Why work in radio anymore?

[gr8oldies]

OK, I'm going to commit total blasphemy now. All the years I grew up with CKLW, of course I knew who the jocks were, most of the time. I don't remember many people (or anyone) ever say "Oh yeah, I tune in for Mike Rivers every afternoon at 3". As I recall, even the mic processing made the jocks sound pretty interchangeable. If the whole argument is "radio needs to be compelling like it was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s", how compelling was it, really? Think kids were stopping everything they were doing to hang on the jock's every word? Don't think so. And now, one of our posters apparently believes all we have to do is put jocks on the air, have them talk up intros and do comedy bits between songs, and radio will be swimming in dough. I say dream on.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Advertisers can get better ROI from the internet. And the metrics are better. None of the hocus pocus from Arbitron.

The issue is that the metrics for the web and radio are different. Web statistics are a census, while radio ones are projections or estimates.

While TV and the Web and other media has been involved with things like priming and environmental situations as well as mood and temperature, radio has been selling CPP.

The AAAA has recomended standardizing on the CPM as a cross platform measurement. and Arbitron has a very significant advertiser and radio task force working independewntly on an affinity metric (press release on the Arbitron website) to create a measure of engagement or whatever the final term for involvement with a station is.

Radio can compete, and it is cost effective for many parts of today's advertising plans. Radio has to get away from stations selling against each other and spend some time working on radio's part in the overall media plan.

 

[SirRoxalot]

To gr8oldies: "There you go again". NOBODY advocated that we "put jocks on the air, have them talk up intros and do comedy bits between songs". You obviously don't get RELATABLE radio. Would that work? Maybe - in some formats, for audiences who expect that kind of entertainment. For other formats, ANY interruption in the music had better offer something more than "listen to our station, and go to our website so you'll know why". In fact, there are some formats that don't include music at all. Try doing THAT without talent.

Background music formats are about as effective in selling products for advertisers as web pages. In other words, it's easy to ignore the ads because you're not really paying attention anyway. If you spend enough on frequency, eventually you'll get results. You might as well sell "impressions" like they do with web pages.

That's why it's important to measure "engagement". Radio has the opportunity to be more than JUST background when there's content that listeners can't easily or conveniently get elsewhere. Whether that's music, talk, information, companionship - or a mix of elements - determines whether or not you have a successful product. The PPM will change formatics by measuring actual listening. I expect that multiple factors will lead to more stopsets that are shorter in duration.

The biggest problem that radio has today is overwhelming debt service. When radio stations values return to reasonable levels, less of the income will go to banks to pay for for unsustainable amounts of debt, and more will go into the product. Otherwise, stations won't be able to compete with owners who do invest in the on air product.

 

[TheBigA]

That's why it's important to measure "engagement".

If that's what you're going to measure, then radio better get used to 1 shares. And it has nothing to do with the content.

Earth to Rox: The public is busy! They have lives, and they have a lot more to do than pay attention to what you're telling them. They would rather talk WITH someone than sit and listen to someone. No matter how compelling that other person THINKS he is. Every day, I see someone listening to the radio, and talking on the phone. Guess which one he's paying attention to. Unless you're giving them life & death information about a disaster that is affecting them at the time, you will always be background music. That's just a fact of life.

PPM doesn't measure listening. It measures hearing. Not the same thing. So the PPM measures the radio that's on while I'm talking on the phone, even though I'm not listening to the radio.

The biggest problem radio has today is not one thing, but these three are a good place to start: Falling ad revenues, a public that wants its content (especially music) for free without commercials, and a negative public image. The debt problem only exists at a few companies, and only affects a few hundred stations.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Background music formats are about as effective in selling products for advertisers as web pages.

And right now, advertisers believe that there is nothing more effective in priming consumers and reaching them in the right mood than websites that have the right evironment for the product.

In other words, it's easy to ignore the ads because you're not really paying attention anyway.

All ads are "ignored" by most consumers unless the message is approptiate for the moment. A person unhappy with their car, or in the market for a car will pay attention to certain car ads; persons not susceptible to the message will not hear it.

Qualified consumer are of significantly greater value than bulk users of a medium.

If you spend enough on frequency, eventually you'll get results. You might as well sell "impressions" like they do with web pages.

Advertisers are now looking for more than just impressions. The want mood, afinity, priming, etc.

That's why it's important to measure "engagement". Radio has the opportunity to be more than JUST background when there's content that listeners can't easily or conveniently get elsewhere.

You don't have a clue what "engagement" or "afinity" means. A soft AC that is used mostly in the workplace may actually have more affinity than a high energy CHR, and certainly does among a specific group of listeners.

Whether that's music, talk, information, companionship - or a mix of elements - determines whether or not you have a successful product.

And it is entirely possible for a station with lots of music, liner-card DJs that hardly talk to be very successful on the affinity / engagement metric described in the press release at http://arbitron.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=625

The PPM will change formatics by measuring actual listening. I expect that multiple factors will lead to more stopsets that are shorter in duration.

The PPM has been in use, including major market testing, for going on eight years. The trend has been towards more spots in fewer stops, since all the studies have show the big attrition is in the first two minutes of a stop, so fewer opportunities to get big attrition make sense.

The biggest problem that radio has today is overwhelming debt service.

That is true for some of the players. And, of course, nearly every station ever purchased was financed, the issue is the economy, not debt.

When radio stations values return to reasonable levels, less of the income will go to banks to pay for for unsustainable amounts of debt, and more will go into the product. Otherwise, stations won't be able to compete with owners who do invest in the on air product.

Once margins improve, owners will make up for lost time in banking the profits... they will not be spending a lot of time figuring out how to pay jocks more money.

 

[SirRoxalot]

That's why it's important to measure "engagement".

If that's what you're going to measure, then radio better get used to 1 shares. And it has nothing to do with the content.

Earth to Rox: The public is busy! They have lives, and they have a lot more to do than pay attention to what you're telling them. They would rather talk WITH someone than sit and listen to someone. No matter how compelling that other person THINKS he is. Every day, I see someone listening to the radio, and talking on the phone. Guess which one he's paying attention to. Unless you're giving them life & death information about a disaster that is affecting them at the time, you will always be background music. That's just a fact of life.

Oddly, "the public" has time to engage in social networking, chatting with co-workers, and other interactive activities - but that's the problem - those activities ARE interactive. Radio thrives on the fact that listeners don't have to engage actively - they can benefit from the work of others in synthesizing the mounds of available information and entertainment options into digestable programming. That has EVERYTHING to do with content.

PPM doesn't measure listening. It measures hearing. Not the same thing. So the PPM measures the radio that's on while I'm talking on the phone, even though I'm not listening to the radio.

That's exactly why Arbitron is trying to figure out a way to distingush between active listening and passive listening.

The biggest problem radio has today is not one thing, but these three are a good place to start: Falling ad revenues, a public that wants its content (especially music) for free without commercials, and a negative public image. The debt problem only exists at a few companies, and only affects a few hundred stations.

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of stations that changed ownership between 1996 and 2006 have a debt problem. The are certainly over a thousand stations - including the many of the most prominent stations in the most prominent markets - that have a debt problem. Citadel is the poster child, but Clear Channel, Cumulus, Regent, and several others are in the same predicament. Those companies alone add up to more than "a few hundred stations". But, you knew that. And if radio has a "negative public image", I think that we know where to look for the culprit that created that image. The fish rots from the head down.

 

[DavidEduardo]

That's exactly why Arbitron is trying to figure out a way to distingush between active listening and passive listening.

That's exactly NOT what Arbitron is trying to "figure out."

If you were to have read the press release I supplied a link for, you would see that, first, Arbitron is not trying to "figure out" anything. Arbitron has put together a group from the advertising and radio communities to determine what "affinity" means and to offer guidance on a new metric. That metric is not about active and passive listening, but about the level of engagement... call it "feelings towards a station" and which makes the station an appropriate ad medium for a specific array of clients.

Passive listening when it fulfils a need or purpose can represent high engagement, while active listening, such as to a traffic report while driving, may indicate little engagement with the station providing the report.

It would not surprise me to see that stations like B-100 in Philly or Lite FM in NY have high degrees of affinity... because they fill a need and match well with a particular mood.

 

[John FL]

My goodness, I've had enough. Suppose we just get back to the basics of the question as to why work in radio anymore. I say, why not!
I'm finding with increased frequency that those who at least attempt to post here with positive comments are drowned out by those who sound like they have just given up on the medium or just seem fixed on disagreeing with certain posters no matter what they say. I don't know. Maybe these boards reflect life today in that it seems everyone finds it much easier to bitch, moan and groan and complain things "ain't what they used to be." Maybe it's just me but I can't stand being around people who have nothing good to say about anything. I don't know what has happened to initiative and being the captain of your own destiny. For those of you who are in the business and don't like it, then do yourself and the business a favor and get out. Maybe radio needs some folks with better attitudes for starters. OK, I got some stuff off my chest, now back to the subject.

A while back a buddy sent me a NYT article regarding the rise low-power radio stations. Here is the link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/us/08radio.html?_r=3&hp (The link may be out of date now and I'm not bright enough to figure out how to correct..LOL)
As I read the article the first time it made me realize the owner/operator isn't interested in glory, tons of money and fame but rather it's something he loves to do and he is doing something not really found anywhere else in the music played. The article mentions a listener in Jacksonville Fl (where I live) who listens on the internet to what he considers a Montana gem.

There are lots of inspirational stories like this if you make the effort to look for them. Sure, it isn't commercial radio and some of you may think I'm comparing apples to oranges but it's the passion, love and committment of the business that I find lacking in a lot of fronts.

Have you ever caught that Food Network show " Drive-ins, Diners and Dives?" It's one of my favorite programs because I love seeing small town America featured and hard work and dedication and positive attitude result into something really good. I suppose many people can say "Oh, you don't want to be a cook or a restaurant owner - the hours are lousy and you have no life.

It's pretty cool to see there are those who do what they really enjoy. When they chat with the host, they often mentioning 6-7 days a week and 12-16 hour days. Maybe some of us think they are nuts but I'm glad this still exists. They don't have a "phone it in attitide" and we need more in radio who think that way too.

I think many of us can relate to the movie "The Graduate" where the Dustin Hoffman character was given tons of endless advice by well-intentioned relatives as to what he should do with his life. Same thing happened to me and funny thing was that many didn't have a pot to pee in. Everyone's an expert, especially in deciding what's best for others.

Sometimes, we never know where we can find inspiration. A few weeks ago on one of my weekend escapes out of the city for my own sanity, I landed in New Smyrna Beach just south of Daytona. There at the farmers market was someone from some AM oldies station playing guitar and singing songs a la Joni Mitchell or Judy Collins. While not the best singer, it didn't matter. She looked like she was just happy doing her thing and promoting the station. A lot of that has gone away because the radio scientists think it isn't effective to the bottom line. Sometimes, it's just more than that.

For those of you who may be looking for a career in radio, follow your dreams and be prepared to work hard and have a lot of setbacks. Radio isn't the only business that's tough and unforgiving. If there is anything we should agree on, it's that radio needs people who are dedicated and who don't look at the clock. Peace.

 

[GlennSummers]

AMEN, BROTHER!

 

[firepoint525]

I knew a radio station general manager of the type like JohnJax mentioned (because I worked for him!). This guy was at the station all hours of the day and night, so he was definitely devoted to his station. Only problem was, he is an Nth degree perfectionist, and expects everything to be absolutely flawless! And he expected (no, he REQUIRED!) his full-time people to work at least 50 hours a week, and since full-timers are salaried, that meant no overtime pay. Now, I was not a "clock-watcher" like JohnJax suggested, but I damn sure got tired of being taken advantage of, merely because I was "salaried." And personally, I needed time away from the station to clear my head, if only for nothing more than to take a walk and get some fresh air. One measly day off per week just was not enough for me to clear my head. And some time away from the station always made me a more "well-rounded" person.

Now I was good at what I did, but I was by no means "perfect." And I don't know anyone who is. Because of his extremist perfectionist demands, very few people could tolerate working for him for very long, so turnover there was through the roof! There were, and probably still are, many people living in that area who could do really good radio work, but because they aren't "perfect," they won't work for him. (I know this because some of them have told me this.) The irony here is that because of his extreme demands, those good people out there won't work for him, and he's left with mostly 19-year-olds who sound like 19-year-olds. But eventually, they, too, will get tired of him, and be gone in a year or two themselves. And then he will have to hire new 19-year-olds to replace them.

I've always said that if you treat your employees like crap, then your station will sound like crap on the air. And if you kill employee morale, it will show on the air. And if you don't pay your people what they are worth, you will be stuck with people who are worth what you pay! Remember, you get what you pay for! People will live up (or down) to your expectations.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Let's keep this simple. You can do radio as a hobby, but it's tough to make a living off it.

Radio station owners bought stations because they were profitable. What made the stations profitable? Some of us think that TALENT played a significant part in that programming. Look at what's happened during the recession. People talk about how poorly newspapers and other "old media" have fared. The latest estimates say that RADIO has fared worse during the recession than NEWSPAPERS. Why?

Perhaps it's because radio has arguably cut deeper into the talent pool than newspapers have - and has reacted more slowly to expanding their platform into "new media". How does your radio station website compare to the local newspaper website when it comes to entertaining and/or informing your audience? How many columnists have been cut compared to the number of mid-day and evening talent who have been replaced by generic syndication or voice-tracks?

Radio made deep cuts in local talent. In response, listeners and advertisers reduced their use of the product. Maybe the next owners - the one who WON'T overpay for radio stations - will understand that what they're buying is an AUDIENCE, and that talent is part of the mechanism for attracting that audience - and should be compensated for that ability.

 

[John FL]

SirRox, I have agreed with a lot of your comments and sometimes I've felt if you've said something is white, others will say it is black as part of some contrived controversy thing just to disagree with you. People do need to make a living and I must have written over 100 posts just on the subject of deep talent cuts that may save $$$ but does little to enhance radio which in the long run hurts more than helps. But I'm to a point that I'm tired of arguing and being told I'm a dinosaur. Utopia lies somewhere in the middle if you ask me. I understand cuts but they have to make sense.

Firepoint, few can ever admit that in their adult worklife all their bosses have been great and role models. I've had my share of reporting to idiots and some who just couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. While some of my comments were tongue 'n cheek, I realize it isn't easy to walk away from a bad boss or lousy job - especially now.

While my private life is my private life, I want to share this. I had enough early last year and walked away from a 28 year career in a bank that makes a lot of headlines. My boss micromanaged me to a point that I felt like I was in a straight jacket. Personal health became an issue so I took an early retirement and figured I'd work in some contractor capacity to make ends meet. The bottom dropped out. I can't regret my decision but I sure do have lots of empathy for the talent. Many I know in the business have shared lots of horror stories with me.
But through it all, I've kept a good attitude and I expect radio pros to do the same. Many do. For the health of the business I love, I'd like to just see less excuses and just better attitude. But I can certainly understand why it's tough to do.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I jump into this conversation now and then.... some times just to keep the pot boiling... some times because I have an opinion that I'm just as bone-headed about hanging onto as some of the rest here who give their thought, repeat their though, compound their thought, and repeat it again.

Let me roll together a potpourri of many of these thoughts and roll them out like a bit of pizza dough.

There was a time when a major part of the American public could be reached by two main media of the day: There was radio and there was newspaper. And newspaper WAS THE BIG DOG!

Whether you believed in talent, in music, in personality, in local news or local sports as the most important ingredient, radio would work if the owner and/or manager did a decent job of co-ordinating things. The most successful, impressive radio man I ever worked for had an interesting way of handling things. He would tell his News Director that getting local news on the air was THE MOST IMPORTANT thing this station does, and "I am counting on YOU to make me a success." And then he would slip back and chat with his morning announcer: "That morning audience is looking for something to be cheerful about, something to look forward to. They have a few minutes get a bit of entertainment and news. Your morning show is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing this station does. I'm counting on you." And somewhere during the week there would be this same pep-talk for the station's sports reporter and play-by-play man.

And then there was the pep-talk of all pep-talks. To the sales staff: "It doesn't matter what we put on the air. We can play polka music all day, or I can go hire Jim and Don Ameche to do worlds most extravagant programming. All that matters is that you guys go out and sell, sell, sell. If you are a salesman, you can sell radio advertising no matter what I program... so go get it done."

In comparison to today, running a successful station "back in the day" had to be a piece of cake compared to what it is today. Used to almost every retailer had some kind of ad budget, big or small. And the decision on how it was spent was LOCAL. And it was just a matter of who is going to get it.... you or the newspaper. The cost of running a radio station was peanuts compared to the newspaper so even if they got 75% and radio got 25% of the available revenue, it was still a healthy budget. EVEN DUMB RADIO STRATEGY COULD SUPPORT COMFORTABLE SURVIVAL.

How are those budgets split today? TV. Ads on the local cable system. Two or three "Shopper non-subscription papers". Billboard is aggressive and practical even in small markets. Web-sites. The personal computer has breathed life in direct mail for smaller retailers who couldn't play in that arena in the past. And yellow pages out-the-wazoo. There must be 5 different publishers providing me with phone books these days. And these slick life-style magazines... take one, their free. Every where you turn! And on the day they put all those nationally printed circulars for the big-box chain stores in my little county newspaper, I need to take my hand-truck out to the street to bring in the paper. (That might be stretching it a bit.)

Here's my take on all this back-and-forth in this thread about "going back to good old personality driven programming" vs. all the cookie-cutter stuff baked in an automation oven: A smart operator who understands the big picture knows that the programming choice is not critical for 80% of the stations in this country. (It IS extremely important for those who have a business plan to be the ratings driven station in a major market.) For the folks who are content to be the 11th through 20th rated station in a market with niche programming, and for those out in "the 'burbs" and out in small town America, which civic club the station manager chooses to spend his/her lunchtime with every week may be a bigger choice than the programming content. Hiring the right salesmen/saleswomen has always been more important in these stations than hiring the right announcer.

While the rest of the world has hired strategic planners, business process improvement people, fine tuned their Human Resources issues, and put people with MBAs on the front lines, we're trying to run radio stations where management assumes that the biggest thought-process in life for the staff is "Where am I going clubbing tonight?" and we wonder why it looks tough for the industry. How many radio people can show you their "career path" document with their initials and the initials of the HR director?

This isn't your father's radio business anymore.

 

[amfmxm]

Interesting thoughts, as always, in this thread. Like GRC, I jump in occasionally with my two cents. Here's a couple more...

Yes, the programming choice is still critical for any radio station, because generating an audience is--as it always has been in any media vehicle--about content. Radio stations that offer compelling content have larger audiences who listen longer than those that don't--and are easier (much easier) to sell. Give a great sales staff lousy content and you'll have lousy sales. Give a half-assed sales staff great content and you'll have great sales. (Yes, yes--assuming all else--signal, et cetera--is equal).

But "great" sales is a very moveable target... and, yes, there seem to be a lot of stations with less-than-compelling content out there still doing okay. But great content always beats weak content.

Why work in radio anymore (the original topic)? As I've offered before--and as featured on another thread (Buffalo) courtesy of a session at last week's NAB in Philly, radio is becoming "an industry of old men with a glaring HR crisis." Among the 20 fulltime employees I oversee, the average age is 50--despite having a couple of twentysomethings in the pile brining that average down.

There is tremendous opportunity for young adults to make a very good living in radio.

But, beyond that, there is still--as always--plenty of opportunity for talented people who are creative enough and flexible enough to market their talents to radio companies.

Creative? Yes--as in any other field, prospective employees need to find the people who want to hire them and be able to demonstrate why they should be hired. (It's always been this way, folks).

Flexible? Yes. Radio is one of those industries--unlike, say, accounting or stocking shelves--with a relative handful of jobs in any specific piece of geography. So you may need to move. Maybe to a place you don't want to live.

But, look, if it boils down to an unwillingness to move... or an unwillingness to make the effort to competively maket your talents to prospective employers... then the problem isn't the radio industry.

Then, the problem is you.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I came out to stir the pot a bit, and I GOT BUSTED by my friend AMFMXM. <G>

Yes, GOOD programming is always better that GOOD ENOUGH (or worse) programming. I'll go to the exercise room and do my 'penance' pushups now.

Something you wrote really grabbed me. The typical age of your employees. I remember some years ago coming to the conclusion (with some justification at that time, I thought): "Radio is by and large a young persons business." You get exposed to a lot of people in a lot of businesses, and if you haven't found your "brass ring" in radio by a certain age, maybe you best look around you in the rest of the business world to see if a brass ring awaits you out there.

"Back in the Day" a lot of people did. They moved into ad agencies. They found an advertising customer looking for a young person to come in to be the future of their business, etc.

If that was EVER a reasonable observation, it apparently is unreasonable in today's radio climate.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio made deep cuts in local talent. In response, listeners and advertisers reduced their use of the product.

That is a false connection. Cuts in talent didn't result in losses of listeners or advertisers. The loss of advertisers came first, then came the subsequent cuts in staff. The listener base has actually been fairly stable on FM. It's AM that has seen major losses.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio made deep cuts in local talent. In response, listeners and advertisers reduced their use of the product.

That is a false connection. Cuts in talent didn't result in losses of listeners or advertisers. The loss of advertisers came first, then came the subsequent cuts in staff. The listener base has actually been fairly stable on FM. It's AM that has seen major losses.

That ain't what PPM results are saying. TSL is no where near what was reported by diary, and people are cuming more stations than they reported. It's hard to compare PPM results with diary results, so we'll have to watch and wait. Even diary results say TSL is down.

You can argue whether the cuts in local talent are to blame, but a lot of cuts have been made since '96, and revenue in radio has been flat or dropping since 2001. The fact that radio revenue has decreased faster than TV or even newspaper seems to mirror those cuts. If it's a "false connection", provide something to back up YOUR opinion.

 

[TheBigA]

That ain't what PPM results are saying. TSL is no where near what was reported by diary, and people are cuming more stations than they reported. It's hard to compare PPM results with diary results, so we'll have to watch and wait. Even diary results say TSL is down.

TSL was dropping before consolidation, and when stations were at full staffs. So your connection that staff cuts have resulted in audience drops is still false.

You can argue whether the cuts in local talent are to blame, but a lot of cuts have been made since '96, and revenue in radio has been flat or dropping since 2001. The fact that radio revenue has decreased faster than TV or even newspaper seems to mirror those cuts. If it's a "false connection", provide something to back up YOUR opinion.

If the only thing that changed during the past ten years was radio staffing levels, then you could make the connection that one thing led to another. But unfortunately a lot of things have changed, mostly having to do with the explosion of the internet and cell phones, and a complete revolution in the way the public gets information.

 

[DavidEduardo]

That ain't what PPM results are saying. TSL is no where near what was reported by diary, and people are cuming more stations than they reported. It's hard to compare PPM results with diary results, so we'll have to watch and wait. Even diary results say TSL is down.

You are only presenting the "part of the evidence" that seems to support your position. When the entire picture is presented, it shows that you are wrong on many levels... just as you were on the "affinity/engagement metric" point...

First...
The PPM showed an increase in cume for every station which averaged the double of diary based cume. The "new" cume was made up of three types of listener:
1) those who listened very little and could not be bothered to write it in the diary.
2) those who listened to a station but did not put it in the diary because they did not select it or even like it.
3) those whose meters detected a station but the person was unaware of listening and did not even know they were hearing a particular station.

So, if you double the cume, and the increased cumers contribute tiny bits of listening, the TSL will go way, way down. And it did. If you take the "rest of the cumers" or P1's, the TSL very much resembles diary behaviour.

Diary TSL was on a slow decline from 1988 on. In other words, about a decade before consolidation was a real factor and two decades before the current recession has caused cutbacks in staff.

You can argue whether the cuts in local talent are to blame, but a lot of cuts have been made since '96, and revenue in radio has been flat or dropping since 2001.

Very few large cuts came in the first couple of years of consolidation.

Revenue was growing from 2001 to 2007, albeit slowly. Only the recession year of 2008 and now in 2009 has it dropped, just like every other business category in America and the world.

The fact that radio revenue has decreased faster than TV or even newspaper seems to mirror those cuts. If it's a "false connection", provide something to back up YOUR opinion.

Newspaper revenue has been on a slide for three or more decades, and the profits were all but erased if they even existed before the recession. Now, most papers are losing money, and there are no buyers. When the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and the NY TImes are all losing money, we know that the industry as a whole is near death.

TV revenue is made up of network revenue, cable channel revenue and local station revenue. Local station revenue is off more than radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You are only presenting the "part of the evidence" that seems to support your position. When the entire picture is presented, it shows that you are wrong on many levels... just as you were on the "affinity/engagement metric" point...

I NEVER spoke about the "affinity/engagement metric" as defined by the study that you linked to. I used the term "engagement" generically BEFORE you posted your link. I didn't bother challenging you on it because you NEVER admit that you're wrong, even when it's demonstrable that you are. It's just not worth the hassle, and doesn't add anything to the REAL discussion.

It's virtually impossible to compare PPM results to diary results, so there's no point in trying. There's a serious problem that Arbitron faces with the PPM in that it can't distinguish between active, voluntary listening, and passive - or even involuntary listening. In other words, Arbitron has opened a whole new can of worms.

As far as consolidation and cutbacks are concerned, don't make me go back and seek out YOUR OWN POSTS about how LMAs and "evolvling" ownership rules go back into the '80s - precisely when TSL started to fade, and before computers even thought about either connectivity or multimedia.

I'd bet that more than a few posters on these boards would dispute your assertion that "very few large cuts came in the first couple of years of consolidation". That may be true at the top stations in the major markets, but it's certainly not what's been happening at smaller stations and markets outside the top 20.