The Radio Industry I left Behind

[SirRoxalot]

Actually, I'm on this message board, AND listening to radio.

There's always an exception to the rule.

No, most studies show that radio listening is not an "exclusive" activity. Most of us listen to the radio while doing something else. The last time people pulled up chairs and stared at "The Magic Eye" was around the time that Fran Stryker was writing "The Lone Ranger".

The reason radio is in trouble is because corporations cut locally-produced programming and replaced it with generic crap that sounds the same in market after market after market after market.

And yet for some reason, those shows tend to be the ones that get the ratings. 

And at the same time, locally produced programming has simply not been a consistent ratings winner. 

Once again, I'm sure you'll bring up one or two exceptions, and that's wonderful.  But if you study the entire country as a whole, looking at the top-rated stations, formats, and approaches to radio, you will see that there is a good reason companies are doing what they're doing, and it's not simply to save money. 

Ain't necessarily so. It's more common that the stations with the MOST locally produced content are the winners. It's usually the also-rans and "flankers" that resort to many hours of syndicated crap.

PS - Dan Snyder is hardly a typical "well-funded local owner".

You can't vote on the people who own broadcasting as though it's some kind of reality TV show. 

And you can't pick a seriously atypical owner and present him as representative of "local ownership".

[TheBigA]

No, most studies show that radio listening is not an "exclusive" activity. Most of us listen to the radio while doing something else.

I wasn't speaking in generalities.  I specifically mentioned computer message boards.  Stick to the point.

It's more common that the stations with the MOST locally produced content are the winners. It's usually the also-rans and "flankers" that resort to many hours of syndicated crap.

Care to back that up with some examples?

If it wasn't for syndicated talk programming, the AM band would be filled with brokered religious programming.  Which is the way it's going anyway.. 

In Washington DC, syndicated host Steve Harvey is the #1 show in morning drive.  Kicking the pants off of locally-produced shows featuring veteran hosts who make 6 figure salaries.  And Harvey's success follows through for the rest of the day.  And Harvey's station, WHUR, isn't owned by Clear Channel or one of the big media companies.  It's owned by Howard University.

And you can't pick a seriously atypical owner and present him as representative of "local ownership".

I wouldn't call him "atypical."  He's rich, he's local, and he owns several radio stations.  That makes him a well-funded local owner.

[SirRoxalot]

People spending time on RADIO message boards don't listen to radio at the same time? Puh-lease.

You want "local content" winners? How about Kiss FM, Lite FM, WBLS (yes, with Steve Harvey originating his syndicated show from there), and WINS all in NYC.

Want someplace smaller? How about St. Louis, with KMOX mostly live and local (3 hours of Limbaugh in mid-days), or KEZK - live and local all day, with Delilah and Tesh at night on a soft-rocker, or WIL, or KTRS - both live and local all day.

In Buffalo (market #52), the winners are WBEN - live and local except for the interruption of Limbaugh in mid-days, WYRK - live and local from 5:30A - 12 midnight, 97-Rock, live and local 5:30A - 12 midnight, and Kiss - which is about to give up 3 hours of local programming to bring in Seacrest.

YOU'RE speaking in generalities when you say that syndication "wins". There are LOTS of AMs with live, local talk show hosts doing very nicely with little or no syndicated content.

The typical local owner does have a couple of billion dollars to throw around. Dan Snyder owns radio stations to promote the Redskins and his other properties. He has a reputation of being a big, billion-dollar baby. Typical local owners don't have his money, and don't treat the income from their radio properties as chump change.

[TheBigA]

People spending time on RADIO message boards don't listen to radio at the same time?

OK...so they're on the air, monitoring their own show while they're on message boards.

YOU'RE speaking in generalities when you say that syndication "wins".

I never said "syndication wins."  But it isn't the loser you seem to think it is. 

[SirRoxalot]

People spending time on RADIO message boards don't listen to radio at the same time?

OK...so they're on the air, monitoring their own show while they're on message boards.

WTF? Now you're just being stupid. Nobody said anything about posting while "monitoring their own show".

YOU'RE speaking in generalities when you say that syndication "wins".

I never said "syndication wins."  But it isn't the loser you seem to think it is. 

Hey, you're the one who brought up the Steve Harvey show as an example of syndication "kicking the pants off locally-produced shows". That sounds like "winning" to me. In DC, WHUR has had a good run at the top as an Urban AC. Their association with Howard University helps them with an Urban audience. 'MMJ (with Tom Joyner syndication in the morning) and 'PGC (live and local) are creeping up on them.

Syndication often wins because it's the only alternative for a particular segment of the audience - not because it's better programming. In Buffalo, for example, 'BLK - which is the only Urban station in the market - does very well in the morning with Tom Joyner. The biggest reason? They're the ONLY Urban in the market. There's no direct competition for the format.

In the long run, syndicated programs will be availble directly from the source, without the need for a local station. When that happens, there are going to be a lot of local stations in the "Howard Stern" situation - a syndicated show leaves, and the listeners follow. That leaves the local station with a hole to fill that never would have existed if there hadn't been any syndication in the first place.

Radio is doing a great job of promoting content that won't need radio when wireless Internet, cellular Internet, and other technologies become cheaper and more widespread. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

[TheBigA]

In the long run, syndicated programs will be availble directly from the source, without the need for a local station.

That's the case now.  But I think these shows benefit by the association with the local station.  And vice versa.

Radio is doing a great job of promoting content that won't need radio when wireless Internet, cellular Internet, and other technologies become cheaper and more widespread. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

Nothing is cheaper than free.  I don't expect any other system of distribution to be cheaper than radio.  And I expect rights fees on digital servives to limit their growth.  At least in regards to music.

Everyone expected network TV to die when cable became popular.  Even after 25 years, the lowest rated network TV show gets more audience than the highest rated cable show.  I think that analogy will apply to radio.

[SirRoxalot]

Nothing is cheaper than free.  I don't expect any other system of distribution to be cheaper than radio.  And I expect rights fees on digital servives to limit their growth.  At least in regards to music.

Everyone expected network TV to die when cable became popular.  Even after 25 years, the lowest rated network TV show gets more audience than the highest rated cable show.  I think that analogy will apply to radio.

You have to remember that the younger generation looks at 24/7/365 access to communcations as necessary to everyday life. The telecommunications companies are moving toward cheap, fast, wireless access as a revenue stream that will eventually replace landline phones and wired Internet access. With the changeover to IP phone service, they're in the data business - whether that data is a phone call, a music stream, an Internet page, or a text message.

Look at the iPhone and other "smart" devices. They already switch over to WiFi where its available to save money for users. Wireless access won't be free, but it will be a utility that most folks will already be paying for, and using it for access to music streams won't mean any extra expense - which in relative terms makes it "free".

Local radio stations carrying syndicated shows may add enough promotional value, or awareness of the product to offset distribution costs, but the restrictions of broadcast radio may also be perceived as a limit on the content, ala Howard Stern. With a digital stream, you can easily set up ways to block content for some users. That's not possible with over-the-air analog radio.

TV is facing its own challenges with Tivo, DVRs, and downloadable programming. Local stations are facing competition from cable ads that can be micro-targeted to a very specific audience. In case you hadn't heard, all broadcasting revenue - not just radio - has generally been stagnant, if not declining, since 2001. IPTV is the next challenge that coming to local stations, who are already upgrading their web capabilities and seeking a return from the cable, satellite, and other aggregators for the content that they provide.

[TheBigA]

The telecommunications companies are moving toward cheap, fast, wireless access as a revenue stream that will eventually replace landline phones and wired Internet access. With the changeover to IP phone service, they're in the data business - whether that data is a phone call, a music stream, an Internet page, or a text message.

And most of the major radio companies are already offering their content on them.  CBS and Clear Channel most notably.

Wireless access won't be free, but it will be a utility that most folks will already be paying for, and using it for access to music streams won't mean any extra expense - which in relative terms makes it "free".

I wouldn't base the future on how things are now.  Comcast has already put limits on the amount of bandwidth they permit under their plan.  That limit could change or there could be a tiered pricing system depending on the amount of bandwidth a person uses.  SoundExchange is forcing content users to increase revenue with more advertising and membership fees.  Soon, all the complaints consumers have with terrestrial radio will apply to online.  Once that happens, free radio will be on more level ground.

[SirRoxalot]

The telecommunications companies are moving toward cheap, fast, wireless access as a revenue stream that will eventually replace landline phones and wired Internet access. With the changeover to IP phone service, they're in the data business - whether that data is a phone call, a music stream, an Internet page, or a text message.

And most of the major radio companies are already offering their content on them.  CBS and Clear Channel most notably.

Yeah, but most people don't have wireless Internet with them 24/7/365 yet.

Wireless access won't be free, but it will be a utility that most folks will already be paying for, and using it for access to music streams won't mean any extra expense - which in relative terms makes it "free".

I wouldn't base the future on how things are now.  Comcast has already put limits on the amount of bandwidth they permit under their plan.  That limit could change or there could be a tiered pricing system depending on the amount of bandwidth a person uses.  SoundExchange is forcing content users to increase revenue with more advertising and membership fees.  Soon, all the complaints consumers have with terrestrial radio will apply to online.  Once that happens, free radio will be on more level ground.

Comcast is also under fire for limiting bandwidth. The infrastructure build-out is designed to accomodate all-you-can-eat plans, and that'll be the favorite option of younger users. If on-line "radio" has less advertising content than radio thanks to subscriber fees that provide a wealth of other services as well, they still win.

Radio can compete, but only if they provide content that relates to LOCAL listeners. There's a reason that people live outside major metropolitan areas - they LIKE it there. I could care less about Lindsay Lohan's latest media run-in. It'll get plenty of coverage on the magazine shows, Internet gossip sites, and a lot of other places that I routinely ignore. I do care about what's going on in MY town. Give me that content and I'll be listening, no matter what the platform.

[TheBigA]

If on-line "radio" has less advertising content than radio thanks to subscriber fees that provide a wealth of other services as well, they still win.

Only a small minority will pay for something they can get for free.  That's the lesson of satellite radio.  The cost of internet advertising is so small, they have to run five times as many ads to make the same amount of money. 

I could care less about Lindsay Lohan's latest media run-in. It'll get plenty of coverage on the magazine shows, Internet gossip sites, and a lot of other places that I routinely ignore. I do care about what's going on in MY town. Give me that content and I'll be listening, no matter what the platform.

I think you're trying to take what you like, and tell me everyone likes what you like.  Sorry, but not everyone thinks like you.