Localism and Radio

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If the people demonstrate they don't care about localism, who are we to force it on them?

In politics, in religion, in social contacts AND in broadcasting, it is best to accomplish your goals without FORCE. It was my good fortune a couple of lifetimes ago to work for one of the masters, one of the geniuses of putting LOCAL into radio: Jerrell Shepherd. He served up localism (in his day) in such a way that it was not FORCE, but was simply appealing, and practical. If we could re-incarnate Jerrell today and bring him over to the world of broadcasting as we know it today, I don't know if he would summons up a brand new streak of genius and show us how to work that magic in our circumstances.... or would he look at the industry, throw up his hands, and declare his intention to relocate to Maine and devote his life to building wooden boats.

Localism need not be something kin to quinine style bitter medicine. Done right, it is a seductive, inviting form of broadcasting. I don't know if any of us are genius enough to implement the concept in today's culture in a method and a time-frame to be commercially successful. Maybe the well has been poisoned beyond reclamation by a couple of generations of head-banging steroid-like programming content.

 

[TheBigA]

Localism need not be something kin to quinine style bitter medicine. Done right, it is a seductive, inviting form of broadcasting.

Let's put my comment back in context for a second:

If we work hard to build a local radio station that's designed to serve the small area of license, and the majority of people who live there choose to listen to the big city corporate station 45 miles away, what's the point of localism? Aren't we just legislating something as an ideal, rather than something for actual use?

 

[SirRoxalot]

If we work hard to build a local radio station that's designed to serve the small area of license, and the majority of people who live there choose to listen to the big city corporate station 45 miles away, what's the point of localism? Aren't we just legislating something as an ideal, rather than something for actual use?

That's not what has typically happened. Small town radio was gutted not because it wasn't profitable, but because large corporations overspent on small market signals, and either tried to turn them into rimshots of bigger markets, or automated them assuming that small town people would rather hear big-city radio.

Economics were part of the reason. You can't pay for local talent when you're burdened with unrealistic debt. The whole concept of "synergies" was developed, and the local component evaporated.

 

[gr8oldies]

I've never heard anyone in a small town distinguish between "big city radio" and "small town radio" as a concept. No one says "Ah want to hear some high school kid stumbling througfh the farm report and not that Classic Rock station"They listen to what they like and don't listen to what they don't. The farther away from the big city that you, are, the better opportunity you have to be a service and be profitable. We still have stations like that here in Ohio, but they are at least 50 miles from the nearest bigger market. Other signals still get in and are listend to, however. I fought that battle in a bedroom community; the folks would barely shop in the town (which wasn't all that small) let alone care about a station that originated there. You could not pull them away from the general market stations.

 

[TheBigA]

Small town radio was gutted not because it wasn't profitable, but because large corporations overspent on small market signals, and either tried to turn them into rimshots of bigger markets, or automated them assuming that small town people would rather hear big-city radio.

You're twisting my comment to serve your anti-corporate agenda.

If you read this thread, you'll see that this is about small town radio stations that seek to program to their community. I'm talking about 5K AM stations that are trying to do radio the old way, with local DJs and local sponsors. And they're getting killed by large market corporate stations 45 miles away.

My point is that if the public has a choice between a small local AM, and a large FM station 45 miles away with the same format, they choose the big station. This is a documented fact. And now that signals aren't restricted any more by coverage patterns, and people in Biloxi can listen to a radio station in Detroit, it hurts the small stations in Biloxi.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You're twisting my comment to serve your anti-corporate agenda.

If you read this thread, you'll see that this is about small town radio stations that seek to program to their community. I'm talking about 5K AM stations that are trying to do radio the old way, with local DJs and local sponsors. And they're getting killed by large market corporate stations 45 miles away.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply stating what I observed in small market radio since 1990. There are plenty of radio stations "doing radio the old way" that are 45 miles from much larger markets that are doing very well IF they don't have a ridiculous amount of debt. Most of the stations that are in trouble are owned by large corporations, not smaller groups or local owners, and are no longer programmed to super-serve a local audience.

As you said:

A lot of things that might work in rural Alabama simply won't work in Chicago, and vice versa. As I said, that realization is why the big companies are trying to get out of the small markets. Like me, they recognize they don't know anything about small markets.

For once, I agree with you.

 

[TheBigA]

Most of the stations that are in trouble are owned by large corporations, not smaller groups or local owners, and are no longer programmed to super-serve a local audience.

The example I gave, if you scroll back, is not owned by a publicly held company, but a private one. It tried doing live and local to serve the small town, with lots of local promotions, and the small town chose to listen to the big corporate station 45 miles away. This same company owns several small AM stations in small towns, and they're all suffering the same fate. One by one, the owner is forced to give up on loocal programming due to lack of community support.

 

[TheBigA]

Most of the stations that are in trouble are owned by large corporations, not smaller groups or local owners, and are no longer programmed to super-serve a local audience.

Just want to point out that while the corporations may be in trouble, their stations are not. The highest rated radio stations in just about every city in the Top 200 are owned by big companies, some of which are struggling. But the stations are continuing to do well.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Just want to point out that while the corporations may be in trouble, their stations are not. The highest rated radio stations in just about every city in the Top 200 are owned by big companies, some of which are struggling. But the stations are continuing to do well.

What better indicator could you have that CORPORATE, not local management is at fault for the current state of radio? Big corporations simply overspent to create their clusters, and local stations simply can't improve profits enough to pay for the corporations' mistakes. Corporate has continually cut operating budgets, reduced staffing, and arguably reducing the quality of programming, which hurts radio as an industry precisely when radio is battling new technologies for listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

What better indicator could you have that CORPORATE, not local management is at fault for the current state of radio?

Huh? Why must you look for "fault?"

 

[John FL]

I have to agree with SirRoxalot regarding corporate mistakes. If we look at the overall current state of radio, how can we not draw a conclusion that the few and powerful didn’t make at least a few mistakes. While we understand these are not non-profit entities, the focus has been almost exclusively on hitting monthly revenue targets. Format content that can enhance a listener’s experience is not really a metric goal. Slamming the hand that feeds you seems to be a perfectly acceptable way of doing business as well.

So, even for that small, local station that doesn’t get big ratings, a small business owner can still find the local mom and pop station a better bang for the buck, especially if it does bring results. What does an average small business owner see in big city radio? They hear almost sweeper after sweeper talking about more music is good and commercials/DJ patter are bad. This doesn’t just happen where I live but there are stations that say “50 minutes of music every hour.” So when the stop set starts, you have to wonder how many people think 10 minutes of spots will play instead of 5 representing 2 breaks. The bottom line is at least in cars, I suspect spot sets aren't really heard.

I know the David Eduardo’s of the world will have all the stats and supporting documentation to justify what the big stations do as good business. I, on the other hand, observe people’s behavior. Almost without fail, (and I have done this myself)when I am in the company of others in the car, as the commercials play the following happens. Either the radio gets turned off, the volume is lowered, a CD already loaded is played or there is that opportunity to make that urgent cell phone call. I think most have figured out when one station runs spots, the others do too. One day, someone from the agencies and/or the sponsors should take a listen to the stations they pay big bucks to. Maybe this will get some quality back on the air but I’m not holding my breath on either.

Perhaps the small local stations value their listeners and sponsors more or at least give the impression they do. This isn’t true in all cases and there would be little value for a major sponsor to buy time on a specialized format such as Bohemian Rhapsodies. But for the guy who owns a German restaurant in that small town could find advertising on that station critical to the success of his business. That’s the marriage of format/listeners to sponsors and big is not always better.

 

[TheBigA]

Format content that can enhance a listener’s experience is not really a metric goal.

Let's be clear about something: The CEOs don't make content decisions at radio stations. They hire people who do. Those people are the ones who are responsible for content. Now maybe THOSE people aren't too good, but a lot of them are radio veterans with more than 20 years programming experience. At least the ones at stations that matter. CEOs take care of the money. That's how things work. So the idea that programming is a CEO responsibility, or that it should be, is wrong. As for money affecting programming, my experience is: Only if you let it. The fact that everyone has the same problem now, regardless of ownership or market size, commercial or non-commercial, broadcast or satellite, tells me the issue is more than corporate mistakes.

Here's a wakeup call for programming people: The majority of listeners use radio for background audio. They aren't hanging on every word of the DJ. They aren't paying attention to the quality of the segue between songs. Are they in the same key? Did they just repeat the same sweeper they used in the last hour? All that gets past the notice of even the P1s.

Listeners hate commercials. They hate ten minutes of commercials. They hate two minutes of commercials. It doesn't matter. They don't like them. And since they have commercial-free alternatives, they don't have to sit through them. But commercials are the ONLY revenue generators radio has. Complain all you want about them, but they're a reality. The bad news is ad rates have plummeted. NOT because of CEOs, programming, or ratings, but because of an over-supply of inventory. That is what's causing the revenue crisis.

So my point in all this is you guys are trying to make this a programming issue. It isn't. For the most part, the listeners don't have a problem with programming. The uber-music fans who want huge playlists filled with obscure music left five years ago for satellite, and they're now unhappy there too. They were never going to be happy with radio no matter what you did.

So here's where things are: Given the number of stations and the advertising depression, listeners have choices: If they want personality with their music, they will have to compromise on their format. There isn't enough money to support personalities in all formats. Right now, country seems to be the format that has the most personalities, followed by urban. If they just want music without talk, AC seems to be the format. The format next on the Beautiful Music train to nowhere: Oldies, followed by classic rock. These two formats will be gone from the radio dial in five years. Ratings don't matter, because the advertisers don't want them. Those two formats will go to non-commercial radio. If audiences want those formats, they will have to pay a monthly fee. Otherwise, break out the ipods. The lesson from PPM is simple: Too much talk in a music format loses audience, regardless of how brilliant and engaging that talk is. That's not a corporate radio problem. That will affect all radio regardless of ownership.

I think everyone making decisions understands this. They've had these discussions already. They know what the choices are. There's no way to return to the past. Outlawing corporate radio won't result in the mass hiring of great personalities. We need to move forward, accept the cards we've been dealt, and do what's best.

 

[Randy Lahey]

Local radio isn't just about bake-sales and barn dances...although it may be in your town.
Being local is about giving a local community the information that is important to them. Talking Nascar definately wouldn't go over well where I'm from (western Canada), but I bet it might do pretty well in in the southern states.

The problem with alot of these mom and pop stations is their idea of local is...for lack of a better word...boring.

We don't need lotto numbers on the radio, nor do we need funeral announcements. I can find those things on the interernet in 2 minutes. I'm sure there will be some old people that complain, but soon they'll be dead. lol Or a better way to say it, the station shouldn't cater to people in their 70s. The advertisers don't want to advertise to 70 year olds, yet it seems for some of them there target demo is 65 plus which doesn't make sense to me.

Randy.

 

[radioray]

"Let's be clear about something: The CEOs don't make content decisions at radio stations. They hire people who do. Those people are the ones who are responsible for content. Now maybe THOSE people aren't too good, but a lot of them are radio veterans with more than 20 years programming experience. At least the ones at stations that matter. CEOs take care of the money. That's how things work. So the idea that programming is a CEO responsibility, or that it should be, is wrong. As for money affecting programming, my experience is: Only if you let it. The fact that everyone has the same problem now, regardless of ownership or market size, commercial or non-commercial, broadcast or satellite, tells me the issue is more than corporate mistakes."

Absolute NONSENSE. CEO's are just as human as everyone else and as my radio programming professor taught me over 25 years ago "there are three areas where every dude is an expert, sports, sports bars, and radio programming". It is ridiculous to think they "stay away" from this stuff. I have a case in point. My friend Ron Smith was Music Director of WJMK Chicago (Magic 104) circa 1986 or so and Mel Karmazin, then the CEO of his group arrived at O'Haire, asked the limo driver to turn on WJMK (which, due to the rules was the only station he could own at the time) and heard a song he didn't know. When he arrived at the station on Michigan Avenue he screamed bloody hell the GM who then called in Gary Price who then called in Ron Smith about this song. They said something about it being a lunar, spice category and Karmazin ripped them a new one. Then he was about to go nuclear about the Buckinghams song "Dont you care" thinking it was the same deal 10 minutes later, but that was (and is) a Chicago area hit. Like Ron Smith told me "Oh my God, THANK GOD we had the research to prove that one". So spare me the BS about CEO's not meddling in programming. That is ONE example. I have others.


"Here's a wakeup call for programming people: The majority of listeners use radio for background audio. They aren't hanging on every word of the DJ. They aren't paying attention to the quality of the segue between songs. Are they in the same key? Did they just repeat the same sweeper they used in the last hour? All that gets past the notice of even the P1s."

I agree. But it adds up. A bad segue here. A crappy phoner there. No personality at all overall overnights. I often use the analogy of the childrens tale about the fox who wants to eat sheep so the fox drapes on a sheeps outfit so superficially it is all okay....but he cant hide the tail. On the superficial surface, well done, but when you scratch, something is wrong. And I think that is the case with a ton of the voicetracked stations today. The listeners will label them "good enough, I guess, they're okay, I suppose". But there is something missing to make it special. I doubt any all-voictracked station will ever earn a tribute site. I think the stations that earn that status earn more in ratings, revnues and profits than others do.

"Listeners hate commercials. They hate ten minutes of commercials. They hate two minutes of commercials. It doesn't matter. They don't like them. And since they have commercial-free alternatives, they don't have to sit through them. But commercials are the ONLY revenue generators radio has. Complain all you want about them, but they're a reality. The bad news is ad rates have plummeted. NOT because of CEOs, programming, or ratings, but because of an over-supply of inventory. That is what's causing the revenue crisis."

The dumbest thing I have read in a long time. What new radio stations have signed on in New York, LA or Chicago? None (maybe 88.7 pulse NY could count as a new stations). So why are they down 20-30-40%? The oversupply somehow was the "right supply" in the good days, no? That means our problems are caused by other radio problems and overall economic problems rather than an oversupply of radio signals in top markets. Your argument would hold water if you were making it when the economy was booming and if (as was NOT the case) the radio trends were down.

"So here's where things are: Given the number of stations and the advertising depression, listeners have choices: If they want personality with their music, they will have to compromise on their format. There isn't enough money to support personalities in all formats."

Sure there is. Train sales. Don't cancel RAB's.

"Right now, country seems to be the format that has the most personalities, followed by urban."

And they are solid and healthy formats, no? Unlike virtually no-personality smooth jazz. What has happened to Smooth Jazz (background music radio for the mostpart) is the best example of the dangers of no personality radio.

"If they just want music without talk, AC seems to be the format."

Not NO talk. BAD talk. Talk that doesn't relate, talk that isn't about them (a 22 year old DJ on an AC station hired because he was cheap talking about a great rock concert for example....bad talk...hire the right air staff!)

"The format next on the Beautiful Music train to nowhere: Oldies, followed by classic rock. These two formats will be gone from the radio dial in five years. Ratings don't matter, because the advertisers don't want them. Those two formats will go to non-commercial radio. If audiences want those formats, they will have to pay a monthly fee. Otherwise, break out the ipods."

Nope, disagree.

"The lesson from PPM is simple: Too much talk in a music format loses audience, regardless of how brilliant and engaging that talk is. That's not a corporate radio problem. That will affect all radio regardless of ownership."

Nope, disagree.

 

[TheBigA]

So spare me the BS about CEO's not meddling in programming. That is ONE example. I have others.

I'm sure lots of them "meddle," just as restaurant owners stick their heads in the kitchen. But I think a lot of people in radio spend too much time focusing on the CEOs as though they are the ones making all the decisions. We've turned these guys into stars, and they're not. They're just suits. There are so many other people that are far more interesting, why would anyone spend any time or attention on the CEOs? Makes no sense to me.

I think that is the case with a ton of the voicetracked stations today. The listeners will label them "good enough, I guess, they're okay, I suppose". But there is something missing to make it special.

There are 14,000 radio stations in this country. If only a handful of them are special, that's great. Otherwise, they wouldn't be special. It takes a dial full of crap to make the one station stand out. Not everyone can be great. You need a lot of average stations. We’re at a point that if the oldies station in your town sucks, then stream a good one from someplace else. The world has changed. It’s not 1962 anymore. We don’t hang out at the malt shop in penny loafers any more.

The dumbest thing I have read in a long time. What new radio stations have signed on in New York, LA or Chicago? None

How about thousands of stations on the internet? Maybe you haven’t heard, but there’s this new thing called a computer, and you can stream radio on it. Pandora has 30 million paying members. Add that to 20 million satellite listeners and that adds up to real competition, don’t you think? They take away listeners and advertisers. And advertising on the internet is a whole lot cheaper than 30 second spots. Especially since listeners hate 30 second spots. The world has changed. Maybe you missed it.

Look, you can disagree with me all you want. I don’t care. But the world has changed, regardless of what you say. But go ahead and pray for the RAB. They need your prayers.

 

[firepoint525]

Ideally, I suppose it would be best if all stations could be "live and local." However, any station that cannot afford to do so should not even try to do so. They would be doing the people that they might otherwise be hiring a favor by not doing so. If any of you have ever worked for a station that claimed to have "budgetary troubles," then you know that they work the absolute crap out of the people that they do hire! They want you to be "salaried," then they want you to work nights, weekends, holidays, overtime, etc., without ever being paid a dime extra for any of it! (One manager that I once worked for called a meeting in which he actually said, "don't expect to be paid for everything you do"!)

If station managers see their employees as their biggest liabilities, rather than their biggest assets, then RUN! RUN for the hills! A station like that, in which they kill employee morale by trying to make it seem like they think you aren't worth as much as they are paying you, is definitely NOT a station that you want to be working for!

Now managers say things like, "automation doesn't take vacations or ask for days off," etc., but I respond to that by saying that automation doesn't have mortgages, rent, and other utility bills to pay, so automation can work for less!

 

[KeithE4]

If station managers see their employees as their biggest liabilities, rather than their biggest assets, then RUN! RUN for the hills! A station like that, in which they kill employee morale by trying to make it seem like they think you aren't worth as much as they are paying you, is definitely NOT a station that you want to be working for!

"If?" How about "when," and it ain't just in radio; it's most, if not all businesses. And there's no place to run. Most corporations today consider employees to be liabilities, not assets. The term "human resources" is an oxymoron in the America of 2009, or 1999, or 1989, or 1929 for that matter. It's always been like this, especially when the economy is in the toilet. It's better for the bottom line to have as few of these Human Liabilities on the books as possible.

Now managers say things like, "automation doesn't take vacations or ask for days off," etc., but I respond to that by saying that automation doesn't have mortgages, rent, and other utility bills to pay, so automation can work for less!

One other fly in that ointment: The bank. It's far easier to get a loan for equipment than it is to finance the salaries of Human Liabilities employees. Physical equipment is an asset that can be repossessed. People are not. That's also why back pay is the last financial liability a company has to pay in a bankruptcy. Employees are unsecured creditors and, as such, are last in line.

 

[firepoint525]

Good points, Keith. The manager/owner at one station where I briefly worked did, indeed, treat me like a piece of property. He never even filed I-9 paperwork on me! Needless to say, my tenure there was short.

 

[Prais]

Firepoint's first paragraph in the 10:25am post sums up the BEST argument FOR automation I've seen here.

You can kvetch, but I'm in it for the money. My stations sounded good, too with great local news.

In 1969 I worked my #$% off when I started and it helped me learn. I never told my boss but I LOVED IT SO MUCH I would have volunteered instead of the minimum wage (and fringe bee of looking at the boss's daughter) that Ii got.

My staff doesn't have to like me. That's show biz, that's every biz
today.

I also agree with Keith's last post.

Sorry, but those are the realities.

 

[gr8oldies]

That's the fallacy of thinking that when all of the big companies are forced to sell their assets, some "real radio person:" is going to buy them, staff up like it was 1977 with 24/7 live DJs, five person news teams, four prize cars roaming the streets, etc. The bank that the "real radio person" wants the loan from is going to be the one that says "we don't think so!"