Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 88

Thread: Must-read Study

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    11,140

    Re: Must-read Study

    I seriously doubt that Howard Stern ever went to the PD and said "Mr. PD, can I talk dirty on the radio? Pretty Please?". There are a heck of a lot more people who think they can talk extemporaneously and be entertaining than actually can and are. Now you might say if the stations would only let them open up the mike and talk about what they want to talk about they'd become entertaining, but why are you practicing on your audience's ears when they are more likely than not going to turn you off.

  2. #12
    Moderator/Co-Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    38,905

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by SirRoxalot
    WHY do "most younger people think jocks suck"?
    In the simplest of terms, because their iPod does not talk over the tips and tails of the songs.

    Could it be that most younger people hear an endless cascade of station self-promotion, and virtually nothing that relates directly to them?
    How do most web streams, from customized Pandora ones to people streaming their own personal playlist, deal with this? They have no jocks.

    It all gets blamed on "the jock" - who in many formats talks less than the "station voice" and has little opportunity to relate to listeners because of station-mandated formatics.
    In some cases, you are right. But those stations will ultimately fail. But in the case of youth (under 18) radio does not target them... so they find the things that older demos like very unappealing as they are not part of their needs and lifestyle.

    I know a lot of jocks who did - and would - do their shows from public (i.e. "not for profit") events and festivals for no extra pay, but he station "can't afford" to pay a board-op $8 bucks an hour to run the board back at the studio, let alone the $75 it costs to set up and tear down the remote.
    In a recession, in many markets, particularly in the old-economy states and markets, there is no money for that sort of thing. And most of us have realized that there are more modern ways of touching listeners, like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc., where we can be in touch with thousands and thousands of listeners while a remote today may result in 60 or 70 people showing up, unbless the location has natural high traffice.

    As far as jocks showing up at concerts, etc. - how many jocks are working second jobs, or spinning in clubs, because the pay sucks? And concert tickets aren't free anymore. Even the taxes on freebies cost more disposable income that a lot of jocks can afford in these days of pay cuts and expanded "duties".
    Hello. We are in a recession. Microsoft's sales in Q2 were off even more than radio's sales. Many businesses are cutting to be able to survive the downturn, in the hopes things will be better. But radio has been through a reset and will never be at the level it was in the pre-recession years through 2006.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, Billboard, Cash Box, R&R, Record World, Music & Media, Audio, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, Popular Electronics, Studio Sound, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  3. #13

    Re: Must-read Study

    Well, actually, I think this comment really about sums it up ...

    "They can get instantly the latest pics of Kim Kardashians tail end."

    Yep, that about says it all.

    Seacrest must be besides himself in wonder. Kim, too.

    David "gets it."
    "Naked Hobos -- only come here for the promise of FREE Chicken! CBS Cares." Craig Ferguson - "The Late Late Show" - CBS

  4. #14

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by SirRoxalot

    Is it a lack of talent on the part of the current generation of jocks? Or, is it the lack of opportunity to entertain?
    I read and re-read the study, and don't see where it says "lack of opportunity to entertain."

    I think what it's saying is they have the opportunity, and they fail, often because they're more focused on their own personal interests than those of their listeners. They're not involved in the same activities as their listeners, they're not speaking the same language (slang), they don't have Facebook or Twitter, and their lifestyle is different.

    Part of this, I think came from the morning zoo concept. Everyone needs a cast of thousands to put on the show, and they're all talking with each other, leaving the listener completely outside the conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirRoxalot

    WHY do "most younger people think jocks suck"? Could it be that most younger people hear an endless cascade of station self-promotion, and virtually nothing that relates directly to them?
    Couple that with the fact that most DJs are, how can I say this kindly, OLDER then them. I see loads of photos of DJs in the trades, and they are obviously older than their target demo, many with grey hair, often overweight, and certainly not relatable to younger people. Some look like perverts, and then we discover that some of them actually are! This is not an ownership problem, folks.

    It's the DJs job to do the show prep and come up with content to share with their audience. It's their job, and they're doing it badly. In my opinion, they've been doing it badly for a long time. My biggest criticism of DJs is their unwillingness to spend time WITH their listeners. What is the point of having local DJs when the local listeners never SEE them or get to interact? they might as well be in some other city. THIS is what has marginalized the value of local talent, and it was brought about by the talent themselves. Interacting with the audience is part of show prep. Answering their own email, instead of turning it over to a minion. Attending concerts and manning the station booth, instead of having a promo kid or "stunt boy" do it. That whole "stunt boy" thing revolts me. Imus personally ordered 50,000 hamburgers to go. He didn't have his stunt boy do it.

    Sure there ARE some local talent who actually make personal appearances. Yes there are some folks who keep up with what's going on. But for the most part, I think local talent needs to take charge of their own careers, take responsibility for what they do, and not just do whatever the boss man tells them. There are ways to do both IF the talent is actually interested in communicating with the audience. They also need to stop obsessing over getting compliments from the boss, or positive reinforcement from the CEO. That's all inside baseball. If you're on-air, your boss is the listener. Strive to get a compliment from THEM every once in a while. Make every minute on the air count for something.

  5. #15
    adma
    Guest

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA
    Couple that with the fact that most DJs are, how can I say this kindly, OLDER then them. I see loads of photos of DJs in the trades, and they are obviously older than their target demo, many with grey hair, often overweight, and certainly not relatable to younger people. Some look like perverts, and then we discover that some of them actually are! This is not an ownership problem, folks.
    And such an image problem isn't new, either--think back a quarter century, to the "video killed the radio star" rise of MTV...

  6. #16

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA
    I read and re-read the study, and don't see where it says "lack of opportunity to entertain."I think what it's saying is they have the opportunity, and they fail, often because they're more focused on their own personal interests than those of their listeners.
    I'm not sure if you're deliberately obtuse, or if you have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me quote from the study:

    The typical music radio station in the U.S. has 14 breaks an hour (think of it as 12 songs, 2 stopsets, and a transition into each as a "break"). The results of our analysis indicate that:

    10 of those will contain station positioning language, either live or recorded.
    7 of them will contain contest, promotional, sales merchandising, website and/or text program information.
    ONE of them, on average, will contain something said/designed solely because a listener might be interested in it, having nothing to do with the station.


    On an average music station - outside of mornings - the number of opportunities for a jock to TALK is limited to about 5 times an hour. Most, if not all of those "opportunities" have required format elements that leave very little time personalization or adding relatable elements to the content. The other 9 breaks have NO opportunity because they're pre-recorded either as jingles or station imaging. They're not under control of the jock.

    They're not involved in the same activities as their listeners, they're not speaking the same language (slang), they don't have Facebook or Twitter, and their lifestyle is different.
    I don't know what market you're talking about, but that's untrue in any market with relatively ubiquitous, relatively cheap high-speed Internet service. I know very few jocks who aren't on at least one social networking site.

    Part of this, I think came from the morning zoo concept. Everyone needs a cast of thousands to put on the show, and they're all talking with each other, leaving the listener completely outside the conversation.
    I realize that mornings are the only daypart left that's live and local on a lot of stations, but it's not the ONLY daypart. Applying observations about morning shows to radio in general is disingenuous at best.

    Couple that with the fact that most DJs are, how can I say this kindly, OLDER then them. I see loads of photos of DJs in the trades, and they are obviously older than their target demo, many with grey hair, often overweight, and certainly not relatable to younger people. Some look like perverts, and then we discover that some of them actually are! This is not an ownership problem, folks.
    It's not? Who hires them? Why are so many older jocks still working younger formats? Because there's NOBODY COMING UP TO REPLACE THEM. Younger people have been abandoned by radio, and in turn have abandoned the medium as both an entertainment source and as a career.

    It's the DJs job to do the show prep and come up with content to share with their audience. It's their job, and they're doing it badly. In my opinion, they've been doing it badly for a long time. My biggest criticism of DJs is their unwillingness to spend time WITH their listeners. What is the point of having local DJs when the local listeners never SEE them or get to interact? they might as well be in some other city. THIS is what has marginalized the value of local talent, and it was brought about by the talent themselves. Interacting with the audience is part of show prep. Answering their own email, instead of turning it over to a minion. Attending concerts and manning the station booth, instead of having a promo kid or "stunt boy" do it. That whole "stunt boy" thing revolts me. Imus personally ordered 50,000 hamburgers to go. He didn't have his stunt boy do it.
    Maybe all of that is true in some rarified atmosphere of the upper echelon of major markets, but it sure ain't true in the rest of the radio world. All of those who have "minions" answering their e-mail, raise your hands. In fact, all those of you who DON'T have a station e-mail address published for the public, raise your hands. It's amazing how many stations DON'T publish an e-mail address for jocks because they want to completely control public communications.

    A LOT of on-air personalities are willing to press the flesh IF they're asked, and IF they're compensated for appearances where the STATION is making money. Most guys - especially outside of the morning show - will make free appearances for charity or not-for-profit events. Morning show guys are less willing, because they're usually sleep-deprived, and they in greater demand. If you do one, how do you turn down others? With rules changes, you can't even get "freebies" anymore, because the tax on the face value is deducted from your paycheck. So, you go work the concert booth, but it's going to cost you $50 to see the concert because you got "free" tickets? And you wonder why some folks who are living on the edge of poverty turn that down?

    Sure there ARE some local talent who actually make personal appearances. Yes there are some folks who keep up with what's going on. But for the most part, I think local talent needs to take charge of their own careers, take responsibility for what they do, and not just do whatever the boss man tells them. There are ways to do both IF the talent is actually interested in communicating with the audience. They also need to stop obsessing over getting compliments from the boss, or positive reinforcement from the CEO. That's all inside baseball. If you're on-air, your boss is the listener. Strive to get a compliment from THEM every once in a while. Make every minute on the air count for something.
    Nice that you recognize that there are still a TON of broadcasting professionals out there. Sadly, doing all of the above won't save your job, or your career. Good, solid professionals are getting whacked daily - in spite of superior performance - because MANAGEMENT overextended the company, and has to cut expenses. Management is opting for the low-cost alternative IN SPITE OF what it's doing to ratings or revenue. Who loses? Everybody. Listeners, radio pros, and ultimately the company.
    Did I forget that <<sarcasm>> tag again?

  7. #17

    Re: Must-read Study

    I still contend that it comes down to:

    "They can get instantly the latest pics of Kim Kardashians tail end."

    Also, whomever it was that blames "older jocks" (and those as "perverts", as if there are no young pervs,) is not funny and is way out of line. You're entitled to your opinion, but then, so is everyone else and mine is, "you're flipping wrong."

    A lot of "kid" jocks aren't prepared to even talk with their peers, let alone "entertain them." A lot of "older" jocks, with experience, can and often do a lot better job in relating to a young audience than you think ... because they work at it. And they work pretty damn hard at it.

    I just bet if we started a list here, you'd be blown away by what "talent" is out there that can relate as well or better than a "kid" jock and sound a lot better at it.

    Lujack could well be one. Dees could, in the right environment - still be one, and let's remember that even though some don't think Seacrest is a "talent," he rules LA mornings and he's not "a kid." Let's see, Tom Kent? MG Kelly? Probably 90% of the staff at K-Earth, oh, and let's see, Stern? Yeah, he's not as good as a "young" and "relatable" jock. Forget any successful talkmeister, what do they know? Limbaugh's salary at $400-million over 8 years would sure pay for a lot of "young" talent ... but it won't because 15-million listeners a week will do that ... and tie up a lot of money.

    And then there's the other side of the country. Let's see, CBS-FM is doing fine with less than "kid" jocks. Z-100, too. And so it goes.

    Age is relevant. Preparation in any size market or station, live, board opped or voice tracked is still key, and involvement with an audience, not at an audience. And knowing who the heck you're talking with ... not at rules.
    &quot;Naked Hobos -- only come here for the promise of FREE Chicken! CBS Cares.&quot; Craig Ferguson - &quot;The Late Late Show&quot; - CBS

  8. #18
    adma
    Guest

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by SirRoxalot
    I don't know what market you're talking about, but that's untrue in any market with relatively ubiquitous, relatively cheap high-speed Internet service. I know very few jocks who aren't on at least one social networking site.
    Given the aging/pervert stereotype, there's something kinda creepy about jocks yukking it up with the kids on a social networking site...

  9. #19
    adma
    Guest

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by oaktree
    A lot of "older" jocks, with experience, can and often do a lot better job in relating to a young audience than you think ... because they work at it. And they work pretty damn hard at it.

    I just bet if we started a list here, you'd be blown away by what "talent" is out there that can relate as well or better than a "kid" jock and sound a lot better at it.

    Lujack could well be one.
    When it comes to "relating to a young audience"...at best, as a cool historical artifact. (Like most Top 40 greats, in fact.)

    Dees could, in the right environment - still be one,
    Unfunny Botoxed sleazebag with a chintzy fake-live countdown show. Yeah, right, "the kids".

    and let's remember that even though some don't think Seacrest is a "talent," he rules LA mornings and he's not "a kid."
    Yeah, sorta "youth appeal", though in practice more of a well-meaning grandmother's fantasy of what "youth appeal" really is.

    Let's see, Tom Kent? MG Kelly? Probably 90% of the staff at K-Earth, oh, and let's see, Stern? Yeah, he's not as good as a "young" and "relatable" jock. Forget any successful talkmeister, what do they know? Limbaugh's salary at $400-million over 8 years would sure pay for a lot of "young" talent ... but it won't because 15-million listeners a week will do that ... and tie up a lot of money.
    Yeah, but keep in mind how the nature of those 15 million listeners a week might effectively put the kibosh on the notion of radio as something which can relate to a young audience...

  10. #20
    aunti-terrestrial
    Guest

    Re: Must-read Study

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo
    Quote Originally Posted by landtuna
    You are absolutely spot-on. When music radio (mostly pop music) was in its heyday I remember my local jocks out at store openings, movie theater stages, concerts, schools, and one even showed up at a small birthday party for one of my classmates handing out promo records. Guess which station all those kids listened to after that?
    Remember, in the larger markets (100 and up) jock shifts in the 50's and 60's on Top 40's were generally 3 hours. This had as much to do with the fatigue of cuing records, threading tapes, manually inserting carts, editing calls with blade and tape, etc., as with the economy. That gave jocks time to go out... today, most spend at least 40 hours in the building, and we live in an age where family and home life is more important to the extent that legislation promotes it.
    Uh, actually, no (we who?). Morning and afternoon drive are still 4.5 and 4 hours per day, respectively. Middays and evenings are partially voicetracked so that the jock voicing them can keep those weekly hours below the 29.5 required to stay parttime and not qualify for fulltime benefits. And stations are tracked overnights, as well---to the tune of two hours for a weeks' worth of shows. Oh, and there are no blades and tapes or records to que, the jock just makes sure to press the computer button to stop down at the sales liner breaks. So, no fatigue there, unless pressing a button is that exhaustive. You have three? Four? on-air people working less than three-quarters of any given day of the week. Seriously, do the math. Old-fashioned excuses like that won't cut it, anyomore.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

     
Useful Contacts
Community


123