Voice Tracking is killing radio

[fireboy]

To v/t is to say ha ha to your listener I am at the beach while you are trying to call and request a song. The energy of the day is lost example if there is 7 days of cloudy weather and rain all 7 days and on the 8th day rain is predicted but the sun comes out early in the day and your show is v/t you miss that energy in your show and sound bad. Not that weather forecast are ever really given that often, but coments on the nice change would be absent. That is bad news for your show. Next I think your talent goes wasted with every break planned is set up there is no spontanous effect. I can always tell a v/t show. Talent should really think about this next time before they v/t. Back in the 70s v/t was big it was automation it died too , soon v/t will too. I say is is giving Xm and other service a real advantage.

 

[lizbiz]

> To v/t is to say ha ha to your listener I am at the beach
> while you are trying to call and request a song. The energy
> of the day is lost example if there is 7 days of cloudy
> weather and rain all 7 days and on the 8th day rain is
> predicted but the sun comes out early in the day and your
> show is v/t you miss that energy in your show and sound bad.
> Not that weather forecast are ever really given that often,
> but coments on the nice change would be absent. That is bad
> news for your show. Next I think your talent goes wasted
> with every break planned is set up there is no spontanous
> effect. I can always tell a v/t show. Talent should really
> think about this next time before they v/t. Back in the 70s
> v/t was big it was automation it died too , soon v/t will
> too. I say is is giving Xm and other service a real
> advantage.
>


great points all of us know too well but XM is also vtk

 

[ob1levine]

Over July 4th weekend, we were in Tallahasse, home to 4 or so universities and the Florida's capital...Cumulus Mix station was automated all weekend with NO jocks with a prerecorded weather insert by an area TV weatherman recorded in the morning and replayed ALL day...at 7 pm, he was talking about showers expected in the afternoon around 3...how pathetic! They sure played a lot of jingles...

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Voice Tracking has been around for 40+ years.

> To v/t is to say ha ha to your listener I am at the beach
> while you are trying to call and request a song.

Request a song? Except for very special contrived moments, 99% of stations have not taken requests since the 50's. A "request" is someone who calls in for the song you were scheduled to play anyhow.

> The energy
> of the day is lost example if there is 7 days of cloudy
> weather and rain all 7 days and on the 8th day rain is
> predicted but the sun comes out early in the day and your
> show is v/t you miss that energy in your show and sound bad.

That is not the fault of voicetracking. that is faulty planning and management.

> Not that weather forecast are ever really given that often,
> but coments on the nice change would be absent. That is bad
> news for your show.

In many markets, weather is irrelevant unless it is very extreme. There are plenty of ways of inserting exceptional weather into the programming even if voice tracked. I've programmed stations that did not give weather or temperature for months on end.

> Next I think your talent goes wasted
> with every break planned is set up there is no spontanous
> effect.

I disagree. Good tracking is virtually undetectable

> I can always tell a v/t show.

I can't and I have been v/ting since the late 60's on many occasions. I can tell bad programming, but most of it is on live stations where there is no sense of timing, formatics and amateur jocking.

> Talent should really
> think about this next time before they v/t.

frankly, talent should think about who signs the check.

> Back in the 70s
> v/t was big it was automation it died too

Voice tracking is the same as automation, and goes back to the very early 60's. we just have a name for it now, that is all. Before, we recorded on linked or synchronized reels or carts. Now it is tracks or cuts on a digital system. Exact same thing.

Voice tracking did not die, ever. It just changed technologies.

>, soon v/t will
> too.

No, it won't.

> I say is is giving Xm and other service a real
> advantage.

How much of XM and Sirius do you think is really live? It's nearly all voice tracked.
>

 

[stan]

Re: Voice Tracking has been around for 40+ years.

> > Back in the 70s
> > v/t was big it was automation it died too
>
> Voice tracking is the same as automation, and goes back to
> the very early 60's. we just have a name for it now, that is
> all. Before, we recorded on linked or synchronized reels or
> carts. Now it is tracks or cuts on a digital system. Exact
> same thing.
>
> Voice tracking did not die, ever. It just changed
> technologies.

David, you are correct. Unfortunately, while the technology changed and the effect is a positive one versus the old type of programming (Bill Drake comes to mind), the results are the same - a lifeless station is often the result. No personality, as if someone were just reading the artist and title. In some ways, there is no difference from the 60s and 70s automation as far as listening is concerned. Someone in a remote city is programming a station that I am listening to in my city, and they haven't a clue.

 

[UncleGuido]

> Over July 4th weekend, we were in Tallahasse, home to 4 or
> so universities and the Florida's capital...Cumulus Mix
> station was automated all weekend with NO jocks with a
> prerecorded weather insert by an area TV weatherman recorded
> in the morning and replayed ALL day...at 7 pm, he was
> talking about showers expected in the afternoon around
> 3...how pathetic! They sure played a lot of jingles...
>
Dave can't tell when a station is voice-tracked? C'mon! If I can tell, Dave can tell. How 'bout a little truth, here? Okay, you can't tell ALL the time. But, you can, most of the time. The truth is, the economics of running a station are such that live talent, during all dayparts, just isn't an option. When a market like Houston had only a dozen AM stations, and FM was still "experimental", it wasn't unusual for the top-rated station to pull a "20-share", or better. Advertisers were stumbling all over themselves to buy time.

Simple math tells you that, when you load up a market with stations, each "piece of the pie" gets smaller. WUSY in Chattanooga, routinely, pulls a 23-share. Market size? 150,000. There are, roughly, a dozen stations worth listening to. A 23-share in a market that size still doesn't generate enough money to run a station with live talent full time. I'm not defending the concept. I'm just doing the math.

The assertion that weather isn't that big a deal is wrong. It is a big deal, especially in areas like Houston, where severe weather can rear it's ugly head at any moment. I've been out in my backyard pool and watched while a thunderstorm formed, right over us. By the time we got into the house, the sky had changed from deep blue to dark grey and it was storming. Still, with proper planning, this can be handled.

Face it, witht he exception of talk radio, the spontaneity in radio is gone. The real lure of satellite radio is the commercial-free music. For the most part, at least on Sirius, the personalities are pretty lame. XM does a better job, in that department. Still, the lack of commercials is a big draw for satellite. I don't mind paying. Still, if terrestrial radio would realign its priorities, it would find that good talent, and good entertainment, along with fresh music, would shore up some of those sliding numbers. It tells you something when the highest-rated station in Detroit couldn't pull anything better than a 5.2.

When Sumner Redstone got up before a crowd at an industry get-together last week and admitted that "big conglomerates" haven't done much for the radio industry, that was an understatement. When he admitted that he didn't know WHY this was the case, he pointed out the reason.

 

[jras20]

Re: Voice Tracking has been around for 40+ years.

> How much of XM and Sirius do you think is really live? It's
> nearly all voice tracked.
> >
>

There mixshoes on BPM isnt even live, pre-recorded, I'm not sure how "the city" did theres if it was live or not..
you just cant go wrong with a live mixshow even though its pop/hiphop & with dance.
<P ID="signature">______________
jras20</P>

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Voice Tracking has been around for 40+ years.

> David, you are correct. Unfortunately, while the technology
> changed and the effect is a positive one versus the old type
> of programming (Bill Drake comes to mind), the results are
> the same - a lifeless station is often the result. No
> personality, as if someone were just reading the artist and
> title. In some ways, there is no difference from the 60s
> and 70s automation as far as listening is concerned.
> Someone in a remote city is programming a station that I am
> listening to in my city, and they haven't a clue.
>

Well done, vt'ing is indistinguishable from live. I did a major market (#13) station that was totally automated on one occasion, and it was #1 in a large field of stations within 22 days of going on the air. Nobody could distinguish the fact it was tracked... sometimes we would tell listeners, and they 1) were surprised and, 2) did not care. We had the jocks do tracks and then they spent most of th etime on the street doing promotions.

 

[DavidEduardo]

> >
> Dave can't tell when a station is voice-tracked? C'mon! If
> I can tell, Dave can tell. How 'bout a little truth, here?
> Okay, you can't tell ALL the time. But, you can, most of
> the time.

When it is done correctly, it is indistinguishable from "live." In fact, relieving talent from sitting around for 4 minutes while each song ends is boring in many formats. Many talents can do a better vt session than doing th eshow live.

With today's hardware and software, they actually run the tips and tails and create a real environment for the tracks... they are not talking into a dry mike.

> The truth is, the economics of running a station
> are such that live talent, during all dayparts, just isn't
> an option. When a market like Houston had only a dozen AM
> stations, and FM was still "experimental", it wasn't unusual
> for the top-rated station to pull a "20-share", or better.
> Advertisers were stumbling all over themselves to buy time.

Not really. The pie was divided less, but there was far less money. nd, jus tlike today, advertisers wanted the largest stations, but did not like the large rates.
>
>
> Simple math tells you that, when you load up a market with
> stations, each "piece of the pie" gets smaller.

But radio revenue has grown considerably faster than inflation since then, and radi's share of the total ad pie has grown, too. There is lots more money.

> WUSY in
> Chattanooga, routinely, pulls a 23-share. Market size?
> 150,000. There are, roughly, a dozen stations worth
> listening to. A 23-share in a market that size still
> doesn't generate enough money to run a station with live
> talent full time. I'm not defending the concept. I'm just
> doing the math.

And in the 70's, the leading stations in maost markets were Beautiful Music... nearly all of which were vt'ed. It lends itself to certsain formats, particularly the music intensive ones.
>
> The assertion that weather isn't that big a deal is wrong.
> It is a big deal, especially in areas like Houston, where
> severe weather can rear it's ugly head at any moment.

I said it was no big deal in many markets except a few times a year. In which, case, have the TV station you work with do weather updates. No problem at all.

> I've
> been out in my backyard pool and watched while a
> thunderstorm formed, right over us. By the time we got into
> the house, the sky had changed from deep blue to dark grey
> and it was storming. Still, with proper planning, this can
> be handled.

And I have been in a top 15 market where, except in hurricane season, not a single station gives weather regularly because it is boring. Or markets like LA or San Diego or Phoenix... except for one or two big rains, weather is boring most of the time.
>

> It tells you something when the highest-rated station in
> Detroit couldn't pull anything better than a 5.2.

Here is where you should hav emade your point about the pie slices. There are only 100 share points now and there have never been more. If you have 30 stations the average share will be 3.3 and if you have 10 it will be 10 shares per station. All this means is that markets are fragmented and there are more specialty and niche formats.
>
> When Sumner Redstone got up before a crowd at an industry
> get-together last week and admitted that "big conglomerates"
> haven't done much for the radio industry, that was an
> understatement. When he admitted that he didn't know WHY
> this was the case, he pointed out the reason.

He was speaking about creating synergies and efficiencies, not about innovative programming.

 

[oltheimmer]

> > >
> > Dave can't tell when a station is voice-tracked? C'mon!

>
> When it is done correctly, it is indistinguishable from
> "live." In fact, relieving talent from sitting around for 4
> minutes while each song ends is boring in many formats. Many
> talents can do a better vt session than doing th eshow live.
>
Amen!
>
> With today's hardware and software, they actually run the
> tips and tails and create a real environment for the
> tracks... they are not talking into a dry mike.
>
A huge, huge improvement over earlier forms of voice tracking, not to mention the ease of redo-ing a break if you want to.

David, is the fact the phones may go unanswered for hours, even a whole weekend, a problem? Some listeners just like to have that contact with a jock.

How about phoners? Some pd's think it's really essential to get a lot of phoners on the air.

 

[oltheimmer]

Re: Voice Tracking has been around for 40+ years.

> > To v/t is to say ha ha to your listener I am at the beach
> > while you are trying to call and request a song.
>
> Request a song? Except for very special contrived moments,
> 99% of stations have not taken requests since the 50's. A
> "request" is someone who calls in for the song you were
> scheduled to play anyhow.
>
Talk about skewering sacred cows and bursting people's balloons. Make that 99 and 44/100s%. It never ceased to amaze me that people could call a radio station every day of their lives, sometimes many times a day, and never realize the station didn't play songs by request.

> > I say is is giving Xm and other service a real
> > advantage.
>
> How much of XM and Sirius do you think is really live? It's
> nearly all voice tracked.
> >
>
Priceless.

 

[UncleGuido]

> He was speaking about creating synergies and efficiencies,
> not about innovative programming.
>

Once again, Dave, we all stand corrected by your keen, and totally complete, knowledge of the industry. Compared to you, my 42 years in the business mean nothing. "Creating synergies and efficiencies...." Blah, blah, blah. How anyone stays awake at those self-serving, fanny-patting meetings, is beyond me. In the end, it's all bullsh--. While you're busy, "creating synergies", and engaging in all that psychobabble, the public's confidence in radio has gone to hell.

Oh, and about the 4 minutes the jocks spend, "doing nothing", those four minutes served me pretty well in getting the breaks lined up and ready to rip.

As for "working with your TV station"....that's fine, in theory. What do you do when there's no one at the TV station, or, no TV station in your market?

You keep defending the way things are being done, today. If it's so darned good, why are so many broadcasters "cryin' the blues"? Why are so many listeners complaining? Why is so much good music, and other forms of entertainment, not being heard? It's time you pull your head out and sniff the air. Technology is great. It's never been better. But, it's not the end-all. If technology isn't handled by good talent....and I mean TALENT, not just management, then, it's not worth the box it was shipped in. And when it comes to egos.....management can beat talent hands down. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

 

[UncleGuido]

> How about phoners? Some pd's think it's really essential to
> get a lot of phoners on the air.
>

Aha! There's an important indgredient that's missing in today's radio! The phoners. C'mon...everybody "out there" likes to hear their name, or voice, on the radio. Name-dropping is always a good stroke, too. Believe it or not, some callers, actually, have something interesting or entertaining to say. It adds alot to the overall sound of the station, when properly edited and mixed. That's where the current technology pays off.

 

[DavidEduardo]

>
> Once again, Dave, we all stand corrected by your keen, and
> totally complete, knowledge of the industry. Compared to
> you, my 42 years in the business mean nothing.

Actually, we are in the same range of experience, but, probably, in highly different situations.

> "Creating
> synergies and efficiencies...." Blah, blah, blah. How
> anyone stays awake at those self-serving, fanny-patting
> meetings, is beyond me.

Which is why I don't work for Clear or Viacom or Cox or Cumulus or Entercom... most of the high profile companies spend more time worrying about investment analysts than listeners.

Interestingly, back from the small operator days, another forum has a quote from Gary Edens, who said in the early 80's, "I don't own these stations. Valley National Bank does." Before, the leveraged small start-up group had to maintain ratios and pay high interest. Today, groups are equity financed and have to maintain investor relations.

The difference is that the investor relations part has a lot of market babble in it. But nothing much has changed. Very few groups ever were debt free and beholden to no one.

> In the end, it's all bullsh--.
> While you're busy, "creating synergies", and engaging in all
> that psychobabble, the public's confidence in radio has gone
> to hell.

I am not "engaging" in synergies. I said that the Viacom statemnts, like several others in the last two earnings seasons, have mentioned the failure of multimedia groups to realize any synergies between the divisions. Which is true.
>
> Oh, and about the 4 minutes the jocks spend, "doing
> nothing", those four minutes served me pretty well in
> getting the breaks lined up and ready to rip.

Outside of mornings, in most formats most jocks have only to worry about inflection and pacing... with the majority of formats not tolerating improvisation in non-morning dayparts. There is much to be said for the enthusiasm of laying down tracks without the waste of time.

That said, none of the 70 stations I am involved with voice tracks. In fact, in one market we built a voice tracking studio so we could lay down and keep updated a few hours of prograsmming in the event of an emergency (you may have seen the Cleveland story last week) and no one in the whole company had any current voice tracking experience.
>
> As for "working with your TV station"....that's fine, in
> theory. What do you do when there's no one at the TV
> station, or, no TV station in your market?

There is usually an alternative. Prerecording bland reports is not an alternative, though. I know one station that had the local airport call in with ID codes and put weather into the system (northern michigan)
>
> You keep defending the way things are being done, today. If
> it's so darned good, why are so many broadcasters "cryin'
> the blues"?

They are? Most are busy, such as Jeff Smulyan was last week, saying how exaggerated the competitive threats are. Radio revenues are up, profits are up, and the only problem is the perception by investors that radio is no-growth. And this perception is wrong. Radio for the first time since TV began has 8% of the total ad pie.

> Why are so many listeners complaining?

I research tens of thousands of people a year. I am present at 90% of the projects. I have never heard anyone complain about radio in general. Listeners I see bitch about specific things on specific stations, not about radio in general. And these are listeners who, as a group, listen 24 to 25 hours a week, about 28% above the natinal norm.

> Why is
> so much good music, and other forms of entertainment, not
> being heard?

I did not know it wasn't. Radio is not innovative, it is reactive. Radio programs once there is a passion group for some form of music or talent. I don't see anything being missed.

> It's time you pull your head out and sniff the
> air. Technology is great. It's never been better. But,
> it's not the end-all. If technology isn't handled by good
> talent....and I mean TALENT, not just management, then, it's
> not worth the box it was shipped in. And when it comes to
> egos.....management can beat talent hands down.

As I mentioned, I don't currently use voice tracking. So you are shooting at the wrong person.

Talent, on the other hand, is only as good as the programming management. I am seing today a group of talents who had 2.8 to 3.5 shares in LA getting 0.2 to 0.3 shares because management is bad. way to little credit is given to the PD, and way to much to some talent.

> Those who
> can, do. Those who can't, teach.
>

That old saw is irrelvant here.

 

[DavidEduardo]

>
> David, is the fact the phones may go unanswered for hours,
> even a whole weekend, a problem? Some listeners just like
> to have that contact with a jock.

there are differnt points of view on this. I have had one case of a station that got as high as a 42.5 share in a 130 station market which went for hours with no rings on the phone. We decided (and proved, in fact) that when the rotations were right and the music right, most people did not call.
>
> How about phoners? Some pd's think it's really essential to
> get a lot of phoners on the air.
>

In some formats, absolutely. But in others, it is irrelevant. I have also seen clusters where overnights or weekends one person takes all station phones. They even do contests... and the phone is answered. Of course, this is in Mexico..

 

[DavidEduardo]

>
> Aha! There's an important indgredient that's missing in
> today's radio! The phoners. C'mon...everybody "out there"
> likes to hear their name, or voice, on the radio.

Certainly this is effective and gives some warmth if controlled, edited and brief. But I have looked at call registers and see a station with 700,000 cume that gets calls from les than a quarter percent of its listeners each week. There is a rist of overdoing something very few are interested in.

 

[radiodial]

>
> > Why are so many listeners complaining?
> >
>
> I research tens of thousands of people a year. I am present
> at 90% of the projects. I have never heard anyone complain
> about radio in general. Listeners I see bitch about specific
> things on specific stations, not about radio in general. And
> these are listeners who, as a group, listen 24 to 25 hours a
> week, about 28% above the natinal norm.
>

From above:
"I have never heard anyone complain about radio in general."

I was reading this thread out of interest and not to reply to but, come on David, that sentence is purely a "head-in-the-sand" comment. Just look across these forums from city to city as there are tons of posts from frustrated radio listeners saying radio sux in their city.

I would really like to believe the things you write because you do have so much experience in the industry but that comment has totally shaken my confidence in believing if what you say just may always be skewed toward serving a particular underlying interest.

JMHO

 

[dakaree]

> To v/t is to say ha ha to your listener I am at the beach
> while you are trying to call and request a song. The energy
> of the day is lost example if there is 7 days of cloudy
> weather and rain all 7 days and on the 8th day rain is
> predicted but the sun comes out early in the day and your
> show is v/t you miss that energy in your show and sound bad.
> Not that weather forecast are ever really given that often,
> but coments on the nice change would be absent. That is bad
> news for your show. Next I think your talent goes wasted
> with every break planned is set up there is no spontanous
> effect. I can always tell a v/t show. Talent should really
> think about this next time before they v/t. Back in the 70s
> v/t was big it was automation it died too , soon v/t will
> too. I say is is giving Xm and other service a real
> advantage.

XM is V/T'd too, not all, but some and probably more than you think,because you are not recognizing it.

 

[DavidEduardo]

>
> I was reading this thread out of interest and not to reply
> to but, come on David, that sentence is purely a
> "head-in-the-sand" comment. Just look across these forums
> from city to city as there are tons of posts from frustrated
> radio listeners saying radio sux in their city.

I don't think the group on forums is representative in any way of radio.

On the other hand, the folks I talk to are. And they are happy with radio. they complain about commercials, they complain that their favorite songs are not played enough, they complain about dirty djs and about too-clean ones. But they like and use radio.

Analogy: I like my car. I wish the navigation system was touch screen. the driver armrest is too low. I with the steering wheel cam out just a bit more. It needs a power outlet in the back seat. But it is the best car I have ever owned. I would not trade it for anything except a new model of the same car.

See? I have complaints, but only because I am into my car.
>
> I would really like to believe the things you write because
> you do have so much experience in the industry but that
> comment has totally shaken my confidence in believing if
> what you say just may always be skewed toward serving a
> particular underlying interest.

My only interest is finding out what listeners want and providing it if the need is broad based. In the process of doing this, I do or supervise about 200,000 call out interviews, and many many perceptuals and music tests. I sense no dissatisfaction in the group I deal with... in fact, that group, some 40 million in size, listens to radio on the average 28% more than the general public.

All I am saying is that radio is not dead, and it is 100% possible to serve listeners in their vast majority and serve them well. There will also be a group that can not and will not be served, and they are going to use satellite, or various storage devices. Such has always been true; just the technology has changed.

 

[radiodial]

> >
> > I was reading this thread out of interest and not to reply
> > to but, come on David, that sentence is purely a
> > "head-in-the-sand" comment. Just look across these forums
> > from city to city as there are tons of posts from frustrated
> > radio listeners saying radio sux in their city.
>
> I don't think the group on forums is representative in any
> way of radio.
>

Thank you for negating me and the other radio listeners on this forum with that elitist comment.

>
> I sense no dissatisfaction in the group I deal with... in
> fact, that group, some 40 million in size, listens to radio
> on the average 28% more than the general public.
>

So, the group that you deal with that shows no dissatisfaction with radio is not typical of the general public? Shouldn't you be asking the question to the GENERAL PUBLIC!?

Sounds to me like you ONLY poll people about radio who ARE happy with radio in general. Your sample is obviously contaminated for the question, "are you happy with radio in general," if the people you poll are already known to be happy with radio in general.

That is NOT a random sample, therefore, your results are contaminated and have no value for the particular question at issue.

JMHO