Mike, Jack and a rant

[jake1966]

Okay, more and more, I see the “big companies" going to a system that “they” think people are going to like by getting rid of all their on air talent and playing songs that “they” think people are going to like.
Now I wonder how these formats are going to work. I for one enjoy hearing a voice out there talk to me now and then. That is live on air, not canned.
It is enjoyable to listen to DJs. If I did not like the song I was hearing I would change radio stations but then return. But I enjoyed listening to someone talk to me and banter about.
As a community member of a college radio station I fear that Jack or Mike or whatever you call it is “dumbing” us down.
I fear the “big companies” are winning.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

> Okay, more and more, I see the “big companies" going to a
> system that “they” think people are going to like by getting
> rid of all their on air talent and playing songs that “they”
> think people are going to like.
> Now I wonder how these formats are going to work. I for
> one enjoy hearing a voice out there talk to me now and then.
> That is live on air, not canned.
> It is enjoyable to listen to DJs. If I did not like the
> song I was hearing I would change radio stations but then
> return. But I enjoyed listening to someone talk to me and
> banter about.
> As a community member of a college radio station I fear
> that Jack or Mike or whatever you call it is “dumbing” us
> down.
> I fear the “big companies” are winning.

I agree about the new trend of Mike, Jack (etc...) stations in major markets going jockless. Automation used to be reserved for overnight shifts and small market stations that couldn't afford to pay jocks.

I understand why they're doing it (besides cutting paid staff), they're trying to compete with iPods. However, to me, the air personalities were always an essential part of radio.

However, stations playing what "they" think people are going to like is not a new concept with Mike, Jack (etc...) stations. It's formatting, and it's been going on for many decades. The only thing new is the liners that are now saying it.

For the most part, the "big companies" already won many years ago. Keep doing your show on whatever college station you're on (as long as you can afford to), and do your part to keep local originality on the airwaves.

 

[classicradionut]

Well, at the risk of being a broken record, I kinda got the semi-official word on what one broadcaster says 'Jack' is. It's a transitional format until they can find something else. It's apparently a format that they feel has legs for about two years. By then they should know what the next big direction is in formatting and music.

I get the feeling that among the discussions that just HAD to be taking place in several corporate boardrooms recently, is the fact that they can't any longer ignore the impact of both the internet and satellite radio. I think this is something (Jack) that's being done just to have a format that'll get a boost from curious listeners while dropping the bottom line to the floor while they figure out what to do next without duplicating the format/playlist of the established formats in the market. Remember, Jack is appearing on stations whose revenue stream has been steadilly drying up.

Just my .02, mind you.


> I understand why they're doing it (besides cutting paid
> staff), they're trying to compete with iPods. However, to
> me, the air personalities were always an essential part of
> radio.
>
> However, stations playing what "they" think people are going
> to like is not a new concept with Mike, Jack (etc...)
> stations. It's formatting, and it's been going on for many
> decades. The only thing new is the liners that are now
> saying it.
>
> For the most part, the "big companies" already won many
> years ago. Keep doing your show on whatever college station
> you're on (as long as you can afford to), and do your part
> to keep local originality on the airwaves.
> <P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[Oldbones]

> I agree about the new trend of Mike, Jack (etc...) stations
> in major markets going jockless. Automation used to be
> reserved for overnight shifts and small market stations that
> couldn't afford to pay jocks.
>


Really? Look at Boston's FM dial from 30 years ago. Almost everything was automated.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

> > I agree about the new trend of Mike, Jack (etc...) stations
> > in major markets going jockless. Automation used to be
> > reserved for overnight shifts and small market stations that
> > couldn't afford to pay jocks.
>
> Really? Look at Boston's FM dial from 30 years ago. Almost
> everything was automated.

But, not by 20 years ago (with the exception of remaining "beautiful music" stations), once FM really became really developed as the band for music, became more competitve, and companies began spending more money on their FM's to hire airstaff.

By the mid-80's, practically all Boston FM's playing anything but easy listening background instrumentals were live, and in fact, even the old original WJIB had live jocks by then sometimes.

 

[OldiesCat]

Mike, Jack, Steve, whatever

You guys are forgetting a couple of key points:

* almost all brand-new stations sigh-on jockless, some going for months that way

* plus, no jocks on Jacks (so far) is a by-product of the format, not a
compelling or singular reason to flip to Jack.

* it is WAAAAAY early in the format's development to know if/when personalities
will or should be added.

I agree that great radio stations (regardless of format) have to have a pulse.
And if these guys figure out how to do that, more power to them. Since this is a REALLY different approach to radio, you might find a lot of listeners actually welcome their music WITHOUT jocks who say the same thing at the same time the same way, day after day after day, ad nauseum. They (and their PDs) are a major part of listeners' gripe about repetition- it's not JUST the music. It's one thing to have jocks- anybody can do that. It's quite another to have interesting, entertaining, compelling performers who find fresh, new ways to bond with their audience every day, to interact about things that affect their listeners and not just spout on about things that are important in their radio world lives. THOSE kinds of personalities are more and more rare.

> Okay, more and more, I see the “big companies" going to a
> system that “they” think people are going to like by getting
> rid of all their on air talent and playing songs that “they”
> think people are going to like.
> Now I wonder how these formats are going to work. I for
> one enjoy hearing a voice out there talk to me now and then.
> That is live on air, not canned.
> It is enjoyable to listen to DJs. If I did not like the
> song I was hearing I would change radio stations but then
> return. But I enjoyed listening to someone talk to me and
> banter about.
> As a community member of a college radio station I fear
> that Jack or Mike or whatever you call it is “dumbing” us
> down.
> I fear the “big companies” are winning.
>

 

[DanStrassberg]

> Well, at the risk of being a broken record, I kinda got the
> semi-official word on what one broadcaster says 'Jack' is.
> It's a transitional format until they can find something
> else. It's apparently a format that they feel has legs for
> about two years. By then they should know what the next big
> direction is in formatting and music.

But don't you think that going jockless for a couple of years while waiting for a trend to emerge just plays into the hands of those who assert that terrestrial radio is "done" (as in stick a fork in it)? I mean, almost anybody can do jockless. By the time the next big trend emerges, will there be any listeners left? I don't have an iPod or MP3 player and rather doubt I will buy one, but doesn't anybody else think that ripping files to MP-3, or even downloading podcasts is likely to get very old very quickly. I mean, the people who are into such activities are supposed to be quite young--13, 14 maybe--right? Do you really think many of them will still be interested in (and have time for) such pursuits when they are, say, 19? I'm from another generation, but I do want to know.