Is the lack of familiarity hurting radio?

I noticed that WDAS-AM is coming back, but is it too late? What about in Chicago... Q101 VS the new news format. Many stations and talent are disappearing (RIF, I guess is the new term). After looking at several Facebook posts from listeners of different stations that have changed talent (and)or format. Some have expressed disappointment in the changes, and have vowed to go elsewhere (satellite, online, etc). I know in Miami, several talk show hosts have taken their shows online with some success. I know many will say the loss is minimal. We have been taught that branding is the key to success. Look what happened when that major soft drink decided to change the tried and true formula. Your thoughts?

Two parts.

1) The audience evolved and radio didn't. The listeners were disenfranchised with even heritage radio stations long before the vocal minority spoke up about a format flip. And when you listen to most radio stations, even the few that are "proud to be live and local," as if that mattered, most radio is BAD. People can blame faceless corporate entities all they want (and plenty of blame does go to them, yes), but the content that comes out of the speakers is usually awful, boring, and totally not worth engaging in. Meanwhile, you have everything you could ever want on your phone, computer, iPad, etc, so your choices are limitless. You can go find the content YOU want, not what you're forced to listen to because the choices are limited. Radio stations still think they only compete with other radio stations, and so long as they continue to do that, the world will pass them by. As I eluded to before, there is a lot of blame on the corporate culture: one-dimensional product focus with no diversification, meaning a focus on the air product only, with everything else (web, apps, SMS, streaming, content creation) as an afterthought. Plus, no farm system for creating/identifying/cultivating talent, and focus on short-term gains versus long term growth. That last one won't get fixed any time soon, as it's not in the owners', er, bankers' best interests to do anything but cut costs until they can bail out in their golden parachutes prior to the plane crash and sell it to someone else. But welcome to the corporate culture of all business now...you see this in a LOT of industries. But I digress...all that said, I still believe there are things one can do at a local level to improve stations, but that people are either too lazy to do, or have been in radio too long to know HOW to do because it's so different than what they've done for the past 30 years.

2) Methodology has changed. PPM has had a big impact on some formats. Q101 is a good example of a station that was never going to be bigger than a 2-share, and one can only chase after so much beer and strip club money. M18-34 stations have taken a big hit because they're a fickle audience who is typically tech-savvy (meaning they are more adept to finding content they want from more sources), and they're not a particularly attractive demo to most advertisers.

What you wrote is harsh i.e. Most radio is bad, live and local does not matter as much as people insist that it does, blaming corporate radio is overdone.

But I agree with all of it. The reason I’m no longer in radio is because I simply stopped believing in what we were doing.

Roger That said:

But I digress...all that said, I still believe there are things one can do at a local level to improve stations, but that people are either too lazy to do, or have been in radio too long to know HOW to do because it's so different than what they've done for the past 30 years.

Click to expand...

One of the things that struck me at radio industry meetings and that I notice now when I look online at pictures of consultants, air personalities and station management is how old most of them are. I can think of exceptions but by and large, my guess is that the average radio station employee is much older than the average of all other industries. Could be wrong but that’s my impression. And, I’m no kid myself. I’m thinking maybe it’s good that I’m out.

A brief stint with a local College Radio station proved to me that kid aren't interested in instructed radio/audio guidance.

It is kinda like sex

Why would I want to try to use any of the modern devices mentioned, when data carriers won't provide reliable, adequate
coverage even in an area like Chicago and immediate environs?

Why aren't the data carriers actively competing with radio to make something that works AS WELL AS broadcast services?


To say the audience evolved is not quite accurate.

Marketing, business and the acceptance of commodification has turned radio into what it is now.

Whether or not it attracts listeners and appreciation is almost a quaint, charming concept in modern consideration.
It's not too hard to tell which stations are being used as flankers, for instance.

There is no particular way radio "has to be", except that which we make it.

Roger That said:

...all that said, I still believe there are things one can do at a local level to improve stations, but that people are either too lazy to do, or have been in radio too long to know HOW to do because it's so different than what they've done for the past 30 years.

Click to expand...

As in any business, a 30-year walk through the forest can dull one's vision of the forest "for the trees"... Yes, some radio folks
have been staring at the glare of celebrity and success for so long, they've been blinded by the light.

Interesting discussion.

Radio is losing listeners to explosively popular newer media. But you can also blame the ever-worsening staleness of the product, thanks to rigid formating protocols. Business is business; broadcasting corporations today take their programming cues more from computer-driven demo stats and less from instinct.

"Instinct" is flexible. It used to play a greater role in driving programming decisions, since those policies could always be fine-tuned at will. Local PDs were free to breed "familiarity" on the merits of sound programming, so stations could achieve success in the only market that mattered, "local" listeners.

Radio has bit itself on the fanny. To be anecdotal, today's corporate suits have since discovered the tree of knowledge and have eaten of it's fruit. The world will never be the same. Sound familiar?

You will see these studies that say 98%-99% of people still listen to the radio. But I think that gives a false sense of comfort to the radio industry. Things have really changed. So many people I know listen to music on other devices now. They never listen to the radio anymore. If they walk into a store with a radio on I guess they are part of the 99%?

One thing I noticed is that nobody (outside of a board like this) talks about anything they heard on the radio anymore. I used to hear people talk about morning shows and other radio content, that's no longer true. A lot of radio people I know don't even talk about radio anymore.

Jay F said:

You will see these studies that say 98%-99% of people still listen to the radio. But I think that gives a false sense of comfort to the radio industry. Things have really changed. So many people I know listen to music on other devices now. They never listen to the radio anymore. If they walk into a store with a radio on I guess they are part of the 99%?

Click to expand...

In the brave new PPM world, they most certainly are.

Jay F said:

One thing I noticed is that nobody (outside of a board like this) talks about anything they heard on the radio anymore. I used to hear people talk about morning shows and other radio content, that's no longer true. A lot of radio people I know don't even talk about radio anymore.

Click to expand...

You're right, and you just jarred my memory about a funny incident in 1974. I had stepped away from radio for awhile, starting a short-lived career servicing supermarkets as a health & beauty aids jobber. Our sales team would gather for strategy meetings at a Happaugue Long Island diner, every Monday morning at 6AM. One Monday, the meeting almost never got started, thanks to runaway giddiness over a routine heard earlier on NBC's "(Don) Imus in the Morning" (WNBC AM). Lost in a desperate fit of cackling, he shared how he laughed so hard driving to the meeting that he almost ran his car in to the upright of a highway billboard sign on the Northern State Parkway. "He" happened to be our sales manager.

That epidsode would probably not happen today. People just don't share their radio experiences the way they used to.

Jay F said:

You will see these studies that say 98%-99% of people still listen to the radio. But I think that gives a false sense of comfort to the radio industry. T

Click to expand...

No, you won't see studies like that, since not now, not ever, has radio's reach been that high.

A number of years back, the BBM, which is the broadcaster-owned ratings company in Canada, wanted to know why there was always about a 5% to 6% of the public that did not listen to radio even once in a week. They found that the residual number was made up of people on vacation, people in the hospital, people with family, personal or work problems, and similar situations.

While listening time has declined, there is not much difference between the major demo cells and the average time spent listening is still considerable. In other words, radio has time, and the cash flow, to make the necessary adaptations to enter a new media world if it chooses to do so.

Very interesting topic!

Radio could do more to bring new listeners into fold by engaging listeners.

For instance, we have seen a huge shift in Talk Radio from being engaging to indoctrinating. Many radio talk shows especially on the national level are all about manipulating listeners to accepting the Talk Host's position on specific political positions. Those that call-in to oppose the host never get on-air. The listeners are led to believe that everyone supports the host's position. It's probably very similar to how radio talk shows are set-up in China.

This is not how Talk Radio should exist. Fortunately, there are still numerous independent broadcasters that give voice to their listeners.

josh said:

Very interesting topic!

Radio could do more to bring new listeners into fold by engaging listeners.

For instance, we have seen a huge shift in Talk Radio from being engaging to indoctrinating. Many radio talk shows especially on the national level are all about manipulating listeners to accepting the Talk Host's position on specific political positions. Those that call-in to oppose the host never get on-air. The listeners are led to believe that everyone supports the host's position. It's probably very similar to how radio talk shows are set-up in China.

This is not how Talk Radio should exist. Fortunately, there are still numerous independent broadcasters that give voice to their listeners.

Click to expand...

Josh:

You're not correct that the national talk shows don't allow people with opposing viewpoints on the air. They're heard all the time. Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity...just a few that welcome them. Of course, whether the caller makes their points well enough for them to stay on the air for more than minute so a "discussion" can happen before the host makes lunch meat of them can be argued.

Jason Roberts said:

You're not correct that the national talk shows don't allow people with opposing viewpoints on the air. They're heard all the time. Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity...just a few that welcome them. Of course, whether the caller makes their points well enough for them to stay on the air for more than minute so a "discussion" can happen before the host makes lunch meat of them can be argued.

Click to expand...

Limbaugh let's opposing views on the air, but he's terrible at it. Boortz on the other hand, is at his very best when talking to a caller he disagrees with.

The bottom line is that the guy with the "off" button always wins eventually.

As to the original question... no, losing specific air-talents hasn't and won't kill radio. Many of our most beloved radio talents have laundry-list resumes. Talent has always come and gone. Some are lured by bigger bucks. Some are horrible employees and get fired. Some get fired unfairly. We all admire the ones who stay in the same place for decades (Jerry House, Bob Steele) but they are the exceptions (though many times it seems obvious that the guy who stays put for 30 years either has no ambition or no idea how to move up).

Otherwise, the thread has wandered--as it always does when radio programming is the topic. One poster stated that they had left radio because the decision-makers kept making wrong-headed programming decisions. Let me suggest that your departure from the industry was a wrong-headed decision. Instead, you needed to do what was necessary to put yourself in the decision-making role, so that you could make the right decisons. FWIW, ordinarily that is above the PD level. Sorry, man, but if you bail out instead of working your ass off to advance your career, you really don't have a legitimate positon to bitch about what has transpired in radio.

amfmxm your post has my nomination for post of the year. Sit on the sidelines and complain or get yourself into a position to make a difference (Oh I know, "the big bad corporate bossman won't let me", etc)

A late reply to RogerThat, 11/22 (logging on less frequently since returning to work after 6-months on disability)...

I basically agree with your 2-part contention about the state of radio today. But "Locally" owned station executives might take issue with your observation, "proud to be live & local, as if that mattered..." It does matter if your small-town station competes against the penetration of major market stations.

In order to successfully compete, small-town programming must cater to "local interests". They live & die by offering quality entertainment & info not available from louder "urban" stations. And that means airing "local" news, weather and sports coverage. Some small town stations even open their mics to local talent competition. They must air a "sound" unique to their own "local" markets.

Otherwise, you've hit the nail on the head.

jfrancispastirchak said:

They must air a "sound" unique to their own "local" markets.

Click to expand...

But even if they do, it's no guarantee that they will be able to win when they compete against the larger market signals, as suburban stations in the NYC area can attest.

I know of 2 AM stations for sale near Dayton and Cincinnati Ohio. One in particular has been struggling while offering a lot of local programming, while all of the radios in all of the businesses are tuned to Dayton FM stations.