WHAT IS THE REASON FOR RADIO?

Isn't broadcasting a business? Don't businesses need to make money to survive? Most businesses will do whatever they have to (legally, of course), to survive. Radio is no different. Cutting costs, cutting people, running packaged programming. It's all designed to stretch the dollar. Just like my wife cuts coupons.

Just a thought.

The problem is that when you cut costs, cut people, and run packaged programming, you take away the advantages that radio as a business was built on - immediacy and localization. Take those two elements away, and you've got the same canned spam offered by satellite and on-line services. In fact, you give them the advantage of being able to tailor content to individual users instead of individual markets. If all you provide is generic pap, radio loses.

Too many people in management treat radio like making widgets. Cut the cost of making widgets, and profits will increase - at least until the quality of the widgets starts to decline. Unfortunately, when you cut costs in radio, you too often cut revenue as well, which means that profits actually decrease. Ask Citadel. Or Regent. You can't cut your way to prosperity. It would be like the movie industry cutting production costs because TV came out. What did they do? INVESTED in their product, to differentiate it from TV. Movies provide an experience that even home theatre can't duplicate. Radio needs to do the same thing.

When it comes to the major market broadcasters, I am seriously disappointed that the big groups are using technology to marginalize their on-air product.

But in the case of small rural broadcasters, we've had to use some form of automation to be viable, for years. Automation has been around for over fifty years. International Good Music (IGM) was able to save small market broadcasters from extinction. As computers entered the picture, many small stations were able to expand their operating hours to 24/7.

Small rural stations that operate 24/7 are in many cases better equipped than the major market stations in providing immediate notifications to the public. We operate with live/local morning shows, aided by network programming, strong local news, and always within five minutes of airing important events at any time, day or night. We do this all with a very small staff. We use technology because we have to, the big guys use it because they can.

The Original Post on this thread started out sounding a bit like the lead-in to talk show about business on FOX NEWS or MSNBC. But as the message was fleshed out, it asked... and it dealt with... really valid issues.

Think for a minute about a bank. People organize a bank for ONE PURPOSE... too make a profit. That's classroom Business 101 lecture material. If you are old enough to have gone to the Saturday afternoon Westerns at your home town theater, you were exposed to civilization in it's raw form. A village with maybe a dozen merchants, maybe a dozen saloons ( grin ) and three churches. And off to one side, the livery stable. A place like that needed a bank. Even if the merchants and saloon owners had to pitch in the start-up money to get it going. Whether it made money was not the issue. The saloon owner did not want to deal with the thirsty customer wanting to pay for his whiskey with live chicken. There needed to be some form of accepted currency where you you could take your chicken to the grocer and he could give you some form of currency you could take down the street to buy a new bandana, get the shoe replace on your favorite horse, drop something in the church collection plate, and then while the parson wasn't looking, sneak around the corner to the saloon. Whether anybody made a profit at running a bank was not the original issue. Having a liquid, fungible form of currency was the need. In keeping with the economic concepts that are a part of our nation, banks were nurtured and fertilized by allowing private ownership and profitability. (In the lifetime of many of us, the hometown Savings and Loan was still a viable institution... and they tended to be not-for-profit cooperatives, mutual associations.

So, sometimes there are other reasons why a business activity exists other than JUST profit.

Many hospitals are not-for-profit. When you wander through the rice belt and the wheat belt, many of those rice-dryers and grain-elevators are not-for-profit business operations.

(Yes, I know... that hospital and that savings and loan and that grain elevator must generate more income than expenses or it is dead in the water.)

I don't know where the OP would have gone with this conversation had the essay been longer. The world ONLY was not used. But in this day of political debates over the principles of free enterprise vs. the principles of when socialism becomes the proper description of some modified business format, I offer this observation: No matter how much or how little profit an operation makes, when broadcasting ceases to meet some kind of community need and becomes ONLY a cash and profit engine, maybe we are doing something wrong.

I guess a fully automated station playing oldies by the Beach Boys beats taking a chicken down to the ticket window at the Anniversary Concert Tour and trying to pay for the ability to hear the music.

The threads I find most interesting, most useful, and maybe most productive for the industry, are those where the participants seek to define a balance between "programming with life" and "programming gone stale and tepid" with an overabundance of passion on the profit side.

All good points for a business such as a McDonalds, CVS Pharmacy, Home Depot etc. There is no reason why you can't put one on any corner if you have the money and time ,,,that's good old Capitalisum.

But, radio is different by virtue of the fact that you can't stick one anywhere. If you did interferrence would wipe them all out. In fact this is what happened in the early 1930's and resulted in the Federal Communications act of 1934 being passed Up to that point, as today, there were thousands of people who wanted to broadcast and operate their stations in attics, garages and elseware. The act said that there weren't enough frequencies to go around so new criterta was adopted to weed out the weekend broadcaster. ( up to the passage of the act the FRC which preceeded the FCC had to issue a license to anyone who requested it)

To get a license after 1934 the FCC said you had to serve the public interest as well as meet the new lwas demands.

The argument here seems to be that serving the public interest and making money are mutually exclusive. That wasn't the case a few years back. We ran Public service announcements for nonprofits on most stations I heard, we did local news etc.

The problem is two fold 1) While the law still says you must serve the public the FCC gives little concern to whether you do so or not and thereby gives tasid support to not doing so and

2) Many broadcasters have it in their head that " It can't be done,,can't afford it ". Really? then isn't it interesting that you can schedule spots including bonus spots and etc and call that the cost of doing business but when you are ask to serve the public it's too costly.

My observation is that like a kid who tries all kind of excuses to not go to bed many broadcasters try excuses to remove regulations not because they can't live with them but because it's not popular to suggest that ANY LAW is good.

Still, the bottom line is: you started, built, bought your station with the understanding of what you should do as a responsible broadcaster to make it go i.e. public service, local news etc like everyone else. If you didn't intend to run it that way you shouldn't have started it. There are still thousands of people who couldn't get that license you hold. It's not JUST a Business It's a priviledge not everybody gets .

ellenparks said:

To get a license after 1934 the FCC said you had to serve the public interest as well as meet the new lwas demands.

Click to expand...

Define "serve the public interest." If a station is listened to and liked by a good portion of the population, it is serving the public interest by being a popular station. In other words, the public (and

The argument here seems to be that serving the public interest and making money are mutually exclusive. That wasn't the case a few years back. We ran Public service announcements for nonprofits on most stations I heard, we did local news etc.

Click to expand...

Local news is not necessary on every station. If your target audience wants local news, then by all means provide it. If your target audience wants music, then play music and quit talking. Both types of stations serve their audiences as well as their advertisers and owners.

And you ran PSAs when you had a possibility of selling that time to an advertiser? I find that very hard to believe.

Still, the bottom line is: you started, built, bought your station with the understanding of what you should do as a responsible broadcaster to make it go i.e. public service, local news etc like everyone else.

Click to expand...

Again, it's not necessary for every station to run local news, any more than it's necessary for every station to employ disk jockeys. I'm speaking as a listener here, but if I'm listening to my favorite music station and some DJ starts babbling or they insist on running 5 minutes of news that I already know about, I'm changing the station. I may not return for awhile.

If you didn't intend to run it that way you shouldn't have started it. There are still thousands of people who couldn't get that license you hold. It's not JUST a Business It's a priviledge not everybody gets .

Click to expand...

It's still a commercial business. Commercial businesses exist for exactly one reason: To make a profit for its owners. There are zero exceptions to this rule unless the station is run as a rich man's quasi-hobby (and there are some). But if that's the case, then it really isn't a commercial for-profit business, is it?

SirRoxalot said:

The problem is that when you cut costs, cut people, and run packaged programming, you take away the advantages that radio as a business was built on - immediacy and localization.

Click to expand...

Those "advantages" were taken away when OTHER media became more immediate and more local. Radio needs to reinvent itself, because the old exclusives have gone away. It's foolish to act as thought people don't have cell phones or don't have other sources for information.

The reality is that even with all the cuts in radio, the usage of radio has remained largely unaffected, which says to me that the people have adapted to the changes in radio, and understand "the reason for radio."

ellenparks said:

To get a license after 1934 the FCC said you had to serve the public interest

Click to expand...

That language was included in all private-public partnerships at the time. You'll find those same wording in regulations for water, electric, and gas. It was also equally as vague. However, in the years since the original Act, the government has created their own services for the public. The government now is responsible for weather, traffic, and emergency information, not radio. The role of government was very different before WW2.

With regards to public service announcements, you'll find that radio still does a lot of this. More importantly, radio stations do a lot of local charity work in their communities. If you go look at the public files of these stations (and I have), you'll see how much money these radio stations have raised for local charities, how they've co-sponsored local non-profit events, providing free publicity, staffing, and even office space.

The main thing to know is that broadcasting isn't self-regulated. There is an agency responsible for doing the regulating, and certifying that the owners and stations are complying with the laws. To the best of my knowledge, no one has had their license revoked for not serving the public interest. If the FCC isn't doing their job, that's not the station's problem. It's up to the police to enforce driving laws, it's up to the IRS to enforce tax laws, and it's up to the FCC to enforce broadcast laws.

SirRoxalot said:

It would be like the movie industry cutting production costs because TV came out. What did they do? INVESTED in their product, to differentiate it from TV. Movies provide an experience that even home theatre can't duplicate. Radio needs to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

We'd like to see your plan.

Historically, when TV came out, it needed content. TV companies wanted to air movies. At first, the movie industry said no, because they didn't want to make themselves obsolete. Instead companies like Disney saw TV as a source for revenue. They sold TV rights for their content. That often brought them more money than what they could make at the box office. Today, movie companies have diversified revenue streams, from TV, cable, video, streaming, and merchandising. But the movie industry isn't live or local. It creates permanent product that can be bought internationally and used over and over. Radio airs once and is done. How do you suggest making radio more like the movies?

ellenparks said:

While the law still says you must serve the public the FCC gives little concern to whether you do so or not and thereby gives tasid support to not doing so

Click to expand...

I think you mean tacit support.

That's your interpretation. I believe the FCC feels it has to pick and choose its fights. There was a reason why the government entered into a public private partnership with broadcasters in 1934. The reason was because the government didn't want to spend the money to run all the radio stations. In other countries, the stations are owned by the government. Here, they're privately owned. In exchange for the use of the airwaves, the broadcasters can make money. As much as they want. They have never been restricted or limited in the money-making aspect. And there is no connection between the amount of money they can make, and the public service they provide. Read the rules.

Regardless of what the FCC does, it's their job. Just because you personally don't like the situation doesn't mean you can put on your sherriff's badge and arrest broadcasters. The fact is the FCC recognizes that the role of the broadcasters has changed since 1934. The FCC is responsible for a lot more than just radio now. Their responsibilities have changed too since 1934. I think we're all grown-ups, and we all need to adjust to these new realities, and quit trying to act like it's still 1934.

This conversation has certainly blossomed today!

Government (and society) is having a hard time defining and re-defining what the rules are for the banking industry. In the political arena we are still pushing-and-shoving over "Tall Street", banks, and what the rules should be. About time we thought maybe we were going to settle for a "lump bed" and just live with whatever is going on, we have this dust-up now with J P Morgan Chase. First the big news was "They lost TWO BILLION dollars." This morning the number is Three Billion Dollars. What will it be tomorrow?

Government (and society) is having a hard time defining and re-defining what the rules are for the world of healthcare... and it is far from settled.

Government (and society) is having a hard time defining and re-defining what the rules and expectations are for public schools. The Charter School movement is about the displace immigration and abortion as the HOT TOPIC in your legislature no matter where you live!

Church (and society) is having a hard time defining and re-defining what the rules and expectations are for communities that worship. In another forum where I troll.... er, sorry, in another forum where I participate... they are arguing the virtues of the MEGA church vs. the neighborhood church that has much in common with 1912. They are arguing the virtues of everybody gather to "be church" once a week at 11 A.M. on Sunday... vs having six or seven different gatherings every weekend so people can pick a time that is appropriate and convenient. They are arguing over church being ONE real estate location versus some kind of satellite of "campuses" linked together by eye-poping video mechanisms.

And here we sit. Those who see the role of radio being same today as it was in 1934.... or not. In every area of life listed above, (and there are certainly other theaters of life that could be added if that were our goal and purpose).... in every area of life listed above, there is change, there is turmoil, there is pushing-shoving-and-shouting, and there is uncertainty about the future.

Welcome to the planet folks. Welcome to humanity. Welcome to 2012.

I just wish there was at least one part of life where I could be like Linus and his blanket... just go sit down in the corner, wrap- and curl-up, and just enjoy the damned thing!!!!!

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

in every area of life listed above, there is change, there is turmoil, there is pushing-shoving-and-shouting, and there is uncertainty about the future.

Click to expand...

I agree, and the one thing lacking from all is leadership. It doesn't take leadership for everyone to state their opinions. It takes leadership to convince all the people with their strong opinions and self-interests to co-operate and share with others. Interesting that the church is no different than private industry in this area. The problem as I see it is that we, as a people need and want services, but don't want to pay for them. Health care, banking, education, and even religion are all much better when the focus is on service rather than money. But the focus today is on eliminating a single-payer system for health care and education. Groups also want to eliminate the single payer system from broadcasting. So you're left with the system we have now, where private industry rules. We are a government by, for, and of the people, and this is what our government has produced. Are we happy? Somewhere we need to make a connection between the services we want, and the taxes we are willing to pay. If we as a people can't do that, then we deserve the chaos that results. Somehow the previous generation figured it out. Maybe that's why they're the greatest generation.

I don't want to take anything away from "The Greatest Generation". But in a discussion like this, I would have the gall to ask the question: If they were still around, if they were still up to the task of facing life head-on.... how would they deal with our circumstances today?

Not very well!

My parents were members of The Greatest Generation and I think I know what made them that way. The Great Depression for one.

They went through much of their childhood deprived of virtually everything we take for granted today: food, entertainment, education, mobility, and many of them saw their families shattered and split over the inability of the father to earn a decent living.

That was followed by the most destructive war in the world's history and those same people were then pulled out of school, factories and farms to either go into battle in places most had never heard of and the females took up the jobs that the men had to leave behind. It was a massive reallocation of resources, human and material, and their world would never be the same.

The Depression was at last ended and the War was won. They came back to the primary life they had been led to believe was the great American dream - marriage, kids, a house and a good job. They had been through the hard times and did not take the prosperous 1950's for granted.

My dad worked 6 1/2 days per week and about 10 hours per day with one week off for annual vacation and he thought he had it made. I never heard him complain, not once. They knew what real deprivation was.

Although the generations that followed have also made their mark they never had to face a common enemy that realistically could have defeated them and literally put them in chains. After half a life of having so little they finally had the good life and they were not going to blow it. They looked after politics on the national and local levels. They attended parent-teacher conferences and were members of the PTA. They made sure I did my homework and were quick to lower the boom if I wasn't living up to my potential. Every parent on my block was also a parent to every kid on my block. Not only did they know their neighbors but they knew their kids, their curfews and what was allowed or not. Now we have cameras on the street but back then it was other kids parents - and it was way more effective.

The Greatest Generation faced challenges that few others in our history have faced. I doubt a single one of them would say they were heros or did anything exceptional. They simply did what they believed themselves and what society believed as a whole. It was far from a perfect world of course and they'd be the first to tell you that but to answer Goat's question I think they would just say "get back to the basics and the things that made us the great society we were then".

And just for grins I would also give a tip of the hat to the Greatest Generation's immediate ancestors for it was they who raised the GG with the morals, beliefs and commitment to accomplish what they did.

And the Greatest Generation and the industry we call Radio blossomed during a "shared time frame".

They were grateful for this new fangled thing called radio, and they embraced it. And radio returned the favor.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

And the Greatest Generation and the industry we call Radio blossomed during a "shared time frame".

They were grateful for this new fangled thing called radio, and they embraced it. And radio returned the favor.

Click to expand...

And I think that wasn't a coincidence. They grew up in a very different time. Radio freed them from many things. Today, we have many choices that do the same thing. Radio has no exclusive on anything. If I want traffic reports on radio, I have to wait, and even then, the report will probably miss my commute. Why wait when I can create a custom traffic report on my phone?

As I often say, this is what happens when the "me" generation has kids. It's all about "me," not about "us," so a medium that is built around one-to-many can't relate.

To me, "What is the reason for radio?" sounds like the question is "Why is there radio?". That's a long story. In the beginning it was a novelty, transmitting sound wirelessly. Then one day a tailor realized he could tell the people listening to that novelty about his clothing store. The broadcaster realized if he could help the tailor make money he should share in that profit.

I have talked to tour groups visiting the various (TV) stations i have worked and explained to them that "The business of broadcasting is providing an audience for the advertisers message". You can't break it down any simpler than that. A station is programmed in such a way that it attracts listeners, and then charges advertisers a fee to deliver their message to the listeners it has attracted.

I have coined the terms "active programming" and "passive programming" in other discussions on this board. I would say most broadcasters today are guilty of "passive programming". The program the least offensive material they can, so listeners will not tune out. A station that practices "active programming" will broadcast something that listeners will make it a point to tune in for. The listeners make a decision to choose station A over station B because station A is actively trying to attract them. Station B is not doing anything directly to attract listeners, it is only broadcasting material that is not a tune out factor.

Looking at what has happened to the industry today, I would almost ask "Why is radio still here?" I don't see it as the great entertainment industry it once was (in the 60s/70s when I started listening and being entertained). Much of radio today is background noise, compared to what it could be. So, since the radios are on and the PPMs are registering, money will spent to buy advertising time. Bean counters don't seem to be interested in return on long term investments. So, when listeners stop listening, instead of actively trying to attract them back to listening, less money is spent on programming so the profit is not affected too much. There will always be a base amount of money that has to be spent, and we al have heard stations that spent "just enough money to stay on the air". True, the minimum expenditure for the media giants will still produce a listenable program compared to Mr. and Mrs. Next Door's tiny one owner station. But at one point (we can only hope) listeners will revolt against the media giants when they realize what they've been missing.

PirateJohnny said:

But at one point (we can only hope) listeners will revolt against the media giants when they realize what they've been missing.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting comment.

As I've said, listeners have lots of alternatives. There is no media monopoly. If they don't like what's on free radio, they're welcome to subscribe to satellite, stream internet radio, or contribute to public radio. That's the most effective form of revolt. Patronize the competition. The alternative to the private system we have would be a government run system. Think that's better?

There are still a few members of the Greatest Generation around, and many of them are appalled at the lack of vision exhibited by people and corporations. Short-term profit for a few trumps the long-term health of the enterprise and its stockholders. People do what's expedient, not what's right. Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has become government for the slickest operators with the deepest pockets.

PirateJohnny said:

To me, "What is the reason for radio?" sounds like the question is "Why is there radio?". That's a long story. In the beginning it was a novelty, transmitting sound wirelessly. Then one day a tailor realized he could tell the people listening to that novelty about his clothing store. The broadcaster realized if he could help the tailor make money he should share in that profit.

I have talked to tour groups visiting the various (TV) stations i have worked and explained to them that "The business of broadcasting is providing an audience for the advertisers message". You can't break it down any simpler than that.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That seems to size it up.

Or does it.

What then is the explanation for public radio? What then is the explanation for the small transmitters giving tourist info, or road detour information? A radio story built simply on the idea tha the advertiser is the center of the universe doesn't seem fully robust. How do you explain what radio does in European countries where it is a government service.