• 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

Radio is dead...period!

W

Ward

Inactive
Inactive User
No new ideas, no new talent, no risk taking...it seems as if our beloved business is no longer in need of its most appealing assett...CREATIVITY! Everywhere I listen I hear the same boring radio done by the same boring people, day in...day out. I understand that radio will always be around simply to deliver news, traffic and weather but really, nobody listens to radio with the intent of "getting" their music fix from the station anymore. Maybe teens under the age of 16 but that's about it. And the personalities...card readers...boring announcers...whatever you want to call them, are not allowed to let go and have FUN. Either that or they just simply can't. Radio as a creative medium is dead...period! My God, there's even a contraption in the testing stages that duplicates a jock's voice and creates sentences that sound good simply by typing in on a computer what you want it to say. Soon all we'll need are scriptwriters! I'm getting out and doing what I should have done long ago...get a real job!

May the golden days of radio broadcasting rest in peace.

Ward.
 
This is what happens to an industry after too many decades of government regulation. The freshness and life get squeezed out. All that is left is a grey, boring lifeless shell that is not good for much. The excitement is gone and government regulation is the reason.

Stations have to pay hundreds of thousand or even millions to be given permission to broadcast on a frequency that they can not even own because the government keeps ownership of it. Licensees are under the thumb of the FCC. Foreigners are barred from taking part in the industry.

What vibrant industry is forced to "rent" facilities from the federal government? What industry must get permission and licenses the way that radio stations must?

The final chapter in government regulation of an industry is taking place in radio. Maybe Americans will think twice before allowing government to wreck other industries in the future. I have heard that they would like to do this with healthcare.

Steven Green
Libertarian Party member since 1980.



> No new ideas, no new talent, no risk taking...it seems as if
> our beloved business is no longer in need of its most
> appealing assett...CREATIVITY! Everywhere I listen I hear
> the same boring radio done by the same boring people, day
> in...day out. I understand that radio will always be around
> simply to deliver news, traffic and weather but really,
> nobody listens to radio with the intent of "getting" their
> music fix from the station anymore. Maybe teens under the
> age of 16 but that's about it. And the personalities...card
> readers...boring announcers...whatever you want to call
> them, are not allowed to let go and have FUN. Either that
> or they just simply can't. Radio as a creative medium is
> dead...period! My God, there's even a contraption in the
> testing stages that duplicates a jock's voice and creates
> sentences that sound good simply by typing in on a computer
> what you want it to say. Soon all we'll need are
> scriptwriters! I'm getting out and doing what I should have
> done long ago...get a real job!
>
> May the golden days of radio broadcasting rest in peace.
>
> Ward.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
> This is what happens to an industry after too many decades
> of government regulation. The freshness and life get
> squeezed out. All that is left is a grey, boring lifeless
> shell that is not good for much. The excitement is gone and
> government regulation is the reason.
>
> Stations have to pay hundreds of thousand or even millions
> to be given permission to broadcast on a frequency that they
> can not even own because the government keeps ownership of
> it. Licensees are under the thumb of the FCC. Foreigners
> are barred from taking part in the industry.
>
> What vibrant industry is forced to "rent" facilities from
> the federal government? What industry must get permission
> and licenses the way that radio stations must?

Alright, there's a political board somewhere else. What makes you think individuals and corporations should be able to buy airwaves from the government? Should WABC own 770kHz everywhere? Who would determine and enforce that KKOB in Albuquerque got to use their spectrum... the government. Ay carumba!
 
Radio is dead ... question mark?

I'm not complaining, but I'm waiting to see how this
thread is specifically relevant to the Miami market.

Or does radio suck here worse than elsewhere? If so,
please say so.

> My God, there's even a contraption in the
> testing stages that duplicates a jock's voice and creates
> sentences that sound good simply by typing in on a computer
> what you want it to say. Soon all we'll need are
> scriptwriters!

As a writer, I'm eagerly looking forward to that development.

PDs... You can read LOTS of my writing on my web site, per sig.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>
 
A happy medium?

First off, lets feel good that we do not have a British-type of system, where most stations have a 20-mile range, and stations are generally not permitted to flip formats...

I must agree, the FCC really effed things up from the get-go...then again, it was a new medium of communication!

Hindsight being 20/20, I would have:

1) Have a system of classes and interference contours similar to now. If a person or company finds a spot to put an existing radio station--they get the licence at cost. No renewals, no ownership reglations, no minority rules, no indecency hearings, nothing...

What it would mean is that the large markets would only have probably one or two owners for all the stations. If people do not mind having one or two media owners in an area, then that's fine. If they do, then they will boycott, and the stations will sell the licences to avoid losing money.

What this does is put the power of stations suceeding out of the government and into the hands of the people. If the majority of people are vocal about live DJ's / indecency / more rock or rap, then they will be heard. If the majority is silent, then the companies will continue to do what gets listeners.

In other words, companies do (and will continue to do) what gets them listeners. If that means a radio station is licenced with non-stop audio from porn movies, so be it! It may fly in San Fransisco, but it wouldn't even get off the ground in Montgomery, Alabama.

Good to see another Libertarian on the board, peppertree!

Radio-X

Former South Floridian and Libertarian voter since 2000
<P ID="signature">______________
I wasn't born in the south, but I got down here as fast as I could...
</P>
 
> This is what happens to an industry after too many decades
> of government regulation. The freshness and life get
> squeezed out. All that is left is a grey, boring lifeless
> shell that is not good for much. The excitement is gone and
> government regulation is the reason.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The FCC didn't kill radio, the consolidation laws put in by Congress during the 1990's and Wall Street did.

During the '60s, '70s and '80s, radio was seen as just what it is...part of show biz. Every day, you invested a huge amount of time, effort and cash into an idea that might work, or it might not, and that's just how the game was played. As one wise owner/GM told me years ago, "You come up with what you think is a great programming plan, you put every cent you have on the table, and you roll the dice". Competition during those times was fierce, and stations would do almost anything to grab another quarter hour share.

Today, the invasion of the MBA's is complete. No longer is programming seen as the actual purpose of radio, but rather as just a vehicle to get the commercials on the air. In the insane quest to obtain a profit margin of 50% or more, programmers, on-air personnel and production talents are seen as "non-revenue producing", and therefore, expendable. No longer does radio exist to please the listening audience, but rather to impress and entice investors.

Throughout my long career I worked with a large number of on-air talents who were card-carrying nutjobs earning stupid amounts of money. Why? Because those nutjobs did some incredibly creative radio that gave them numbers that were in the stratosphere. Today, it's far cheaper to plug in your Prophet system and run those voice tracks from your sister station in East Overshoe, Idaho. Your numbers will suffer, but lowering your operating cost and tap dancing to sell spots means you can get closer to that insane margin Corporate is breathing down your neck about.

Consider that most of what's on the radio right here in Miami doesn't come from a live person, but from a Prophet System, or a Maestro, or a Scott Studios or whatever automation system that company is using. Take a tour through any of the broadcast complexes here. It still freaks me out to walk past an empty on-air studio, because the station is only live during AM drive, and sometimes, not even then. Walk through the employee break room, and instead of seeing the latest Arbitron posted, you'll see an hourly update of the company's stock price, because that's what the business is all about now.

Radio has always been about making money. In fact, it's always been about making BIG money. But back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, we understood that great reward requires great risk, and we were willing to take that risk. That's not the way of the corporate world. They require a guaranteed return of 50% or more on every dollar invested, and if they have to kill the medium to get it, so be it. Kinda reminds me of a story about a goose that laid golden eggs....
 
What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

It doesn't surprise me that corporations shoot for 50 percent profit margins.

What stops, though, a company such as James Crystal from going live and local?

Seems the small fry just copy the big boys, only not as well.

Sure, Crystal tried that approach with WFTL and then cut back. As if all those stations they sold didn't give them enough money to play with WFTL for a year or two? They were on the right track with all-news, then when they added local and then syndicated talk, their ratings plummeted.

No Wall Street analysts are stopping the smaller companies from filling the void left by the CCU's and VIA's. Find some venture capitalists who don't buy the conventional wisdom, and go for it. If I were trying to sell an idea to such people, it would be... buy a thousand crummy AM stations... close nine hundred and fifty of them down... sell the real estate to raise cash... then use the extra electromagnetic elbow room to make the remaining fifty or so the best stations that ever were.
 
Re: A happy medium?

There's probably no way to get government completely out of the mix, any more than we could actually do away with the FAA. Ownership rights could be granted, however, and it could be a goiod thing (people boycotting over the lack of live DJs..that would be the day! They'd more likely boycott to get the DJs to shut up!). Ultimately, what gets listeners, and advertisers, wins. The previous ownership regulations got us lots of duplicated formats, hardly "diversity".
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

I think a big part of the problem is the high cost to enter the market. A venture capital company or entrepreneur is not able to start with his first station in a small market and then use the profits to buy bigger stations in larger markets. The cost to enter any market is so high that in some places frequencies are unused. The cost is prohiibitive for all but large corporations who own many stations and have many lawyers who are experts in broadcast law.

It should not be harder to buy a station than to buy a home or a business location. In Miami it will always be expensive, but in a place like Patatka or Ocala it should not cost more than a home to have an AM station. Someone could own ten stations in such places and then have enough equity to borrow money for a Miami station. The high cost to enter any market keeps the competitive forces out of radio.

Also not allowing foreign companies to own US stations keeps a lot of competition away. So much for "free" trade practices.

> It doesn't surprise me that corporations shoot for 50
> percent profit margins.
>
> What stops, though, a company such as James Crystal from
> going live and local?
>
> Seems the small fry just copy the big boys, only not as
> well.
>
> Sure, Crystal tried that approach with WFTL and then cut
> back. As if all those stations they sold didn't give them
> enough money to play with WFTL for a year or two? They were
> on the right track with all-news, then when they added local
> and then syndicated talk, their ratings plummeted.
>
> No Wall Street analysts are stopping the smaller companies
> from filling the void left by the CCU's and VIA's. Find some
> venture capitalists who don't buy the conventional wisdom,
> and go for it. If I were trying to sell an idea to such
> people, it would be... buy a thousand crummy AM stations...
> close nine hundred and fifty of them down... sell the real
> estate to raise cash... then use the extra electromagnetic
> elbow room to make the remaining fifty or so the best
> stations that ever were.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: In Defense Of Capitalism

What makes you think the GOVERNMENT should be able to own the airwaves that should rightfully be private? The Constituition does not give the federal government the right to own the airwaves and there is no ammendment made that gives government the right. The federal government is out of bounds for owning radio frequencies as it is UNCONSTITUITIONAL!

This is a poor attitude of people to hand over power to the government that they do not have a right to have under the constituition. Please read Ammendment X then Ammendment IX to the Constituition. They are only a sentence or two long.

As to enforcement against interference: The same way you keep trespassers off your property. Just as now, stations will have limits against interfering with other stations. Pirates or other stations will be prosecuted in lawsuits and by police in criminal cases. That system will work better than FCC enforcement.
The injured party can use the legal system to protect his property. Now it is government property subject to government inefficiency in enforcement.

And if WABC wants to buy 770 in Albuquerque, St. Louis, Dallas and everywhere else that there is a 770, then more power to them. They can even call their stations WABC in each location, for all I care.

> Alright, there's a political board somewhere else. What
> makes you think individuals and corporations should be able
> to buy airwaves from the government? Should WABC own 770kHz
> everywhere? Who would determine and enforce that KKOB in
> Albuquerque got to use their spectrum... the government. Ay
> carumba!
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: A happy medium?

Why have licenses? Why not ownership of the frequency by the station? I don't mind a purchase from the government for ownership. Sort of like a condo conversion where current licensees get the inside price and the right of first refusal. The inside price should be close to what the market will pay. Not more than a ten percent discount.

The rest of your thoughts are fine, just so the government is out of the business except for protection of private property rights.
>
> 1) Have a system of classes and interference contours
> similar to now. If a person or company finds a spot to put
> an existing radio station--they get the licence at cost. No
> renewals, no ownership reglations, no minority rules, no
> indecency hearings, nothing...
>
> What it would mean is that the large markets would only have
> probably one or two owners for all the stations. If people
> do not mind having one or two media owners in an area, then
> that's fine. If they do, then they will boycott, and the
> stations will sell the licences to avoid losing money.
>
> What this does is put the power of stations suceeding out of
> the government and into the hands of the people. If the
> majority of people are vocal about live DJ's / indecency /
> more rock or rap, then they will be heard. If the majority
> is silent, then the companies will continue to do what gets
> listeners.
>
> In other words, companies do (and will continue to do) what
> gets them listeners. If that means a radio station is
> licenced with non-stop audio from porn movies, so be it! It
> may fly in San Fransisco, but it wouldn't even get off the
> ground in Montgomery, Alabama.
>
> Good to see another Libertarian on the board, peppertree!
>
> Radio-X
>
> Former South Floridian and Libertarian voter since 2000
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: A happy medium?

The CAB was abolished. (Cival Aeronotic Board). They regulated prices and tinkered with the market. Ronald Reagan shot a bullet throught their head. Thank God!

Real estate owners (I am one) only need government for protection of property. That is all that radio stations should need governemt for as well.

When will the gun be loaded to kill the FCC?

> There's probably no way to get government completely out of
> the mix, any more than we could actually do away with the
> FAA. Ownership rights could be granted, however, and it
> could be a goiod thing (people boycotting over the lack of
> live DJs..that would be the day! They'd more likely boycott
> to get the DJs to shut up!). Ultimately, what gets
> listeners, and advertisers, wins. The previous ownership
> regulations got us lots of duplicated formats, hardly
> "diversity".
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: In Defense Of Capitalism

> What makes you think the GOVERNMENT should be able to own
> the airwaves that should rightfully be private? The
> Constituition does not give the federal government the right
> to own the airwaves and there is no ammendment made that
> gives government the right. The federal government is out of
> bounds for owning radio frequencies as it is
> UNCONSTITUITIONAL!

Point of order here...the federal government does NOT own the airwaves. By federal law, (the Communications Act of 1934, I believe) the airwaves belong to us, the people of the United States. Private companies are licensed to use their assigned frequencies as a public trustee, with the obligation to serve the public trust. Every three years, a station's license comes up for renewal, and anyone can contest that station's renewal to the FCC if they believe the station has not lived up to the committments it made at the last renewal. It's all in Part 73 of FCC rules.

I knew that old first-class ticket of mine would come in handy someday.
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

I don't think more competition "per se" is the solution.

Radio used to be a lot like America. There were rich folks, the biggest companies, poor owners that barely had a transmitter shack, and a large
"middle class."

Consolidation, pushed for in the name of "letting the marketplace work", drove up prices and killed the "middle class" of radio ownership.

My original question remains unanswered. Nothing is stopping the small companies that do own radio stations from putting effort into their product.
If you invest, say, $50 million in South Florida into a small station, even a dog AM like WFTL, you're bound to make some kind of splash in the ratings, presuming that $50 mil includes some promotion. If you put $50 million into an AM, it might net you a ten share. You would then have something worth as much as an equivalent FM for which you might have spent $100 million. So why don't more broadcasters approach it this way rather than take a step in the water, find out it's cold, and run back to the dry land of brokered and satellite?
 
Re: A happy medium?

> When will the gun be loaded to kill the FCC?


That gun was already loaded and fired by one Mr. Ronald Reagan during the 1980's.

With The Communications Act of 1934, the FCC devised a grand plan to assure that no matter where you might be in the country, no matter how small the town, or even if you were in the middle of nowhere, you would be able to recieve a signal or two. Of course, in larger towns and big cities, far more stations would be available to you. The idea was to cover the entire country, even the tiny little towns, without overloading any one area or city with stations.

By the 1980's, every frequency in the FCC's plan was taken, and the only way to own a station was to buy it from its current owner, which could be pricey. So Reagan (who was a station owner himself) and some of his broadcast owner friends came up with a piece of infamy called Docket 89-90. This provided for a new class of FM station, maxed out at 3000 watts ERP with minimal antenna heights, which were supposed to serve small markets and the suburbs.

Needless to say, it didn't take long for the owners of these stations to start losing their shirts. Another piece of legislation was pushed through (over the objections of the FCC) allowing these 3000 watt light bulbs to move from the country, abandoning the town they were supposed to serve, and into a nearby city with an increase in power and antenna height. This is why most every market in the country, including Miami, is now over saturated with signals, making it darn near impossible for a number of stations to stay afloat. And of course, that brought about the Broadcast Consolidation Act of 1996 which gave us the brand of McRadio we're now forced to live with.

And that's only one bullet that was fired during that time. I don't want to get any more long winded, so I'll just mention a couple of the big ones:

Elimination of the 3 year ownership rule, making it possible to buy a station, strip it to the bone, and if you still weren't making money, just turn it off.

Elimination of the equal time provision which forced stations to provide all views of any issue.

Elimination of licenses for DJs and board-ops, which is why most Chief Engineers now have constant migraines.

Eliminated the FCC restrictions on how many hours of the broadcast day had to be live.

...and the hits just keep on comin'
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

> My original question remains unanswered. Nothing is stopping
> the small companies that do own radio stations from putting
> effort into their product.
> If you invest, say, $50 million in South Florida into a
> small station, even a dog AM like WFTL, you're bound to make
> some kind of splash in the ratings, presuming that $50 mil
> includes some promotion. If you put $50 million into an AM,
> it might net you a ten share. You would then have something
> worth as much as an equivalent FM for which you might have
> spent $100 million. So why don't more broadcasters approach
> it this way rather than take a step in the water, find out
> it's cold, and run back to the dry land of brokered and
> satellite?


I agree, with the exception of the ten share. A four or a five...maybe, but nobody in Miami/Fort Lauderdale will ever see a ten.

I believe the answer to your question is one word...risk. As you say, it's possible to turn $50 million into $100 million, but it's just as possible to lose all $50 mil, plus your shirt and pants. So, most owners play it safe.

Unfortunately, I've never thought of radio as a safe business. Even being a jock is a huge risk, as your next Arbitron could be the end of your career. I just wish some owner, somewhere, had the belly for taking a chance.
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

A straight answer. Maybe research has found that it will not be a good investment. Perhaps it has been found that the $50 mil will yield a greater return in corporate bonds or investment in convenience stores. I remember when channel 4 also owned a vending machine company and the Miami Seaquarium. Who knows what else they owned?

Perhaps radio is in its sunset and is not attracting new ideas.

What do you think?

> I don't think more competition "per se" is the solution.
>
> Radio used to be a lot like America. There were rich folks,
> the biggest companies, poor owners that barely had a
> transmitter shack, and a large
> "middle class."
>
> Consolidation, pushed for in the name of "letting the
> marketplace work", drove up prices and killed the "middle
> class" of radio ownership.
>
> My original question remains unanswered. Nothing is stopping
> the small companies that do own radio stations from putting
> effort into their product.
> If you invest, say, $50 million in South Florida into a
> small station, even a dog AM like WFTL, you're bound to make
> some kind of splash in the ratings, presuming that $50 mil
> includes some promotion. If you put $50 million into an AM,
> it might net you a ten share. You would then have something
> worth as much as an equivalent FM for which you might have
> spent $100 million. So why don't more broadcasters approach
> it this way rather than take a step in the water, find out
> it's cold, and run back to the dry land of brokered and
> satellite?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: Ownership Of The Airwaves?

That may get you a pass on the FCC test but it will not pass on an economics test.

There is a quick way to discern if you own something. Can I sell it?

Anything you own, you can sell. How much can I get for selling my share of the airwaves which are owned by the people? Nothing. It is not mine to sell.

(This point was inspired by a brilliant economist, Dr. Walter E. Williams)

> Point of order here...the federal government does NOT own
> the airwaves. By federal law, (the Communications Act of
> 1934, I believe) the airwaves belong to us, the people of
> the United States. Private companies are licensed to use
> their assigned frequencies as a public trustee, with the
> obligation to serve the public trust. Every three years, a
> station's license comes up for renewal, and anyone can
> contest that station's renewal to the FCC if they believe
> the station has not lived up to the committments it made at
> the last renewal. It's all in Part 73 of FCC rules.
>
> I knew that old first-class ticket of mine would come in
> handy someday.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

There is always risk in investment. Investors have decided so far that it is a bad risk. No one is convinced that there is a good chance to have a return better than in other investments.

Which brings us back to the original post, "Radio Is Dead." It is in decline, but not dead yet.


>
> I believe the answer to your question is one word...risk.
> As you say, it's possible to turn $50 million into $100
> million, but it's just as possible to lose all $50 mil, plus
> your shirt and pants. So, most owners play it safe.
>
> Unfortunately, I've never thought of radio as a safe
> business. Even being a jock is a huge risk, as your next
> Arbitron could be the end of your career. I just wish some
> owner, somewhere, had the belly for taking a chance.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
 
Re: What's stopping the smaller companies from trying?

> Sure, Crystal tried that approach with WFTL and then cut
> back. They were on the right track with all-news, then when they added local
> and then syndicated talk, their ratings plummeted.

I've seen the hour by hours - the only programming that ever had ratings on WFTL were Bill O and Savage. Their "all news" hours were practically "all zero's". Not surprising. WINZ was "all news" for many years under Guy Gannet and Paxson. They did a good job and the station was actually promoted - it still died. In fact, in the final five years of its existence, the only time it had decent numbers were during the OJ trial and after Paxson put Laura and Rush in mid-day. Probably shows that this is a crappy market for the all-news format. Building an all news station takes years and years. And dollars and dollars. Noble try by Crystal but not going to happen.


>If I were trying to sell an idea to such
> people, it would be... buy a thousand crummy AM stations...
> close nine hundred and fifty of them down... sell the real
> estate to raise cash... then use the extra electromagnetic
> elbow room to make the remaining fifty or so the best
> stations that ever were.
>

Now THAT is a great idea. I'm with you on this one.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom