The difference being they're not hired to be local. They're hired to bring knowledge or experience to the channels. It's a different thought process when you're a local jock, to talk about local things. When that element is removed, the focus changes. So it's less about the traffic or the weather, and more about the topic at hand. You get that in syndicated shows like AT40 or Alice Cooper.
-
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
NAB: Who is there and what are you hearing?
- Thread starter DavidEduardo
- Start date
The difference being they're not hired to be local. They're hired to bring knowledge or experience to the channels. It's a different thought process when you're a local jock, to talk about local things. When that element is removed, the focus changes. So it's less about the traffic or the weather, and more about the topic at hand. You get that in syndicated shows like AT40 or Alice Cooper.
That would be nice if it were true. The last time I had SXM on, the Alt Nation host (Madison) spent her breaks talking about her lunch and the last time she pooped.
There are national hosts out there who know the music and the artists, and who bring that knowledge and experience to their shows. Maybe some SXM hosts do that but clearly not all of them.
One of my favorite jocks who understands how to do a national show is Rich Terfry, host of the afternoon drive show on CBC Music (Radio 2). The breaks are all music-focused which adds context that I really like hearing to the music being played.
The problem with too many jocks is they add nothing of any real entertainment value between the songs. To me, that kind of mindless filler has no place in today's world where people can stream whatever they want without the pointless talk. It's not the 80s anymore, the bar should be much higher. Whether local or national, hosts need to offer content that elevates the listening experience every time they open the mic. If all you're doing is talking about crap -- whether literally or figuratively -- I'm streaming Spotify instead.
It depends on the channel. Shooter Jennings (son of Waylon) does a weekly show on the Outlaw channel. That channel is curated by Steven Van Zandt.
It's common for listeners to assume stations are eliminating local talent to save money. But the fact is that if the local talent has nothing to say, then there's no point having them. Both KITS and KVIL are running host-less morning shows, and nobody seems to be complaining.
Instead of firing them, the PD could have aircheck sessions with the talent and give then the right direction. But then how many times does that even happen anymore? And does the Program Director (aka Brand Manager), who is probably responsible for at least 6 stations if not many more regionally, even listen to the show, or have a similar philosophy about content? There are clearly PDs out there who are fine with vapid talk breaks.
I sometimes listen to hostless shows on stations that are little more than music and imaging. Sure, it can work in small doses but there's not enough distinction between "radio" like that and streaming services. In fact, streaming always wins because it's not interrupted by repetitive imaging or as many commercials.
Some of that happens. It depends on the situation. They hire these people based on an audition tape. Depending on the format, they have to demonstrate knowledge of the music. But sometimes what's on the tape doesn't happen on the air. If you consider yourself a professional host with a level of experience, that kind of daily evaluation can be a bit much. A lot of it is subjective. There are also professional talent coaches and consultants who do that kind of thing. So it's not all the job of a PD.
The distinction in having a curated music service, or doing the curation yourself. Push vs. pull. There are lots of negatives to the streaming services. We're seeing that record labels and commercial interests are trying to force themselves into the curation process. Everybody is trying to make money on this, and that includes Spotify and Pandora.
Good points. I have a buddy (who still works behind the scenes in the radio industry) who had an airshift in the early to mid 1990's. Everything he was to say on the air was on a cue card.
That was 30 years ago. So yeah, a lot of airstaff are doing what they're told to do, although I think a lot of them (the morning shows, afternoon shows, etc.) obviously have some leeway given to them.
It depends on the format. It was especially common in the days of beautiful music stations. Some were built around branding, not personality. So it's all about ''more relaxing favorites' and that sort of thing. You were hired for the sound of your voice, and how it fit in the overall sound of the station. On the other hand, country stations tend to hire personalities. You're hired based on an audition tape that demonstrates your personality and ability to adlib. You have to understand your role.
Unfortunately, local jocks are just as bad, using show prep service artist gossip as "content". Why bother to have local talent if all they can talk about is whatever Dua Lipa or SZA said on some tv show 2 nights ago?
Well, it is the job of the PD to make sure the jock's performance fits the image the station is trying to project. Unfortunately, many PDs consider celebrity gossip to be "content", and maybe it is today. Not something I'd tune in for, but I'm a tad out of the demo.
I would imagine that outside of the prime airshifts in a handful of very large markets most jocks are voicetracked these days anyway, sometimes a day or more in advance. Unless you really "get it" it's hard to put yourself in that shift.
Then again, if that's what your listeners are interested in, then shouldn't we provide it? I was at a conference last week and overheard two millennials talking about the divorce of people who met on The Bachelor. They were talking about it as though the woman was a relative. It took me a while before I realized they were talking about a TV show.
‘Golden Bachelor’ Couple to Divorce Three Months After Televised ABC Wedding
'GMA' interviewer Juju Chang's takeaway after the sit-down: "It's a head-scratcher."
www.hollywoodreporter.com
That may be true, but my point was why bother with hiring local "personalities" if there's little to no actual local content? Just pot up a satellite format & call it good. News, weather, time checks, etc. haven't been a part of music formats in decades.
To me this seems like the answer to one the money crunch and a lack of listeners. There is so much content on SXM that I don’t see why it can’t be done on terrestrial radio. Just make it a generic format. Lithium is a perfect 90s alt station that could probably do well. Make the content more targeted and if they are national feeds you are not wasting money on local markets. You hear the same thing across the country.
Depends on the station and the format. Lots of stations have local content. And some do what you say.
Are they making money?