radio corporations in bed with record companies = $$$.

Radio and the record industry are at the most adversarial point they have been at in the last 80 years. Record companies want radio to pay them a performance royalty now, while in decades past they paid radio... in all manner of ways... to play songs.

Radio, today, gets very little money from record companies. When they do, it is generally and only because the record company has a 360 deal with the artist and they are promoting a concert, not record sales. It has gotten so that it is difficult to even get free CDs or downloads as on-air prizes and the record companies now often charge to use an artist's image in a station TV spot or van wrap.

Radio ownership, now as it was in the 50's when today's type of music radio was created, just want's to play music that will attract a sizable audience that they can offer to advertisers.

Millions and millions are spent on music research, even down to markets much smaller than Phoenix like Reno and Huntsville. The reason for testing music is to find what people want to hear on the radio.

In addition, I doubt you are qualified to make such a faulty assumption that indicates that a vast majority of listeners are happy.

Anyone who has done or caused to have done research... and anyone who chats with other programmers in other formats... knows the degree of satisfaction of listeners with the music on the radio.

In fact, even if listeners have alternatives such as streaming sources, they look for much the same music as local radio stations play and the reason why they subscribe to Spotify and such is to be able to select their own playlist rather than have some other person's curated playlist.

How could you possibly know this?

By talking with listeners, which is what most significant stations do in some form or another.

What kind of advice can I offer that I haven't already offered for years? Broaden the music? Stop playing the same artists over and over? Take chances?

That is advice that generally results in failure as the vast majority does not want that. I can't tell you how many times I have been blessed with a competitor that had a much larger playlist and a much smaller audience. Even once, when I thought expanding the list was "the answer" I crashed the station miserably; fortunately I did not fire myself but simply tightened up the list and recovered.

Is it possible that actually playing music that people want to hear rather than forcing them to listen to music you want them to hear could still allow everyone to profit?

Except for a few quirky small market owner operator stations and a bunch of LPFMs, nobody runs a station to play the music they like. Yes, we all have stories about how some place we worked was made miserable because the owner's wife would call and tell us to play her a song... but that was back when we worked in unrated markets or at low rated stations.

Do you believe that listenership would continue to decline over the years if consumers did not feel the need to look elsewhere?

Listenership has declined because there are so many alternatives for entertainment. From MP3's to streaming, from online videos to video games, there is just more competition. Yet radio has held up amazingly well by "playing the hits".

Am I not entitled to express my opinion, throw my hands up in the air, and say I'm done without others getting so butt-hurt over it? This is how I feel and anything you say really isn't going to make any difference to me... LOL.

Sure, you can have your opinion. But when you base it on wrong facts, such as the ideas about record company influence and management "forcing" of music, you are going to be corrected.
 
I get what 2son is saying. Radio is very boring across the board, but I'm afraid 2son and I are not in the target audience anymore (not sure we ever were). Nobody stays true to their format. Top 40 stations, AC Stations, and yes even Oldies stations all share the same artists. And everytime a jock talks, they are just reading a commercial over an intro with nothing that relates to the song they are playing. They just want to get you on their corporate website that has yet more commercials that you already endured on the traffic report which was drowned out by an obnoxious music bed. The stock in radio shares is at an all time low, and some companies are on the verge of going bankrupt. It's no surprise based on what is on the air. Even with corrupt payola that keeps certain songs playing everywhere, companies like iHeart still struggle and keep laying off helpless employees.
 
The stock in radio shares is at an all time low, and some companies are on the verge of going bankrupt.

That's OK...what you're missing is the streaming and satellite radio companies are also struggling. Why? Because everybody wants individualized personalized radio, and no one wants to pay for it.
 


Radio and the record industry are at the most adversarial point they have been at in the last 80 years. Record companies want radio to pay them a performance royalty now, while in decades past they paid radio... in all manner of ways... to play songs.

Radio, today, gets very little money from record companies. When they do, it is generally and only because the record company has a 360 deal with the artist and they are promoting a concert, not record sales. It has gotten so that it is difficult to even get free CDs or downloads as on-air prizes and the record companies now often charge to use an artist's image in a station TV spot or van wrap.

Radio ownership, now as it was in the 50's when today's type of music radio was created, just want's to play music that will attract a sizable audience that they can offer to advertisers.

Millions and millions are spent on music research, even down to markets much smaller than Phoenix like Reno and Huntsville. The reason for testing music is to find what people want to hear on the radio.



Anyone who has done or caused to have done research... and anyone who chats with other programmers in other formats... knows the degree of satisfaction of listeners with the music on the radio.

In fact, even if listeners have alternatives such as streaming sources, they look for much the same music as local radio stations play and the reason why they subscribe to Spotify and such is to be able to select their own playlist rather than have some other person's curated playlist.



By talking with listeners, which is what most significant stations do in some form or another.



That is advice that generally results in failure as the vast majority does not want that. I can't tell you how many times I have been blessed with a competitor that had a much larger playlist and a much smaller audience. Even once, when I thought expanding the list was "the answer" I crashed the station miserably; fortunately I did not fire myself but simply tightened up the list and recovered.



Except for a few quirky small market owner operator stations and a bunch of LPFMs, nobody runs a station to play the music they like. Yes, we all have stories about how some place we worked was made miserable because the owner's wife would call and tell us to play her a song... but that was back when we worked in unrated markets or at low rated stations.



Listenership has declined because there are so many alternatives for entertainment. From MP3's to streaming, from online videos to video games, there is just more competition. Yet radio has held up amazingly well by "playing the hits".



Sure, you can have your opinion. But when you base it on wrong facts, such as the ideas about record company influence and management "forcing" of music, you are going to be corrected.

Again, you bring up vast majority, but what exactly does that mean? The vast majority of listeners is approximately how many listeners? Compare that to the amount of potential listeners turned away from repetitive playlists or content that lacks discovery. I think you are in denial if you actually believe that the majority of listeners or even potential listeners out there are highly satisfied with the status quo and believe that radio brands present unique and compelling content. How has the radio industry prepared for the continuous decline in listenership? Would exclusively unique and compelling content or different types of platforms propel radio to gain more attention? Despite the millions of dollars you claim are spent on music research (it seems like such a waste when many stations are carbon copies of each other), it still appears that radio isn't so concerned about providing an attractive product for consumers as it is about attracting advertising dollars. In terms of entertainment, do you believe radio listeners are that much different from television viewers? It appears that viewers are demanding more complex, smarter characters with deeper storytelling, yet radio keeps churning out generic, repetitive sounds from the same artists/types of artists while ignoring the possible creation of its own unique content. Radio stations used to be able to create a sort of culture for its listeners, but that seems to be lacking now, along with creativity and risk-taking.
 
Radio stations used to be able to create a sort of culture for its listeners, but that seems to be lacking now, along with creativity and risk-taking.

Radio listeners USED TO put up with all kinds of crap. Now they have message boards where they rant about how great things USED TO be when they were a lot younger.

Yes we know...everything was much better when you were younger.
 
Radio listeners USED TO put up with all kinds of crap. Now they have message boards where they rant about how great things USED TO be when they were a lot younger.

Yes we know...everything was much better when you were younger.

I see...so you consider the more prosperous times in radio to be due to viewers putting up with all kinds of crap? Well, perhaps you should go back to offering more crap for viewers to put up with up with.
 
I see...so you consider the more prosperous times in radio to be due to viewers putting up with all kinds of crap? Well, perhaps you should go back to offering more crap for viewers to put up with up with.

OK. So you're telling me if radio was more like it was when you were young, you'd throw away your computer and your cell phone? Is that what you're saying?
 
OK. So you're telling me if radio was more like it was when you were young, you'd throw away your computer and your cell phone? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not going to discuss with you anymore. I'm not quite sure what your agenda is. Good night.
 
So, radio stations know the key to success is to do exactly what people don't want? Do you really think that? By 2Son's remarks that is what I gather. Watch out, the folks at Men's Warehouse might sic their lawyers on you for disparaging suits.

Are we a little touchy on the subject? Yep. It wears thin after a few decades of hearing the same lines. Meanwhile people listen in huge numbers, advertisers buy and radio makes a profit as an industry. Funny how that seems to happen when radio supposedly does not serve it's audience. I heard the same words in the 1970s as I hear today.

It's sort of like someone on either side of the political fence that complains about the other side because they hang on their every word. They say nobody listens, yet they listen religiously.
 
I get what 2son is saying. Radio is very boring across the board, but I'm afraid 2son and I are not in the target audience anymore (not sure we ever were). Nobody stays true to their format. Top 40 stations, AC Stations, and yes even Oldies stations all share the same artists. And everytime a jock talks, they are just reading a commercial over an intro with nothing that relates to the song they are playing. They just want to get you on their corporate website that has yet more commercials that you already endured on the traffic report which was drowned out by an obnoxious music bed. The stock in radio shares is at an all time low, and some companies are on the verge of going bankrupt. It's no surprise based on what is on the air. Even with corrupt payola that keeps certain songs playing everywhere, companies like iHeart still struggle and keep laying off helpless employees.

Fundamental errors of fact:

First, payola by definition is the playing of music in exchange for consideration without the knowledge and consent of station ownership and management. So stations don't make money from payola... in fact, most companies have very strict payola enforcement rules as allowing the practice to occur can jeopardize the station license.

Second, stations stay true to their format which is based on targeting, within a style, a particular age and lifestyle group. As people age out of a target, new listeners must be attracted at the younger end and that means freshening the music playlists to adapt to audience turnover.

Top 40, Hot AC and AC stations do share some music. They generally always have. What makes an AC different from a CHR is what each does not play. Remember, back in the mid to late 50's most larger markets had several stations in each of just three or four formats which were MOR, Top 40 and r&b (in some markets) and country (in others). Today, we have more station choices and far more format variants, each with a different blend which is kept true to the tastes of the target audience.

Third, the few radio companies that are in difficult financial situations are in such a state not due to programming or lower listening but due to making excessive use of credit facilities just before the country was hit by a recession. If you look at the actual station operations of a company like iHeart, you find that they are quite profitable. But the debt service consumes all the profits and then some.

Fourth, remember that radio stations make money off the sale of advertising. If you are not in the age groups that advertisers want to reach, no station will program directly for you because there is no available revenue.
 
Again, you bring up vast majority, but what exactly does that mean? The vast majority of listeners is approximately how many listeners?

If you look at the use of radio today vs. decades past, you find little difference in the number of people who use radio at all to be only a couple of percent lower today than in the 70's or 90's.

Yes, they listen on average less time than they did 20 or 30 years ago but that is because the entertainment spectrum is much more competitive and thus listening is fragmented. For example, in the early 60's the leading station in Roanoke, VA, had a 55 share in the daytime. There were 6 stations that "made the book". Today, the top station has an 11 share and there are 25 stations in the book and another 20 in the market that don't even get ratings.

The average adult listens to 11 hours of radio a week. 93% use radio, some more, some less.

Compare that to the amount of potential listeners turned away from repetitive playlists or content that lacks discovery.

The percent of people who don't listen to the radio is 7% today, up from 5% 30 years ago. A very small change. And, if you look at studies done in the past, more than half the non-listeners did not use radio because of issues like being away, health issues, family or work problems, etc., and not because they did not like radio.

Most people don't mention "discovery" as a primary motivator. "Familiarity" and "favorite songs" are the key factors. Discovery is fine for most people in small doses, and many people for decades have chosen stations that have no element of discovery, like classic hits (and "oldies" before it) and classic rock and variety hits.

I think you are in denial if you actually believe that the majority of listeners or even potential listeners out there are highly satisfied with the status quo and believe that radio brands present unique and compelling content.

They find radio useful and enjoyable. They wish there were fewer commercials, just as they did 50, 60 and 80 years ago. They find radio convenient and free. And, as stated, the average person over 18 spends 11 hours a week with radio.

How has the radio industry prepared for the continuous decline in listenership?

Listenership has barely declined. What has declined is the amount of time spent listening. In many cases, radio has prepared by adding new distribution channels. The issue there is that streaming is not profitable for anyone and there is no existing business model that works. So radio continues to make money from over the air broadcasting because there are no profitable alternatives.

Would exclusively unique and compelling content or different types of platforms propel radio to gain more attention?

No. If there were formats with potential for attracting large audiences, someone would have hit on them. There are 15,000 stations just in the USA, and were there new formats someone somewhere in the world would have stumbled on them.

And if discovery and large playlists were the secret, why do no such stations that attempt to do those things succeed in generating ratings and revenue.

Despite the millions of dollars you claim are spent on music research (it seems like such a waste when many stations are carbon copies of each other),

Stations in a particular format will sound quite consistent all across the country, but local markets will have specific variations based on what the competition does and the demographics of the area. The key in research is finding out how to hold more listeners longer, not to reinvent the wheel.

it still appears that radio isn't so concerned about providing an attractive product for consumers as it is about attracting advertising dollars.

Since the late 20's the way to attract ad dollars is to attract larger audiences. It is really very simple: you attract listeners by having a good product.

In terms of entertainment, do you believe radio listeners are that much different from television viewers?

Yes, they expect a different atmosphere from radio than from TV. TV is not radio with pictures... that concept died with the transition of MTV to entertainment shows.

It appears that viewers are demanding more complex, smarter characters with deeper storytelling,

After things like Survivor and Jersey Shore you really can't seriously believe that to be true.
 
You would never have enough of a niche among the "I hate everything radio does and I demand a personalized experience" crowd to program to. The "I only listen to obscure indie bands" folks all like different obscure indie bands.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom