Believe whatever you want to believe.
-
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
Unemployed Air Talent
- Thread starter David Sharp
- Start date
Believe whatever you want to believe.
On-Air TV jobs haven't declined because the model isn't, nor has ever been the same as radio. Back in the day, there were typically five shifts held by at least one DJ or host per shift. For many years TV local talent staffing amounts to news anchors, street reporters. weather, and an occasional part time morning traffic person. Many of the TV control rooms are automated, requiring only a Director and Producer.
Radio can be, and is commonly voice tracked during entire shifts, so your midday, night, and overnight shift can be tracked from home, or via talent from another market. Many stations do the syndicated tracks at night from folks like Delilah and Tesh. That sort of workflow doesn't work for TV...Yet.
I don't disagree, and perhaps I was comparing apples to oranges. But still, my original point stands. Radio has lost a jarring number of on-air jobs. Think of the typical medium-market iHeart cluster of four FM music stations. One station has a syndicated morning show and three others have actual hosts. Those hosts - let's say that there are 6 morning hosts that work at the remaining three stations in the example - end up voicetracking every other local daypart on all 4 stations in the cluster. 25 years ago, those dayparts would have all had different hosts. 20 jobs have become 6 jobs. And again, this does not count weekends.
You're completely right as to the way it used to be Scott. Now you have the model where select few higher-paid talent might be voice-tracking for a dozen stations. It's a lot like the SiriusXM model, where 90% of the programming is recorded or voice-tracked and one personality might host a dozen formats. As BigA mentioned, it isn't that the jobs don't exist, they've just evolved into something different than the model folks like you and I lived and worked through. Instead of working a four hour air shift with some prep work on either side, now personalities are expected to be 'on' all the time, active with promotion via social media and maybe even podcasts. This gives the modern media consumer, the opportunity to hear 'The Scotty Burn's Show' at their leisure. It's rapidly becoming an audio-on- demand world, rather than the old days of appointment viewing/listening. Anyone seeing success in the future, will need to adapt to the new way consumers-consume, or change careers to protect themselves.
We should point out that 25 years ago, all of those Sirius jobs didn't exist.
If you go back over 25 years ago, on air talent either cued up records or trigger music from carts. That entire process has changed.
Consider on the engineering side, at one time, every station had a full staff of engineers to run the transmitter. Then transmitter operations became automated, and all of those people went away. At one time, radio stations hired live bands rather than play recorded music. Once they could play recorded music, all of the live bands got fired.
20 years ago there were 6 people working in a control room during TV news. Now there's three, two if you make the anchors roll their own prompter. Master Control is now hubbed regionally or nationally; very few stations have their own master control anymore, so even though your news is produced in a local control room, the commercials and the rest of the programming get switched somewhere else. The street reporter used to give their tape to an editor, now the reporter has to edit their own packages... and often run their own camera. A live shot used to have a reporter, a photog, and a live truck driver. Now you have a reporter, a camera, and a backpack - maybe a photog if you're lucky. Instead of every station having a graphics person, now you email someone in the hub to send you a file. Then we have small markets now being run as a satellite of a bigger market where instead of getting your own news, you get a newscast from 100 miles away and if you're lucky you'll have a 10 minute insert of local stores produced by a couple of MMJs.
Every year the workflow takes out a few more jobs as they get better at hubbing content. The days of a TV station employing hundreds of people are over. If you worked out the percentages, I would say the staffing is relatively equal between radio and TV, it's just that radio had fewer jobs to cut to get down to 'lean and mean' than TV did. The scale is different, but the job cuts are real.
Yep, I invented and rolled out the first Centralcasting model back in the early 2000's.
Many stations have what amounts to a graphics bank, where reporters can search and fetch graphics as needed. Sometimes there isn't a choice for graphics. A Producer creates a rundown which already is coded for the associated graphic, font, etc. That keeps the looks between blocks and newscasts consistent.
Yep, ad dollars to support independent small market newscasts have pretty well dried up.
Guilty as charged!
This whole thing just wears me out. 25 years ago, you didn't have self-checkout lines at grocery stores. 25 years ago, we got our cash from bank tellers instead of ATMs. 25 years ago we shopped in stores instead of online. Think of all those poor newspaper delivery boys who are out of work!! Shall I continue? Why should radio get an exemption from all of this?
I am trying to bite my tongue, but can't we leave it at this?
1. It's a shame that so many good radio people have lost their jobs.
2. I know you STRONGLY disagree, BigA, but I believe that the quality of radio is far, far inferior to what it was 25 years ago. I respectfully ask that we not argue this; we have had that conversation in previous threads in years past.
3. If the "whole thing just wears [you] out," then you can choose not to participate in this discussion.
Thank you, sir. Have a good day.
Because some people who were fans-of, or in the business, believe the best days of the business wasn't really that far away. Personally, I'm not one of them, but that's because I've been deeply involved in the evolution.
The quality of radio has nothing to do with the number of people employed. There was awful radio being done 25 years ago. There was awful radio being done 50 years ago. I can be specific if you like.
Do you think the people who did bad radio 25 years ago should not have lost their jobs? Do you think people who don't adapt to new technology in a field that is based on technology should continue to work? I knew a on-air talent who refused to get an email account, and even refused to use voice mail. And yes, he lost his job.
I asked respectfully not to argue this with you, BigA, as we have previously debated this very point. But here we are.
First, on the whole, I think radio was better 25 years ago than it was today. I am entitled to that opinion. I wish you would respect it.
Secondly, to your point, there is plenty of awful radio today.
Thirdly, you have created a straw man argument. My comments were not about people who "did bad radio 25 years ago." I specifically noted "good radio people." You are bringing up points - like refusing to adapt to new technology - that have absolutely nothing to do with my points.
Good day, sir.
First, on the whole, I think radio was better 25 years ago than it was today. I am entitled to that opinion. I wish you would respect it.
Secondly, to your point, there is plenty of awful radio today.
Thirdly, you have created a straw man argument. My comments were not about people who "did bad radio 25 years ago." I specifically noted "good radio people." You are bringing up points - like refusing to adapt to new technology - that have absolutely nothing to do with my points.
Good day, sir.
You obviously don't understand what a discussion is. This board is not called "RadioAgreement"
You're unhappy that good radio people have lost their jobs. I'm not arguing that. I once lost my radio job too. Only once. But I found another one a week later, and have continued working in radio to this very day. If I can do it, anyone can do it.
Can you please refrain from the nasty comments ("You obviously don't understand what a discussion is. ")? There is no need to be rude, snarky, and downright mean. Moreover, I am asking not to argue this point with you because we have had this discussion in the past. And it led to the same snarkiness and meanness from you. Why not treat others with kindness and mutual respect?
Please guys...Big A has good thoughts most of the time and is a profound part of RD. Scott Burns is a major radio personality with large market credentials. Knowing both of you, (online and with Scott onair) that back and forth is beneath you. IMO.
I am not the Scott Burns to which you refer. I understand BigA's contributions, but there is no need for rudeness, name calling, and the like. All I ask is for civil discussion and mutual respect.
I'm from Buffalo, NY. ♡ Tampa !!! could some REAL RADIO pro's go to WSUN 97.1 ×
Or, is that a step down? from my research, only have 1 on air talent reppin the station
Did they just flip to alt - and are building a team, or is this similar to alt's all around the country.
Or is it a flip a format annually... even though it might be 3 - 5 years, it feels every minute it is something new. We have one of those here.....
Oh, sorry. And sorry to the radio Scott Burns.
No problem. Have a good day!
Agree. I can count the number of times over the last year I listened to commercial AM/FM on my hand... "0"
Face it, radio left us.
- Status