A Pig On A Seesaw

Posted Thursday, May 08 2008 at 12:30 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the medium that is radio. The transmitters still work. Car radios still work. Clock radios still work. The radio in the lobby of your dentist's office still works too.

All of it is 100% A-OK. I checked.

Sure, the medium has more challenges and challengers today than it has ever had before, but the fundamentals of radio are sound. Sure, listeners may be less passionate about radio today, but that's happening because we're giving them less to be passionate about. We can fix that. Any problems facing the content side of radio are easily solved through creativity, passion and hard work, and I don't see any lack of that.

I'll say it again: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the medium that is radio.

What's broken is the business of radio.

Once upon a time not so long ago, your typical radio station was a balancing act: a seesaw of programming and Sales. Programming created entertainment that captured an audience. Sales used that audience to generate revenue. Want more money? Create better programming. Build a bigger audience.

It doesn't work that way anymore because the business of radio is broken. There is no balance of programing and sales when there's a pig on the seesaw.

Take, for example, Clear Channel's KHKS FM in Dallas. They celebrated a return to market dominance by slashing the budget. Is it really a fact that the highest rated English language station in market number five can't afford to staff the midday airshift? Really? ...Please... That decision was made in San Antonio and enforced via Pittsburgh, which I find odd since KHKS's signal can't be heard by people who live in either of those cities.

While we're in Dallas, let's consider the fate of another major player in the market: CBS Radio. They own six stations, four of which are were in the one shares this past fall, yet CBS did Jack squat about it.

The most offensive of these embarrassments to broadcasting is the ironically named "Movin' 107.5", where a successful heritage smooth jazz station was signed off in favor of the latest flavor of radio snake oil. Ranked in 24th place overall, this station is actually out-performing some of the Movin' stations in other markets. You can't even look up 12+ Arbitron ratings for some Movin' stations online because they've literally fallen off the page. Try to find Movin' in Los Angeles on allaccess.com. I dare you.

The decision to put Movin' on the air in Dallas and Los Angeles had nothing to do with entertainment. It was a get rich quick scheme and it failed. The way to fix either of these stations is simple: go into the market, find an under-served sellable demographic and entertain them. These are major markets! Hire talented PDs, compelling air talent and build a winning team, one station at a time. But the days of doing radio that way are quickly coming to a close because large corporations don't view individual properties individually, and that's a key reason why they're not willing to do more to get more.

Years ago, you'd blow out an underperforming jock. Today, you blow out the entire shift and track it regardless of how well the jock is doing.

Years ago, you'd low out an underperforming PD. Today, you blow out the entire station and replace it with a gimmick. Worry about it again in '09, eh?

The old way: Grow the budget. Make more money.
The new way: Slash the budget. Take more money.

And the worst part is, the business of radio was destroyed while the economy was strong. Imagine the pressure to slash budgets further when this recession really takes hold.

The business of radio is broken.

---

I Hear Dead People

A Random Entry From The Archives | Wednesday, Sep 01 2004 at 01:22 PM

I've been reading more and more discussions on the net regarding the nationalization of radio (and of our society in general). I read about how people had the same fears 100 years ago. The difference is that, in this day and age, we have the tools to completely wipe out uniqueness. Years ago they'd try to copy. Today we clone. There is a difference.

There's only one way to fight this gentrification of our media and our culture really... We must build something unique, special, and superior. "The best mix of the 80's 90's and today" is not special, nor unique, nor superior in any way. It's a non-customizable jukebox. Who cares.

Radio people do - and that is sad. Radio people care about formats more than entertainment. They care more about music than people.

If I were to ask you to tell me what you do for a living - breaking it down to the very most basic aspect of what you do - what would you say? Think about it from a standpoint even more simplistic than the type of media you work in.

You entertain people.

Think about that.

Are you an air talent? Before walking into the air studio for your next shift, ask yourself: "Who am I supposed to be entertaining, and what do I have planned that's so entertaining?"

Are you a music director? Before printing out that log, ask yourself: "Who am I supposed to be entertaining with these songs, and are these really the most entertaining choices?"

Are you a program director? Ask yourself: "What makes my radio station the best form of entertainment for the audience I'm trying to build [or maintain]?" If the word 'music' is in your answer, odds are you're an idiot.

To be honest, I don't understand most radio people at all.

We talk of the importance of local while making our stations sound more and more national. The production is slicker, the rotations tighter, but the sound emerging from the speakers sounds increasingly faceless - or worse - disingenuous.

We talk about knowing our audience, and yet, we hear air talent on female stations calling their callers "honey," "baby," or other demeaning nicknames. I'm left to wonder which is worse: the jock not knowing he's a pig, or the program director not realizing his air talent is a pig. It's a conundrum.

There's so little about radio stations that is special anymore. And we're doing nothing to change that. In fact, we're becoming more distant than ever. Here's a perfect example: Contests have bigger and bigger prizes, giving a listener less and less chance of ever winning them. And this is entertaining because...?

It's time to turn off the jukebox and replace it with a club - a social group.

When I was in college, I was the guy who brought the music to a party. It was a given. Steph was the hostess... She would invite everybody and keep things lively, whether she was introducing people [potential hook-ups] or initiating the drinking games. Eric & Joe brought the beer. It was understood. Tina had a camera and access to a dark room. She'd tape pictures on her door within a day or two - often to our dismay. This too was understood.

A radio station could be an amazing social group. Why has not one radio station in America capitalized on the success of Friendster? Why has not one radio station in America really capitalized on the popularity of blogging? Why aren't radio stations setting up singles groups or amateur sports leagues? Oh sure, one or two are, kind of. Set up something silly like a putt-putt death-match. Get involved with Habitat For Humanity and find a way to turn it into some sort of Trading Spaces. People are searching for ways to come together. Match.com has so many impersonators. Message boarding is everywhere [craigslist.org is among the best] Meetin.org is proof that people will get involved when they're given a way to do so.

Meanwhile - as if stranded in an alternate universe - radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I turn it on, and I hear dead people. Ghosts of what once was, as if life has been sucked out of them. And there's little change, if any, on the horizon.

The question is 'why?'