KCAA. I thought NBC Radio Died in the 1980's

[DavidEduardo]

In my view, the collapse of the American recording business began with the sales of the labels to foreign companies. Their approach was very different from American owners.

I'd disagree and say that the problems of the recording industry have more to do with management resisting for years the consumer's desire to avoid brick and mortar retail outlets and to buy by the song and not by the album.

Instead, the record biz insisted on supporting the brick and mortar outlets and the album mode. They resisted making all their libraries being made available online, blaming piracy.

Consumers, unable to get music in the format they wanted, was often driven to illegal downloads. Only when songs are available easily and on demand do consumers buy them. But if songs are not available online, consumers look for any available copy. Or if only the album, but not the individual songs, is available, consumers object to paying for 8 to 10 songs they don't want just to get one or two they do want.

And this is not a thing that has national lines of demarcation... it's just the stupidity of the the labels and the inability to adapt to new consumer preferences,

 

[LKellerIII]

In my view, the collapse of the American recording business began with the sales of the labels to foreign companies. Their approach was very different from American owners.

I'd disagree and say that the problems of the recording industry have more to do with management resisting for years the consumer's desire to avoid brick and mortar retail outlets and to buy by the song and not by the album.

Instead, the record biz insisted on supporting the brick and mortar outlets and the album mode. They resisted making all their libraries being made available online, blaming piracy.

Consumers, unable to get music in the format they wanted, was often driven to illegal downloads. Only when songs are available easily and on demand do consumers buy them. But if songs are not available online, consumers look for any available copy. Or if only the album, but not the individual songs, is available, consumers object to paying for 8 to 10 songs they don't want just to get one or two they do want.

And this is not a thing that has national lines of demarcation... it's just the stupidity of the the labels and the inability to adapt to new consumer preferences,

I don't know if I'm the average consumer, but I'd have to say that my family is an illustration of what David is saying. My kids embraced the digital world way before I did, and they never bought CDs - preferring to download individual songs, but only occasionally albums. Sometimes they paid, but when they couldn't find what they wanted legally, they would download it from the sharing sites. The only CDs they had were the ones they personally burned so they could play the music they downloaded in their cars. Now that they have MP3 capable stereos in their cars, their need for CDs is over.

Speaking for myself, after years of being too busy to pay much attention to music, and too out of the loop in regard to what's popular, I got an MP3 player for Christmas 09. I've fully embraced the technology, but have yet to download an album. The other day, I heard a Kenny Loggins song I liked from the 80s - when I was in Lowe's buying paint, believe it or not. Loggins was never a big favorite of mine, so I never would have spent $14 to buy one of his albums. But the first thing I did when I got home from Lowe's was download the song for 99 cents.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

But, we digress... Getting back to the thread, although I did enjoy the informative insights offered on the recording industry...

I MISS NBC MONITOR !!!

 

[michael hagerty]

In my view, the collapse of the American recording business began with the sales of the labels to foreign companies. Their approach was very different from American owners.

I'd disagree and say that the problems of the recording industry have more to do with management resisting for years the consumer's desire to avoid brick and mortar retail outlets and to buy by the song and not by the album.

Instead, the record biz insisted on supporting the brick and mortar outlets and the album mode. They resisted making all their libraries being made available online, blaming piracy.

Consumers, unable to get music in the format they wanted, was often driven to illegal downloads. Only when songs are available easily and on demand do consumers buy them. But if songs are not available online, consumers look for any available copy. Or if only the album, but not the individual songs, is available, consumers object to paying for 8 to 10 songs they don't want just to get one or two they do want.

And this is not a thing that has national lines of demarcation... it's just the stupidity of the the labels and the inability to adapt to new consumer preferences,

I don't know if I'm the average consumer, but I'd have to say that my family is an illustration of what David is saying. My kids embraced the digital world way before I did, and they never bought CDs - preferring to download individual songs, but only occasionally albums. Sometimes they paid, but when they couldn't find what they wanted legally, they would download it from the sharing sites. The only CDs they had were the ones they personally burned so they could play the music they downloaded in their cars. Now that they have MP3 capable stereos in their cars, their need for CDs is over.

Speaking for myself, after years of being too busy to pay much attention to music, and too out of the loop in regard to what's popular, I got an MP3 player for Christmas 09. I've fully embraced the technology, but have yet to download an album. The other day, I heard a Kenny Loggins song I liked from the 80s - when I was in Lowe's buying paint, believe it or not. Loggins was never a big favorite of mine, so I never would have spent $14 to buy one of his albums. But the first thing I did when I got home from Lowe's was download the song for 99 cents.

Ultimately, the album was a passing fad. It may have been introduced in 1948, but it really wasn't until almost 20 years later, 1967, that it was seen as any kind of an art form. Prior to that, the biggest sellers tended to be things that required long play...classical works, Broadway casts and film soundtracks. The labels pushed hard for albums because of the bigger profit margins.

 

[KeithE4]

Ultimately, the album was a passing fad. It may have been introduced in 1948...

Before that, record albums were really albums - books of 78 RPM records that first appeared around 1910.

The first 33-1/3 rpm records were produced by RCA Victor between 1931 and 1933, discontinued mainly due to the depression. Few could afford a player for them, and those that could probably didn't want or need a 2nd (separate) phonograph in their living room. Since they used a groove that was standard for 78 RPM records, they didn't play as long as the later microgroove LP records. A variation of this format was used by radio stations for program transcription disks (16" rather than 12" disks) in the '30s and '40s, before magnetic tape was invented.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Ultimately, the album was a passing fad. It may have been introduced in 1948, but it really wasn't until almost 20 years later, 1967, that it was seen as any kind of an art form. Prior to that, the biggest sellers tended to be things that required long play...classical works, Broadway casts and film soundtracks. The labels pushed hard for albums because of the bigger profit margins.

I'd say that you were off by about a decade. I recall my friends and I would buy 45's (even the "corner drugstore" had a Top 20 rack) and for our favorite artists, we'd get the album. Until I sold them on eBay, I had original Decca / Coral Buddy Holly / Crickets albums... sort of anecdotal illustration of what I think was fairly normal.

I also bought some classical and jazz, but I had to take the bus downtown to find those. The hit albums were available nearly everywhere.

 

[Nathan Obral]

Actually, NBC got out of the radio business in 1987, when the sold the "NBC Radio Network" over to Westwood One. "NBC News Radio" isn't as much of a network as it's a continuation of Westwood One's perpetual licensing agreement with NBC, one that continues with Dial Global.

Hmmm...not exactly true. NBC's original deal sold the assets of NBC Radio, such as affiliates, contracts, and programming. Not not ownership of the trademark or even the archives. That was always retained by NBC. That's why they need a licensing agreement. And that agreement needs to be negotiated and renewed on a regular basis. As I said, NBC News is still in the radio business, because they provide the content. And even from the first days, NBC News TV reporters filed stories for NBC Radio News. IIRC Tom Brokaw even did a daily commentary.

Tom did offer a daily commentary throughout the 1990s.

But by then, NBC was already a shell of itself as a network. The original legacy "NBC Radio Network" merged into Mutual in 1989 (as WW1 was eliminating a host of redundancies under both acquired networks); the "NBC Radio Network" from that point on used the historical archives and resources of Mutual.

NBC provided and still provides sound and actualities for radio programs like "First Light," but that was it. Towards the end, Mutual, and finally CBS News personnel, provided content and sound for the last "NBC" newscasts. By that definition, and because they have had no staff for a radio division since selling it off entirely, I cannot consider NBC to be "still in the radio business."

Again, I consider "NBC News Radio" to be a niche programming service. Not a network service. If WW1 offered it on a 24/7 basis with more than JUST a one-minute headline blurb, then maybe I would be more apt to agree. But radio has not been a priority for NBC for 25 years.

 

[TheBigA]

But by then, NBC was already a shell of itself as a network.

Depends on what you mean by "shell of itself." In my view, that happened in the 70s when NIS failed and Monitor went away. From that point on, NBC Radio Network was NOTH plus a couple of updates, newsfeeds, and some commentaries. Long forms shows were on The Source. They continued through the 90s.

The reality is that the old radio network model was mostly dead in the 1950s. The nightly comedy and entertainment shows moved to TV. Once they left the 5K long lines for satellite, it opened the door for more long form programming. But radio stations mainly wanted news. For the most part the network radio system became a vehicle for commercial distribution, not programming. But that was long before NBC Radio was sold. It was probably the reason why it became so useless to GE and NBC.

If WW1 offered it on a 24/7 basis with more than JUST a one-minute headline blurb, then maybe I would be more apt to agree. But radio has not been a priority for NBC for 25 years.

Radio was not a priority for NBC from 1939 on. Radio has not been a priority for a lot of folks for 25 years. Including advertisers and the audience. That's why it's in its current state. I'm sure if stations wanted a 24/7 national service, it would be easy to start it up. But stations weren't excited by NIS, they've let go of CNN's 24/7 service, and even AP has given up on 24/7 news.

 

[KeithE4]

Again, I consider "NBC News Radio" to be a niche programming service. Not a network service. If WW1 offered it on a 24/7 basis with more than JUST a one-minute headline blurb, then maybe I would be more apt to agree. But radio has not been a priority for NBC for 25 years.

So how is a "radio network" defined nowadays? I would say that it is a programming service that provides programming to a single station in a given market for at least several hours per day. Radio Disney, NPR, and the three major sports networks (ESPN Radio, Yahoo Sports Radio, and Fox Sports Radio) would be examples of radio networks. Premiere would not, since it syndicates different programs to different stations - Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, and Jim Rome would not normally be on the same station.

I don't know where CBS, ABC, and Fox News Radio would fit in since they're pretty much limited to top-of-the-hour newscasts, unless I'm missing something.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I don't know where CBS, ABC, and Fox News Radio would fit in since they're pretty much limited to top-of-the-hour newscasts, unless I'm missing something.

All three provide much more than the TOH casts.

ABC News Radio provides 24/7 breaking news and long-form coverage. At any given time during the day, especially, there are usually one or two live feeds up (press conferences, live feeds from breaking news, etc.).

ABC News Radio also provides long-form news programming, such as weekend shows "Perspective" (one hour) and "World News This Week" (half hour). It also provides sportscasts, and full news and sports actualities 24/7 - now delivered via the Internet, the modern version of the old "Newscall", which used to feed via the main news audio channel between casts.

CBS Radio News' output is pretty similar...I'm just somewhat more familiar with the ABC product.

I'm sure FNR is also similar. FNR also has the long-form talk programming I mentioned earlier, but that's more of a show-by-show syndication effort (a la Premiere/DG/etc.) than a network.

 

[Nathan Obral]

If WW1 offered it on a 24/7 basis with more than JUST a one-minute headline blurb, then maybe I would be more apt to agree. But radio has not been a priority for NBC for 25 years.

Radio was not a priority for NBC from 1939 on. Radio has not been a priority for a lot of folks for 25 years. Including advertisers and the audience. That's why it's in its current state. I'm sure if stations wanted a 24/7 national service, it would be easy to start it up. But stations weren't excited by NIS, they've let go of CNN's 24/7 service, and even AP has given up on 24/7 news.

One disagreement: radio was still a 'priority' in the sense that it was a legacy function of RCA. NBC still sank millions into Monitor and NIS, only to see those go bust, but still kept the NOTH service alive. If I'm not mistaken, the only non-news or non-sports programming NBC Radio ran after NIS' demise was "The Eternal Light." But they still offered actualities and sound to affiliates in the form ABC, CBS still do, and now FOX does.

General Electric bought RCA, and then broke the entire company up, just so they could get of NBC-TV. They never had any intention of keeping NBC Radio in their possession - to wit, GE sold off their radio properties a few years earlier.

Neither GE, nor Comcast, have shown an interest in returning into radio.

 

[Nathan Obral]

I don't know where CBS, ABC, and Fox News Radio would fit in since they're pretty much limited to top-of-the-hour newscasts, unless I'm missing something.

Remember, most long-form programming that ABC offered outside of NOTH is now under the "Cumulus Media" brand. But those, like Fox, were more per-show syndication efforts than as an actual network. ABC still distributes weekly public affairs shows ("Perspective," "ABC News This Week") that are produced by ABC News and marketed as such.

CBS offers the actualities and still handles the daily commentaries by Dave Ross and Charles Osgood (albeit D-G handles their respective contracts) along with other daily news features. Mostly done for their all-news O&O stations. Their main public affairs show is "World News Weekend Roundup," fed multiple times over the weekend. Their one non-news or non-sports show is "Music and the Spoken Word," which KSL AM/FM (Deseret News/the LDS) produces and is still distributed to this day by CBS and D-G.