Weasels In the Hen House?

[pocket-radio]

Re: Financial Advice?

David, not all rewards are monetary.

My motivation really isn't personal. It's based more in my love of radio, which appears to be killing itself slowly, and my concern for a lot of people I know who have put blood, sweat, tears, and toil into an industry that they love, only to be dumped for reasons that have nothing to do with their talent or their performance. Even worse, their loss degrades the industry, reduces its value, and costs more listeners.

What you narrow-mindedly fail to get is that radio is not in the AM or FM business, but in the entertainment business. We are now seing several shares going to station streams in some of the PPM markets, and additional distribution chanels are becoming viable every day. I have several applications on the desktop of my iPhone that play "radio" for me, and the soon to arrive WiMax will radically channge the delivery of entertainment once the initial geek stage moves into broad acceptance.

Radio, broadcast via RF, may be on the wane (particularly AM, where most of the loss lies) but radio as distributed by other methods is just beginneing. To me, this is a fascinating time for those who have attracted strong talents and compelling programs and programming.

David, thank you for saying what’s true and what most people in radio who drink the kool-Aid can’t even begin to embrace. Seems living off hype and telling more lies isn’t going to slow the pace of technology and how people will decide to access their own brands of entertainment.

Top down programming to a mass audience is slowly dying. I known many radio people who salivated over declining newspaper readership. Well the same is slowly happening to radio as well. The untold story is, newspaper reader’s time shifted from the printed word, to online news. And print has capitalized on a viable web strategy. Radio has yet to crack, the internet code.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Spiralling Downward

Gentlemen, you would think that with all the challenges on the horizon, radio would be stockpiling talent, and bring in "bright young people" to create programming that appealed to a younger generation.

Instead, radio is chucking talent out the door at an increasing pace. Young talent? There's little interest in radio - especially corporate radio - and radio doesn't appear to be interested in them. They will gravitate toward the Internet because it will allow them to do things that corporate would never consider. And, startup costs are peanuts compared to acquiring a radio station.

Radio has - or at least had - the opportunity to use the Internet to expand their programming and their reach. Instead, it's just another outlet for the same old pap that the next generation is abandoning at an increasing rate.

I happen to be in a city with the two largest schools in the State University of NY system - both of which have strong communications programs. They're not identical. One is skewed toward corporate communications and advertising. One is skewed toward journalism and broadcasting. Since I have contacts there, I made some calls this morning, and asked a couple of friendly professors who teach upper-level communications courses to sound their students out about the possibility of going into the radio business. The response was almost universal - derisive laughter. There were a few students interested in going into sports broadcasting, and "might" consider radio as a starting point.

David, you quote "studies", but without disclosing when and where those studies were made, and what markets were included. If you're doing a study in NYC or LA, it's hardly applicable to most of the country. According to Arbitron's "Radio Today 2008" study, the single largest format - both in number of stations and listeners - is Country. Number of Country stations in NYC? NONE. In LA, the highest rated Country station draws less that a 2 share, compared with an average 12.7 share nationally. "Mexican Regional" is the highest rated Spanish language programming with a 3.4 share nationally.

What's the point? The point is that radio is a predominantly local business that should be programmed and managed locally, not by corporate decree. That's not what's happening now. If it were, radio would be evolving to meet the challenges of other technologies. In the past, radio created and influenced demand. Now, it attempts to reflect existing demand as determined by "research" and statistical analysis.

You may carry on into oblivion, gentlemen. You refuse to consider any interpretation of data other than your own. I'm not the only one who sees a growing body of evidence that radio is declining due to flawed programming practices. Your refusal to recognize the possibility is a classic example of hubris.

Meanwhile, Citadel dropped to 0.15 today. The broadcasting industry composite share value dropped from $267 to $241 - or -9.67%.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Spiralling Downward

The response was almost universal - derisive laughter. There were a few students interested in going into sports broadcasting, and "might" consider radio as a starting point.

The best owner I ever worked with would not hire anyone who had graduated from a communications department of a university. Experience had taught him that they were full of theory and short on pragmatism. That most such schools are not training people for radio is good... for radio.

When I had an opportunity to go to college, I was appalled by the dated and unrealistic curriculum of the communications school and so I took business and social science courses... business law to cultural anthropology. That was of great benefit to me, while nothing in the communications school would have been. I took one course in the school, called "Broadcast Management" and had a FedEx experience from it...

There is a need for broadcasters with a rounded background, with a bit of business and a bit of liberal arts. Your interest in communications schools give me deeper perspective on your attitudes.

David, you quote "studies", but without disclosing when and where those studies were made, and what markets were included.

As I said, the data is proprietary. But the overviews are just common sense and general knowledge of anyone who talks to the public. In fact, on the attitudes and feelings I've mentioned, there is no difference between top 10 markets and a market around 70th or 80th in rank. Since by the time we get to market 100, we have about 66% of the US population, that's enough.

Yes, I realize that there are about 10,000 radio stations that are not in the top 100 markets, but look beyond revenue... the ones in the big markets account for much of the total number of radio jobs, while many small market stations are not just "mom and pop" but mom, pop, son, daughter, uncle, brother in law, etc.

...the single largest format - both in number of stations and listeners - is Country. Number of Country stations in NYC? NONE. In LA, the highest rated Country station draws less that a 2 share, compared with an average 12.7 share nationally. "Mexican Regional" is the highest rated Spanish language programming with a 3.4 share nationally.

So? Radio is made up of many formats, and the population composition of each market determines which ones are used. If there is a 40% Mexican origin population, it's likely various forms of programming directed at this group will be used. If you look at PRISM groups, you can see why country shares vary by different markets... and if you look at the Census, you know why Memphis has more Urban formats than Fargo.

But with "Mexican Regional," to use one example, any city, whether it be New York or Denver or Des Moines or Phoenix where there are many first generation Mexicans will find the same shows as appealing where they are networked as where they originate and the same songs will be hits in one place as another.

That's why Delilah works almost always on AC stations, and why we have national charts that are broadly similar from market to market.

What's the point? The point is that radio is a predominantly local business that should be programmed and managed locally, not by corporate decree.

Radio should imporve the quality and entertainment value of its programming. I spend time in two smaller markets, Prescott/Flagstaff AZ and Palm Springs, CA. In both, the stations are mostly live and local... unfortunately, they are also mostly unbearable. Bad music rotations, sloppy air work, bad production and such. They obviously try very hard, but the qualiy is not compelling and the localism is not interesting or informative.

You may carry on into oblivion, gentlemen. You refuse to consider any interpretation of data other than your own.

Most radio research requires no interpretation. A good song is a good song, and a stiff is a stiff. Where the weakest point comes is in implementation, not in interpretation.

Meanwhile, Citadel dropped to 0.15 today. The broadcasting industry composite share value dropped from $267 to $241 - or -9.67%.

The entire NASDAQ was off 9%. Citing something that is not broadcasting specific as if it were is not fair.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Spiralling Downward

There is a need for broadcasters with a rounded background, with a bit of business and a bit of liberal arts. Your interest in communications schools give me deeper perspective on your attitudes.

My "interest" in communications schools was in response to BigA's post regarding his "Pollyanna" view of communications students interest in radio's future. They're interested in a lot of new media, but radio is seen as a monolithic corporate machine with little innovation.

As I said, the data is proprietary. But the overviews are just common sense and general knowledge of anyone who talks to the public. In fact, on the attitudes and feelings I've mentioned, there is no difference between top 10 markets and a market around 70th or 80th in rank. Since by the time we get to market 100, we have about 66% of the US population, that's enough.

Ah, "common sense" and "general knowledge". Yet "general knowledge" that conflicts with yours is discounted, even if it comes from sources like the RAB, which finds radio to be a much more personal medium than TV or print media. Most of the people that bend my ear because they know I'm in radio complain about repetition of music, "boring" announcers who are "always trying to sell something", and long commercial clusters.

Meanwhile, Citadel dropped to 0.15 today. The broadcasting industry composite share value dropped from $267 to $241 - or -9.67%.

The entire NASDAQ was off 9%. Citing something that is not broadcasting specific as if it were is not fair.

You don't really want to compare the broadcasting composite with the NASDAQ, S&P 500, or Dow over the last year, two years, or five years, do you?

 

[adma]

What is "radio" anyway?

Today, "radio" is starting to mean "content delivery" irrespective of the method of delivery.

Coming from Dr. Evil himself, this statement is significant and worth pondering. Whether the concept of "radio" becomes as irrelevant as the concept of "typewriter" relative to the computer...well, we'll see. Up to the beholder, I suppose.

Anyway, if today's radio *ahem* broadcast media students are more professionally minded: well, why not. Beats the days of slackjawed dropouts/ne'er-do-wells who wanna be rock DJs and play a lot of records and meet a lot of stars and ---- a lot of 14 year olds. (Only to wind up middle-aged drunkards with no employment prospects beyond radio, especially if a statutory rape charge appears on the record.)

 

[pocket-radio]

You've heard the phrase radio eats its young.

The new version for today is - Radio ate their young all of them.

Almost like "the dingo ate your baby"

 

[Radknowski]

I don't even know why I'm putting my foot in this puddle, as I'll likely get toasted for who I am, what I don't know, why I no longer work in radio and what I do now... which is paint and refurbish offices and houses. I'm a small-medium-market-never-wuz, who decided to chuck radio and rejoin his family's very successful construction and remodeling business in Buffalo, Nueva York.

These days, I observe guys on our work crews (primarily 21-45) listen to radio. Headphones are not permitted for safety and insurance reasons. I get to observe women (primarily 18-60) who are listening to radio in the offices and businesses at which we are contracted.

I feel like Lee Abrams in that legendary (if not urban legend) hitch-hiking tour across the country many years ago, during which he was said to observe people's listening habits, which lead him to come up with the Superstars AOR format.

'Cept I'm sure Lee was a lot smarter. You guys are a helluva lot smarter than I, but I can tell you this. Radio blows and most people I come in contact with offer the same opinion, even though they seem to love listening to it at work.

The guys on our work crews bitch about "stations playing the same songs," yet they continue to listen and complain... and then they bring in their own mix CDs. Although they may be painters, plasterers and dry wall hangers, they are master craftsmen, well-paid and knowledgeable. One of our guys spent two hours helping a business manager fix her computer networking problems... on our time!

Women in offices are real eye-openers. Contest pigeons! They're sweet and funny but man, do they act like Pavlov's dogs... and they don't listen as much as they react.

A while ago, we used to hear XM or Sirius in offices from time to time. It's not that we go back to offices for follow-up (although, come to think of it, we do, depending on the job), but we're hearing more terrestrial radio as of late, even NPR jazz or blues in middays and the typical AC stations, many of which, women really aren't satisfied by (I know there's a line there, but I won't touch it with a ten foot shorting bar.)

Guys love personalities. A few weeks ago, Citadel's 97 Rock fired its long time night jock, Slick Tom Tiberi. Big deal you might say. Well, it was. This guy did a morning show at night and he was unique and entertaining as hell, using phones and a cast of characters, his listeners, in a way that Stern and Opie and Anthony would envy. And the guy was street funny as hell. You'd have thought 97 Rock fired their morning guy! That's all the guys on the crew talked about for days. Days! He was replaced by a staff guy who voice-tracks the night show.

From what I've been told by friends in the biz, Slick Tom also was consistently top three and often number one in Men 25-54; and highly rated in Persons 25-54. David could probably pull up the ratings on his computer.

I get the impression that you can do as many auditorium tests and call-out tests (whatever the methodology is these days) and find the top 300 testing songs in any format, but the stations that perform best are those that judiciously use the results of these tests to their advantage (whether they're AC, AOR, Classic Rock or Active Rock) combined with guts instincts and a measured dose of gut instinct, employ live, local personalities and place their trust in these personalities.

Instead, we seem to be seeing air talent being thrown overboard in all formats with a zeal not seen before.

Yes. I know times are critically tough. Our company has laid off two very skilled employees, but we've re-hired them when our contracts and work orders improved. While housing and contruction have been taking a beating nationally, our business has been strong and reasonably healthy, very likely because we're a local company, family-owned, carry near zero debt (my Uncle Oskie's famous words, "We pay cash!" + a well worn cuss word") We do outstanding work... and we guarantee performance. That's right, we Gare-RON-tee! (Use a New Orleans accent for best effect.)

I think Roxalot makes some very valid points here, at least from my observations. Like I said, I know all you guys are a helluva lot smarter than I and there's been some heated exchanges, but I thought I'd offer an observation from the front lines that some of you may or may not have been able to reconnoiter as effectively... just calling it working-man's research. Fort whatever it's worth... and I suspect a poster or two will say it's worth not a damn. So be it.



-Michael S. Radknowski, -Buffalo

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Spiralling Downward

Gentlemen, you would think that with all the challenges on the horizon, radio would be stockpiling talent, and bring in "bright young people" to create programming that appealed to a younger generation.

I think they are. And they're creating content that the younger generation use on their devices of choice, which are not radios.

As I've said, just creating programming for on-air radio won't attract non-radio listeners. That's like saying improving horses will get people to give up their cars. It's not going to happen. Radios are one-way devices. New media is interactive. That's where the future is, that's where the audiences are, and that's where the money is. Not on the air.

Radio has - or at least had - the opportunity to use the Internet to expand their programming and their reach. Instead, it's just another outlet for the same old pap that the next generation is abandoning at an increasing rate.

Really? Maybe you can show me a reference for that opinion.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Spiralling Downward

Radio has - or at least had - the opportunity to use the Internet to expand their programming and their reach. Instead, it's just another outlet for the same old pap that the next generation is abandoning at an increasing rate.

Really? Maybe you can show me a reference for that opinion.

Absolutely. As soon as you show me a reference for ANY of your opinions.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Spiralling Downward

Absolutely. As soon as you show me a reference for ANY of your opinions.

Just as I thought...you have nothing!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Spiralling Downward

Absolutely. As soon as you show me a reference for ANY of your opinions.

Just as I thought...you have nothing!

No, YOU have NOTHING. You've yet to post a single link to any source material for any of your opinions. Worse yet, I suspect that you don't even read an entire post longer than three lines, and you OBVIOUSLY don't read the source material at links that I've already provided.

Do I have source material that indicates that young people are abandoning radio at an increasing rate? I've posted links previously in the Radio Stocks thread, which you should be familiar with. One is the Arbitron Radio Today research for 2008. The other is the Arbitron Persons Using Radio report. That one is interactive, so you can easily see where AQH ratings for people under 35 have declined over the past five years. TSL is probably the biggest culprit. One might conclude that they don't listen as much because they don't find that the content interesting, compelling, informative, valuable - pick an adjective that suits your opinion.

As far as radio using the Internet, the vast majority of on-line programming is a repeat of the on-air product, which many people opine is homogeneous corporate "pap".

Before you respond with some pithy statement, you might consider actually READING the reports that I've linked to. For you to read them with an open mind would be well beyond my expectations.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Re: Spiralling Downward

. One might conclude that they don't listen as much because they don't find that the content interesting, compelling, informative, valuable -

Or, if "one" were to talk to real users of radio, they would find that there is simply not enough time in the day for all the stuff you can do today. Computers, 1000 channels of cable, video on demand, Blu-Ray, video games (over 130 million consoles of recent generation sold), texting, etc., etc.

There's nothing that wrong with radio... there are just more things to fragment each person's leisure time hours.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Spiralling Downward

You've yet to post a single link to any source material for any of your opinions.

I'm not the one making these accusations. It is up to the accuser to produce supporting documents.

I have said very clearly in THIS thread that radio is a device of the past, that radio companies are investing in new media (as CBS Radio announced today), and that young people are flocking to these new applications. That's why I say firing air staffs won't hurt radio companies in the long run, because air staffs were not holding listeners in the first place. So sending me to a chart about PUR doesn't prove your point.

TSL is probably the biggest culprit. One might conclude that they don't listen as much because they don't find that the content interesting, compelling, informative, valuable - pick an adjective that suits your opinion.

If one concluded that, one would be jumping to conclusions. Because, as I've pointed out, you yourself are engaging in activities now that you didn't do in the 80s, which is spending time on computer message boards. That eats up time. Time which COULD be spent listening to a radio. But that's just one of the new activities that didn't exist 25 years ago that distract potential radio listeners. It's not a function of "compelling radio," because lots of it exists. Not only in commercial radio, but in public radio, satellite radio, and everywhere else. But the audience, which used to be concentrated in one place, is now spread out among many other things.

What I've been advocating isn't some vague generalization about "compelling radio," because that's very subjective, but more interactive radio, where listeners can be more involved with what they hear. They can pick the music instead of a DJ or PD. They can decide when they hear the traffic report, not some reporter. They can decide what bits they want to hear, like Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin. And you can't do a lot of that with traditional top-down radio DJs playing music. That's why all that is a thing of the past, and why they are being systematically let go.

The bad news is that it will further dilute the audience. But that's not going to change, no matter what radio does.

As far as radio using the Internet, the vast majority of on-line programming is a repeat of the on-air product, which many people opine is homogeneous corporate "pap".

Once again, post some facts and figures on that. Clear Channel alone is creating unique online content ("Stripped" concerts and other things), CBS Radio has a tie-in with AT&T Blue Room. And a lot of stations, like Bonneville's WTOP, use their web site for a lot of LOCAL content. In fact, WTOP.com is the #1 source for local news in the nation's capital, beating out the local TV stations. So no, it's not just a repeat of the online product. Although that is very popular, and in most cases, online streams of the main signal are reaching more people than other internet streams. Why? Because it's BETTER and more compelling than most everything else on the internet.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio 101

There are a few things that you've forgotten about radio. One, radio is often listened to while engaged in other activities. I don't turn off the radio when I'm on a message board. In fact, I often have the radio on, either OTA or on-line, while engaged in other activities.

One problem with "interactive" media is that it requires interaction. Downloading songs to an MP3 player, setting up playlists, deciding what flavor of music you're into at a particular moment, adding new songs or podcasts because you heard them elsewhere - are all activities that require time and undivided attention. Radio? Turn it on. Push a button for the entertainment flavor that appeals to you at that moment. That ease of use is a key strength of the medium.

One other problem with the MP3 player and most other media is that you have to seek out new material. It isn't delivered to you automatically, and it isn't pre-selected by someone who sorts through the myriad new offerings and (supposedly) brings the best of that material to your attention. There are websites, like Pandora, that attempt to do that, with varying amounts of success. I've spent time listening to Pandora. Computers don't have taste. They don't do a great job of selecting music. The lack of human input leaves me with little emotional investment in the programming. In other words, it's OK, but I find myself gravitating toward better programming most of the time.

One other factor that always WAS a strength of radio is immediacy. Not long ago, radio was always the first on the scene, with the most current information. The equipment and bandwidth required to get information back to the radio station for rebroadcast was relatively inexpensive and portable. Outside of news programming, live announcers/disk jockeys/air personalities could react immediately to events of all kinds - the latest terrorist raid, or tonight's concert. That sense of immediacy created a communal feeling that made a lot of people feel part of an event whether they could attend or not. That "shared experience" is exactly what on-line companies covet, why FaceBook, Friendster, MySpace, and a host of other social networking sites are doing so well.

Radio continues to abandon one of its primary strengths - immediacy. You can't voicetrack immediacy, which means that you reduce the communal sharing of real-time experiences. This is a major failing of current programming.

You've essentially said that "radio is over". With your attitude, I understand why you feel that way. If corporate radio continues in the current direction of reducing immediacy, reducing the interpersonal relationship with the listener, you may be right. That won't be a fault of the medium. That's a fault of the programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Radio 101

There are a few things that you've forgotten about radio.

This is not about me or what I do. This is about typical radio listeners and what they do.

One problem with "interactive" media is that it requires interaction.

Which is clearly not a problem for most people. They crave interaction. That's what has led to the popularity of TV shows like American Idol and Survivor. I was at a sports event last night, and most of the people in the audience had their cell phones out during the game, texting to people outside or inside the arena. It's a way of sharing an experience.

One other problem with the MP3 player and most other media is that you have to seek out new material.

Not a problem. Pandora is far better than having some radio gatekeeper pick and choose which approved record label single they're going to play. That is one big difference between radio now and 25 years ago. Back then, music choice was easier. Far fewer artists, far fewer options. Today, everyone wants their own personal radio station. The DJ is no longer perceived as a friend, but as an obstacle. It's not his fault...he can only play one song at a time. Very limiting. The audience wants to create their own playlist. Radio needs to find a way to make that happen.

One other factor that always WAS a strength of radio is immediacy.

Not an exclusive domain any more. Not when you have 200 million people with cell phones doing your street reporting. The cell phone is more immediate and more personal than the radio. And you can interact with it. Once the phone became portable, radio's uses became more limited.

You've essentially said that "radio is over". With your attitude, I understand why you feel that way. If corporate radio continues in the current direction of reducing immediacy, reducing the interpersonal relationship with the listener, you may be right. That won't be a fault of the medium. That's a fault of the programming.

Once again, you're blaming the horse for the popularity of the automobile. It has nothing to do with who owns radio stations. In fact, corporations have access to more tools to bring radio into the 21st century than mom & pops. You can't generalize programming on 14000 radio stations. Lots of it is as good as it can be. But radio DJs are perceived as being gatekeepers. Many of them are older than their target demo. Most of them aren't literate in the ways of new media, and have contracts that interfere with their ability to interact with their audience. A lot of the DJs I see have become lazy, refusing to go out and meet with listeners. I know of a morning team that had it put into their contract that they didn't have to go out to promotional events any more. When their contract was up, they were not renewed. And yes, they worked for Citadel.

Radio HAS to change. And not back to the way things were 25 years ago. Those are failed practices of a previous generation. If you're one of those people, I'm sorry for you. You should apply to a local community college for classes in interactive media. Learn how to shoot and upload video. Learn how to create social networks. They will help you find better jobs. Look beyond the old theories of "immediacy" that you cling to so desperately. Instead of blaming the horse, you can learn to drive a car, and find that it's better than the smelly old horse. Direct your passion towards the positive, instead of the negative. End the rant against some unknown "corporate devil," and do something worthwhile.

 

[Stewy]

I'll jump into this puddle with both feet. SirRox, why do you waste your time trying to argue with David E? It should be clear to you that he has mastered the board room debate form of tearing apart the verbiage and discrediting it one piece at a time until he wears you out. He has some good ideas, some decent ideas and some that are just plain wrong and should go into the 'corp speak' file.

The weasels have been in the hen house so long that the farm keeps wondering how his hens got so short, skinny and long as well as why the eggs they lay are dark brown.

SirRox, I think you are very correct that many biggies are driving toward bankruptcy purposefully. I've got room on this step of the courthouse for you if you'd care to wait with me, just bring what few pennies you can muster and wait patiently with me and a deal will come along soon (between Feb and May) that'll fit your piggy bank. In the mean time, quit telling them what's wrong and how to fix it, they don't listen and I hope they won't listen. Just let them finish flushing and we can clean up from right here on the step.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Stewy, I don't mind letting David E. have the last word. Anybody who reads any of these boards knows what he's about. I also share your feeling that the sooner corporate implodes, the better off radio may be as an industry. I have fears, though, that corporate holds so much sway with lawmakers that a corporate implosion may be the pebble that starts a landslide toward a reallocation of public bandwidth. I can see giant corporations jockeying for position to bid on another swath of bandwidth to support more digital services that they can charge for by the megabyte.

Which brings me to BigA's post. He obviously needs to take a rudimentary communications course. Even the survey courses distinguish between one-to-one and one-to-many communications.

There are huge differences between texting friends to share an experience, and actually being at an event enjoying that experience. There's a huge qualitative difference between "kwl gig. shda bin here" and a professional communicator bringing the sights, sounds, and feel of the experience to someone who's not there. Otherwise, why bother with radio of sports events? People in the audience will just text the action to their friends, right?

Imagine the famous radio report of the Hindenburg crash reduced to text-messagese. Puh-lease. Are the "shared experiences" even close to equivalent?

If you have "200 million people with cell phones doing your street reporting", you have 100 million versions of their tiny portion of the story, related to the other 100 million people recieving that call. The telephone is a one-to-one communication device. You only share with those you call. At best, you have half a dozen people sharing an experience by calling each other. One reporter, who has access that's not available to most of those 100 million, will be able to tell a better-reported, more complete story with much more meaningful context to all 200 million people when they listen to the radio.

If the "radio gatekeepers" are doing a poor job selecting music for listeners, perhaps it's because the research methodology is flawed, or the programming restrictions are so tight that creativity and innovation are sorely lacking. Pandora offers variety, but makes it too easy to overlook some music, and goes very far afield at times when it searches out new options. No matter how you write the criteria, a computer can't evaluate something as visceral as music as effectively as a human. That's also one of the problems with trying to create enough Selector or Music Master rules to prevent them from creating "train-wreck" segues - not that true segues are a part of much commercial broadcasting these days anyway. That's another lost art.

Radio isn't a horse, and "new media" isn't the automobile. Radio has the largest installed base of receivers and users of ANY electronic media. The number of people who can access and use radio dwarfs the number of people who can access and use the Internet. That's true both nationwide and worldwide. If you want to carry that farther, the number of people that have portable Internet access via cell phone or other wide-area wireless technology - especially in their cars - is miniscule compared to radio. Most of all, OTA radio is free. Internet access - especially high-speed portable Internet access - is expensive, and likely to remain unavailable to a significant portion of the populace for some time to come.

I'm probably more cognizant, and better versed in "new media" than you think. I not only understand interactive media, how to shoot and upload video, and how to interface with social networks, I understand the underlying technology - like how analog-to-digital conversion really works, how to engineer a network with enough capacity to carry the broadband data streams required for new media, the availabilty of frequencies for wireless connectivity, how much data those frequencies can support, the power requirements of bi-directional communication over distance, and the effect of data compression. I know how to light for video, shoot video, edit video, and format it for distribution on channels ranging from low-speed Internet to uncompressed 1080p HD.

I've never advocated a return to Mom & Pop. I've advocated a return to better programming. The corporation promised to bring broadcasters better access to more diverse programming, and better access to support from qualified professionals in management, sales, programming, and engineering. Instead, what we've gotten is less diverse programming, and corporate edicts requiring conformity to "corporate practices" that are sometimes impractical because of differences in local laws, economics, practices, and community expectations. In some cases, corporate has overbuilt small market facilities, and hamstrung larger market facilities who require systems with greater capability and/or flexibility.

As far as the "lazy DJ" is concerned, what's "the rest of the story"? Are we talking about guys who had a pay cut shoved down their throat during the last negotiation, had their production team cut to shreds, and have no support from the Promotions Department because there's no Promotions budget, or - worse yet - NO Promotions Depart left after the latest round of corporate-mandated cuts? Those "lazy DJs" show up for work, perform, and bring in high enough ratings for the sales people to bring money in the door. All of that occurs in spite of programming restrictions, and computerized music selection dictated by "corporate policy". Meanwhile, the only feedback that they're getting, either directly or indirectly, is "you guys suck, and you cost too much".

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of overpaid corporate honchos getting together over steaks at Mortons bemoaning shrinking revenue, and deciding how they can chop further programming "expenses" over $200 bottles of burgundy. How much have THOSE guys brought through the door in the last five years? For too many companies, "corporate" hasn't been a help. "Corporate" is the entitiy that committed the company to mountainous debt loads that burden successful markets unfairly, and force cuts at unsuccessful markets that will ensure continued failure.

There's NOTHING wrong with radio as a medium. The problem is with the programming, and the people who are running the "show". Radio is "show business". Unfortunately, we're getting a lot of "the business", and very little of "the show".

 

[TheBigA]

Even the survey courses distinguish between one-to-one and one-to-many communications.

As I've said, top-down, one-to-many communications is becoming obsolete in the 21st century. THAT is the story behind radio's situation. Not programming. Bceause the programming that is growing and is in demand is NOT following the top-down pattern of DJs and playists. You have to see what is in demand, and it's not what you're advocating. Which is why it's going away.

As far as the "lazy DJ" is concerned, what's "the rest of the story"? Are we talking about guys who had a pay cut shoved down their throat during the last negotiation,

Not at all. They dug their own grave. They became too full of themselves and their abilities, and felt they were irreplaceable. They were wrong.

There's NOTHING wrong with radio as a medium. The problem is with the programming, and the people who are running the "show". Radio is "show business". Unfortunately, we're getting a lot of "the business", and very little of "the show".

You sound like you're in denial. The boat has left and you're still standing on the dock wondering what happened. People don't want a show unless they're part of it. THAT has been the lesson of the last five years. They want to be in control, not some DJ or PD. You need to let go of the control stick, and let the audience run things. That's what they want. While you're worried about "corporate," the audience has moved on to something else. LISTEN to the audience. Stop talking and lecturing everyone long enough to listen to what the audience is saying. They're saying to shut up and get out of the way.

Now I've said everything I can say on this subject. It's time you realize your argument isn't with me or the corporates. It's about giving the audience what they want. Get started now, before you're the next one gone.

 

[adma]

There are huge differences between texting friends to share an experience, and actually being at an event enjoying that experience. There's a huge qualitative difference between "kwl gig. shda bin here" and a professional communicator bringing the sights, sounds, and feel of the experience to someone who's not there. Otherwise, why bother with radio of sports events? People in the audience will just text the action to their friends, right?

The fact that you're simplifying things thusly proves how you're generationally removed from reality, or overly dependent on tabloid scare-mongering. You might as well be Steve Allen reading the lyrics to Be-Bop-A-Lula deadpan, if you get my drift.

Besides, if it were all about shallow kewl txtng cltr among the kids (as opposed to something as open-ended as the web itself), then why did the youth vote go overwhelmingly for the "enlightened" Obama, and those who heeded radio's "professional communicators" opted for the "unenlightened" McCain-Palin ticket instead?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Even the survey courses distinguish between one-to-one and one-to-many communications.

As I've said, top-down, one-to-many communications is becoming obsolete in the 21st century. THAT is the story behind radio's situation. Not programming. Bceause the programming that is growing and is in demand is NOT following the top-down pattern of DJs and playists. You have to see what is in demand, and it's not what you're advocating. Which is why it's going away.

Please give us a single link to a credible source that supports your position. Your view of broadcasting, as opposed to narrowcasting, or one-to-one communications, is unsupported by any study I've seen. There is significant growth in individual connectivity, but that connectivity is increasingly used to give individuals a means to broadcast their feelings and opinions to many people, just as you are doing on this board. If you're right, why are you here? Why is blogging - a one-to-many communication - growing exponentially? Why do people read blogs of people that they don't know? Might it have something to do with the subject matter, not the delivery system? If the subject matter wasn't of interest, nobody would read it. In fact, radio's reach hasn't declined. Radio's use has.

As far as the "lazy DJ" is concerned, what's "the rest of the story"? Are we talking about guys who had a pay cut shoved down their throat during the last negotiation,

Not at all. They dug their own grave. They became too full of themselves and their abilities, and felt they were irreplaceable. They were wrong.

Not unlike some corporate executives we could mention, and some commentators on this board who refuse to consider any opinion other than their own. Since we don't know who you're talking about, or what market they're in, it's impossible to dispute - or support - your contention.

There's NOTHING wrong with radio as a medium. The problem is with the programming, and the people who are running the "show". Radio is "show business". Unfortunately, we're getting a lot of "the business", and very little of "the show".

You sound like you're in denial. The boat has left and you're still standing on the dock wondering what happened. People don't want a show unless they're part of it. THAT has been the lesson of the last five years. They want to be in control, not some DJ or PD. You need to let go of the control stick, and let the audience run things. That's what they want. While you're worried about "corporate," the audience has moved on to something else. LISTEN to the audience. Stop talking and lecturing everyone long enough to listen to what the audience is saying. They're saying to shut up and get out of the way.

Now I've said everything I can say on this subject. It's time you realize your argument isn't with me or the corporates. It's about giving the audience what they want. Get started now, before you're the next one gone.

Denial? Whoa, Big. You'd better check the mirror on that one. Is the audience in control on American Idol? Nope. Not during the show, anyway. They get to vote after the fact, and the results matter in the programming. In radio, there used to be live jocks on who would run all kinds of "Battle of the Bands" or "Winner or Loser" segments, allowing the audience to vote on whether to keep or toss a new record, or even a former fave that was burned beyond recognition. Response was instantaneous, and often off the charts. Try doing that with a Voice Track. There's your interactive component, but radio has abandoned that in favor of non-real-time syndication and VT.

LISTEN to the audience. They're saying that "radio sucks" because the programming sucks. What do I hear? "too much repetition", "nobody talks to me - they talk at me", and "every time they talk they try to sell me something". Half the people in the audience don't know who they're listening to - the "air personality" or the imaging guy. Too often, the imaging guy gets more airtime.

I suggest that you get away from radio and pursue the new media. Maybe YOU need to "shut up and get out of the way", and let people who remember how to program radio effectively take a shot at reviving the medium.