Radio Is Dead? Really? What are we really saying?

Everyone says radio is dead. I think we need to define this. Are you strictly talking over the air listening only or are you including people listening to over the air radio stations on devices other than a radio? If you listen to an over the air radio station on your mobile device, computer or actual radio, it doesn't matter. No matter the listening device, they're all listening.

Radio is pretty stale, uninventive and stuck in a box from a programming end yet I do not hear anything really special online either. In my career I have noticed radio is scared of trying something new. I know that is a generalized statement and opinionated. My first couple of decades in the business when you had lots of owners (1 AM and 1 FM per market and other owned stations had to be pretty far away). You had a percentage of owners with stations that were at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak. They'd take the risk. I find the more creative programming comes from those with the least to lose. These were the places new ideas were honed and proved. I admit Corporate Radio has shined a couple of times. I thought the Lone Star 92..5 concept done by Clear Channel in Dallas was creative although I disagreed with the direction of the format. The on air presentation and sponsorship possibilities were really a departure from what we know. Change doesn't set well with the agency buyers who had a tough time grasping the concept.

Radio is troubled by going down a road not knowing precisely where it goes and it is struggling to adapt (although it seems to have done so rather nicely).

I see radio about where McDonalds is right now: it's trying to find its place and trying knee-jerk reactions to maintain what they have and hopefully reinvent itself somewhat. Radio's strength is its reach and that reach will keep it afloat as it finds its way. I wouldn't call McDonalds dead but rather a giant trying to keep it's lead against some very threatening competitors.

When you look at radio's reach, about 243,451,000 people in the United States each week (reported by Nielsen, December 2014) that's not a bad number of customers to have each week. Would you call a company that attracts 91+% of the consumers to their store every week dead? I sure wouldn't but I will say radio listening continues to slowly fall. Still, I must admit, radio has defended itself well and in any other type of business. I doubt a 7-8% loss in customers over a couple of decades when the number of options available to consumers has increased dramatically is truly seen as a sinking ship.

I'm not a radio cheerleader because I work in radio. Radio is a form of communication. The device you hear this communication on is what is changing. In my opinion, saying radio is dead is like saying so many people text that using your vocal chords to converse is dead.

Let's look at TV. Is it fair to say broadcast TV is dead because almost everyone has cable and a few have online viewing services? So few watch TV on a television set not connected to a cable or internet now, how could even one broadcast station survive? The truth is, most do quite nicely. The device you view the broadcast TV signal over is what has changed.

Yes, we can all point out very dead in the water stations and those stations that are hugely successful. I know of stations where is you paid the monthly operating cost you could lease the station virtually forever (and those expenses can be quite low for some owners). I know of some stations that truly might be lucky to have a weekly cume of 100 if anyone bothered to commission a survey. I know of stations doing so well you think they could never flounder, leading their market in billing and listeners year after year for decades. There are as many individual cases as there are stations, but I'm talking radio as a whole, an industry, and in my mind radio still looks pretty much alive. Using specific stations to make the point is akin to judging McDonalds' success or failure by looking at one location.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but when I say radio is dead, I mean it in the following ways:

1: The art of radio is dead. Presentation, formatics, actually giving a damn about the sound and personality of a station, not to mention having actual personalities on the air. Live, local, personable jocks who know the music, know the market, and relate to both. No, "phone scams" and call-ins about your chosen hot topic of the shift don't cut it. Jocks used to do shows, not shifts. The fact that we've gotten away from that mentality says everything there is to say on this note.

2: The technology is unpopular. Some will say this is the key reason. It's not. The problem is mainly the content. But the problem is also, to a slightly lesser degree, the delivery method. We know this because, while people are streaming traditional stations online, those numbers pale in comparison to independent streams, podcasts and pure-play outlets. Don't let the naysayers tell you otherwise, either, because the studies they cite don't count the whole of the online radio environment, and their denial shows where their heads truly are. Listeners get a better, more tailored experience from the smaller streams, podcasts and personalized pure-play services. They hear what they want when they want to hear it. They don't have to wait through 8-minute-long stopsets every half-hour to get to the next song which probably isn't going to be the one they hoped to hear anyway. To some degree, that's programming, but technology holds radio back from being a comprehensive all-in-one "app" that gives the listener control.

3: Mismanagement and bankruptcy. Let's face it: the majors have destroyed this business, and as The Big Boys go, so the rest of the industry follows. That's always been the way in radio, and that's the way it will end. There is so much debt hanging over their heads right now that they will never get out of it alive. And I mean that quite literally: the people who have racked up those red digits will never live to see the day they're paid off, if that day ever comes. And if they're sinking with all that money pumped in, who's going to take on the liability when they try to sell it all off? Oh, sure, you'll get some stations snapped up in a few rounds, but it's not going to be more than a decade before the overhead outweighs the profit, and the real estate alone is going to be worth more than the business being done. It's just not worth it anymore.

So yes, radio is very much dead. It just doesn't want to admit that to itself yet.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

Listeners get a better, more tailored experience from the smaller streams, podcasts and personalized pure-play services. They hear what they want when they want to hear it. They don't have to wait through 8-minute-long stopsets every half-hour to get to the next song which probably isn't going to be the one they hoped to hear anyway.

Click to expand...

Part of that is that the technology is still maturing. As online distribution of content grows, there will by necessity need to be an improved distribution service, because right now the services you describe cost the provider per-listener. Continued growth will demand a system which is more like terrestrial broadcasting, where the cost to provide the service is fixed and each additional listener costs nothing extra. Until then, all the smaller streams, podcasts and pure-play services will remain a minority and not as relevant to radio as one would presume.

That's not to say those services will remain relatively irrelevant, but as the technology improves it will cost more for them to operate, else they remain tied to a limited-audience model. Those costs are going to have to be recovered, and there are two probable and viable models: Either subscribers will pay for access to their favorite stream or podcast, or there will be commercial content. Here come those long stopsets again ... it's an economic reality.

I see it all equalizing out as more and more of our lives are Internet connectivity-based ... and not in the favor of the smaller services.

That's merely a matter of the RIAA not wanting to play ball. They'll have to get on board eventually, because the technology is maturing by the day.

In reading the remarks so far, I have a couple of questions:

Do you honestly believe broadcast station owners have chosen to offer a presentation that the typical radio listener finds substandard? If you were a radio station owner would you intentionally offer a subpar and ineffective product or would you try to offer content the audience wants?

I used to work Top 40 as a jock back in the day. I loved it and loved the excitement of hearing that jock where all the posts were hit and everything was flawless. Alas, that is not radio anymore. Tastes have changed. I remember listening to radio differently than people seem to today.

To say the technology is unpopular, I think this depends more on demographic but it certainly is not dead. If about 92% of America came to you business each week would your business be dead? Would you just close the doors?

Corporate Radio has saved and hurt the business from my perspective. The thing we need to remember, corporate or individual owner, radio is a business. Nobody charged with running a business will make an intentional decision to cause the company to lose money and every company will obtain the best they can to maintain their stations. They just do not want to turn a profit but distance themselves a far above their competition as possible as well. So they want the best so they can be the best.

I believe the Big Boys paid way too much for stations in the buying frenzy as they bolstered their portfolios and learned that doubling the spot load was not the way to go. That forced less costly operations for sure but it also forced the support services to rise up and provide effective products to allow this. And that helped radio in general.

My opinion is programming is just what the listener ordered. I will concede tough decisions are made but just like any other business, you give the customer what they want and I believe radio does this because it would have already vanished if it didn't. Absolutely nobody runs a business giving people what they don't want.

I believe the radio listening device is changing giving over the air radio what we can call non-traditional listening platforms. Is over the air television dead because I watch it on cable, on Hulu, Netflix or whatever? The answer is no it isn't, only the platform for viewing has changed.

Many people claim radio died when satellite delivered formats appeared about 1981 and small market stations jumped on the offerings. As unexciting the formats are in my personal opinion, they certainly made it possible for hundreds if not thousands of station survive in small markets as cable TV took hold and started selling advertising and as more frequencies opened up meaning the new station on the local dial would get some of what you always had in your pocket.

I believe in the coming years we will see radio listening be much like broadcast television is now. As we know, TV is not dead but the traditional platform, over the air, is pretty close. I've been researching internet based radio and my findings are over the air stations and the big corporate internet only streamers have the vast majority of listeners. Some college internet only stations, even with promotion and apps only achieve an audience of under 1% of the student body. Of the internet only private stations, getting as many as 10 listeners at a time is more wished for than ever achieved even with decent promotion and a history of a few years. These low numbers don't allow a business plan to at least recover costs and/or time spent. I think we have a good way to go before we see many drastic changes.

It's really impossible to generalize. Radio is dead for those who can't find their favorite format. For everyone else, radio is fine. That depends on the market, but even as obscure as opera is, there are non-commercial stations that play opera, bluegrass, and folks music. So you can't even generalize about formats.

The Toyota Camry is one of the best selling cars in America. Why? Because it's a great combination of price, features, reliability, and comfort. Did I also mention price? Radio is the Toyota Camry of devices. It's nothing flashy. There are fancier cars with bigger engines. But for most people, the Camry is just fine.

b-turner said:

Do you honestly believe broadcast station owners have chosen to offer a presentation that the typical radio listener finds substandard? If you were a radio station owner would you intentionally offer a subpar and ineffective product or would you try to offer content the audience wants?

Click to expand...

I totally and absolutely believe that. I believe that radio station operators are, for the most part, only concerned with profits and quality is only important if it is can be exploited as a gimmick to boost profits. Otherwise, radio station owners want to reach the maximum number of people possible by appealing to the lowest common denominator. I also believe that what Trout and Ries wrote in their book "Marketing Warfare" is correct. You do not succeed in business by striving to be good, you only have to be better than your competitors. It's a classic example of the adage, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Since most radio stations basically suck in terms of the product the put out over the air, all a station has to do in order to succeed is to suck a little bit less than the competition. Eventually, in the fullness of time, the competitive technologies that offer an alternative to terrestrial broadcast radio will turn OTA radio into an historical memory, like analog broadcast TV or telegrams.

There are some who'll attempt to justify an optimistic vision of radio's future by co-opting the new technologies and declaring that they, too, are "radio". That's always a good trick to make it look like something isn't being replaced. Just pretend that the replacement is simply a continuation.

Radio does continue to enjoy some success, due to several different factors. One of those factors is sheer consumer inertia. Few listeners really care all that much about radio. It's a pleasant background noise to turn on in the car, or to break the silence in an office or workshop. They don't like it, but they don't dislike it. It's a bland, neutral, inoffensive part of the background noise of everyday life, like the Muzak in a store. Recently, one of the biggest pet supplies chains in the US stopped paying for background music. Their stores are now silent. Almost no one noticed! Dropping background music didn't change their sales even a little bit!

Another factor is that new technologies take time to catch on. The next time anyone is driving around on the public streets, take note of how many cars on the road are ten years old or older. Maybe new cars have new satellite receivers and other technologies in the dash, but most cars are still equipped with just an AM/FM radio, and the AM button is never used.

But most important is that broadcasters are more concerned with no offending anyone than with pleasing anyone. There's a reason why vanilla is the best selling flavor of ice cream. It's almost no one's favorite, but no one objects to it.

TheBigA said:

The Toyota Camry is one of the best selling cars in America. Why? Because it's a great combination of price, features, reliability, and comfort. Did I also mention price? Radio is the Toyota Camry of devices. It's nothing flashy. There are fancier cars with bigger engines. But for most people, the Camry is just fine.

Click to expand...

There is an excellent example of making the comparison to bland, boring vanilla seem like a great thing. Very few people like the Camry (I say that as the owner of another ultra-vanilla car, a Corolla). But neither does anyone dislike the Camry. It's dull, bland and boring. It'll do until something better comes along. That's radio today, dull, bland and boring, but it'll do until something better comes along.

Avid Listener said:

That's radio today, dull, bland and boring, but it'll do until something better comes along.

Click to expand...

Once again, it's still the top selling car in the country. That says a lot about the decisions people make.

"Something better" will probably be more expensive. Most people aren't interested in that trade-off. If people want "something better" for radio, they can pay for Sirius. Some do. But most don't.

I will admit to Avid Listener that I have been told the following:

Never do everything you can do because in good times or bad, you must demonstrate success by taking small steps of expanding or bettering your product. Taking a step back or making a budget cut is failure.

I was taught in small market radio that you want to be the favorite of only a few but the best option on the dial for the vast majority of listeners.

Both of these comments would apply to any business. My Dad, in his 80s, still makes an incredible spaghetti sauce I've consumed all my life. Only one person has ever rivaled my Dad's recipe. When dining out I find a good spaghetti sauce in a restaurant might be a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10. If it tasted like my Dad's I suspect many people might not like it as well as the "5" the restaurant offers. The "5" means everyone will like the sauce, even me. If dining there, as a consumer, I'd noticed if something changed. If it wasn't an improvement I'd think they might not be doing as well as they had in the past. Since radio is like a restaurant that needs the masses to dine there to be successful, you have to craft something that reaches as many people as possible.

So, in that respect, I feel radio professionals do the best they can in creating the perfect station for as many as they can attract in their target audience. I say this because every radio person has a job because of their abilities and talents. When only your past performance is the deciding factor in getting a job, the thought of doing less than your best never is considered. Sure, as a jock you might have to be less than you can be but even in those cases you find a way to shine without getting out of that box your PD put you in. And I think it is pretty common, no matter how good the program director is, that you, as the jock can do a better job programming the station.

b-turner said:

And I think it is pretty common, no matter how good the program director is, that you, as the jock can do a better job programming the station.

Click to expand...

Do you hang out with Scooter?

The people saying radio is "dead" are either out of work, bitter jocks or trying to get you to listen to a podcast. Or both.

Ravens said:

The people saying radio is "dead" are either out of work, bitter jocks or trying to get you to listen to a podcast. Or both.

Click to expand...

Or none of the above, but thanks for playing; we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

JeffM - not sure how Scooter contributes to the discussion. Please explain.

The only Scooter I knew was a dog with that nickname that had a nasty habit that made him a permanent outside dog, if you get my drift.

Ravens, you might be more on target with your comments. There is no denying time spent listening and the total reach has fallen with the advent of other options but I sure cannot say radio is anywhere near dead. I admit radio needs to reinvent itself and I maintain a watch for thinking that is outside the box. It is pretty certain the first attempts will not be successful but watched, honed and improved. I'm not talking music formats here but thinking that is outside the box. For example, when Ted Turner launched CNN early in the cable TV days, the industry balked saying it would never work. History would say differently. CNN was thinking outside the box in my mind...at least it was then.

TheBigA said:

Once again, it's still the top selling car in the country. That says a lot about the decisions people make.

"Something better" will probably be more expensive. Most people aren't interested in that trade-off. If people want "something better" for radio, they can pay for Sirius. Some do. But most don't.

Click to expand...

You miss the point of your own metaphor. The plain, vanilla, boring car is the best selling when compared to every other kind of car one-on-one. But the real comparison is the plain, boring, vanilla car on the one hand, and all the exciting, interesting cars combined on the other. While no one single member of the category of exciting, interesting cars will ever outsell the plain, boring, vanilla car, eventually all of the exciting, interesting cars combined will sell so well as a group that the plain, boring, vanilla car will either change itself into something exciting and interesting, or it will go the way of the Model T. And as long as the same people who have turned radio into plain, boring, vanilla entertainment remain in charge, then radio will remain plain, boring and vanilla.

You use Sirius as an example, but that's missing the point. It will be the combined impact of all satellite formats, plus the effects of streaming internet-to-go, plus the effects of easier to use personal music library play-back systems, plus whatever additional new technologies that come along that will collectively, as a group, gang up on and beat terrestrial radio into a feeble, bloody pulp. It won't be dead, but it will be a feeble shadow of its former self.

Ravens said:

The people saying radio is "dead" are either out of work, bitter jocks or trying to get you to listen to a podcast. Or both.

Click to expand...

Or, they are like me, who used to look forward to listening to the radio and who now regrets the loss of one of his favorite entertainment media because it has turned from something "lively" into something that's more like a wax replica of something alive. Calling radio "dead" is usually hyperbole. The more apt comparison is comparing a bowl of real fruit or flowers into a bowl of plastic replicas of fruit or flowers. Radio used to be "live", now it's "fake".

Avid Listener said:

It will be the combined impact of all satellite formats, plus the effects of streaming internet-to-go, plus the effects of easier to use personal music library play-back systems, plus whatever additional new technologies that come along that will collectively, as a group, gang up on and beat terrestrial radio into a feeble, bloody pulp. It won't be dead, but it will be a feeble shadow of its former self.

Click to expand...

And yet with all of those other choices, you still seem to spend most of your time listening to plain vanilla.

The fact is that people don't listen to technology. They listen to content. And all of the new technology choices you listed all offer plain vanilla.

TheBigA said:

And yet with all of those other choices, you still seem to spend most of your time listening to plain vanilla.

The fact is that people don't listen to technology. They listen to content. And all of the new technology choices you listed all offer plain vanilla.

Click to expand...

I do not listen to plain vanilla. I either listen to specific programs on the radio, such as Prairie Home Companion or Fresh Aire, or I listen to my own collection of music using a converter that plays my own collection of MP3s over a blank spot on my FM radio. When I'm traveling in some areas, there is a college station that transmits over the same frequency and interferes with my gadget, so I'll listen to a different station, usually on the low end of the FM dial where I can hear BBC World Service, classical music, or talk and interview shows. I never choose to listen to vanilla, except when I'm in my wife's car and she wants to listen to a boring station, and I placate her by going along. After all, Happy Wife = Happy Life.

As for content, those choices I mention include both plain vanilla and butterscotch ripple and butter pecan and chocolate fudge and many other flavors. My personal library playback device only has "vanilla" in the sense that there are a few high-end French Vanilla with vanilla bean bits songs scattered amongst the other good stuff.

And it though it should go without saying, when talking to you it does need to be said, metaphors only hold up to a point. I'm not suggesting that every single song played on tight-playlist radio is a dull, boring song. It's the mind-numbing repetition of the same few good songs that leads to boredom. On those rare occasions when my wife insists on putting on "The River", I'll often hear a song that I haven't heard in a while, which will prompt me to add all the songs from the album that one song came from onto my PM3 player, and I'll enjoy that entire album for a day or two, then I'll move on.

A great example was hearing "Piano Man" for the 47,000th time. I had forgotten how good that album was. "Travelin' Prayer", "Ain't No Crime", "You're My Home", "The Ballad of Billy the Kid", "Worse Comes to Worst", "Stop in Nevada", "If I Only Had the Words (To Tell You)", "Somewhere Along the Line", and "Captain Jack" were all really great songs. Some were better than others, but collectively that was a great album.

You're right about people not listening to technology, except as a means to an end. If I can hear really great songs that I really like and/or not be interrupted by inane jingles and DJ chatter, not to mention badly made commercials, than whatever technology is the means to that end, that's the technology I'm using.

Avid Listener said:

You're right about people not listening to technology, except as a means to an end. If I can hear really great songs that I really like and/or not be interrupted by inane jingles and DJ chatter, not to mention badly made commercials, than whatever technology is the means to that end, that's the technology I'm using.

Click to expand...

For most people, based on the research I see and do myself, they can hear what they like on the plain boring vanilla radio. It may be boring to you, but it's what they seem to like. And far be it from me to criticize them. If they want butterscotch ripple, we also have that in stock, and it costs us the exact same money to do that. But it doesn't seem to have the same effect as plain old vanilla.