Whereas:
- Clear Channel's latest round of cutbacks included much talk of more national and regional programming.
- Even larger market talk stations are thinking of abandoning their remaining local programming.
- AM Radio continues to go the way of the buggy whip factory in 1910, with some owners choosing to turn off the switch.

Be it resolved: This thread is dedicated to brainstorming a new twist on the idea of national programming.

I'll start.
Think of something like a national version of WGN or WCCO: interesting hosts that delve into anything and everything, but dwell/obsess on nothing. No right or left wing ideologues. No shock jocks. No all-sports. And yet, each show will be free to explore all those subjects and much more.
Think a radio version of CNN and Fox's mid-day programming - a new subject every few minutes. Lots of guests. Breaking news.
Air America tried and failed, but maybe the time is now right to pitch it as a 'turnkey' operation, with live shows 24/7.
Live is vital. Weekend AM radio has become a wasteland of 'best of' crap or specialty shows that are so generic you don't really know if they're live or not.
The single word that would best describe my dream format: Companionship. It's what I-Pods can't deliver. It's what radio has abandoned. It's the last hope of terrestrial (and satellite) radio: humans talking to humans, creating a community.

Discuss....

Like of like NBC's old Monitor or NPR?

I think almost every market has room for one local version of what you describe. And it probably won't be too much longer before we won't be able to use WGN as an example.

Rich,

You have it figured out. "Companionship." It is the reason that people remember with great affection Radio stations they listened to in their youth. It is the difference between "live" and "voice tracked." The audience isn't stupid. They know, especially with talk programming, whether it is live or recorded. In a good on-air discussion there are many clues they pick up on.

The problem with lack of good weekend shows is money. Based on the current beliefs of the weekend audience numbers, there isn't enough listening to generate the return the advertisers need to see. I believe the People Meter will change that. "Companionship" is what must be restored to Radio. CC doesn't get it, but there are some companies that do and they're working to bring more live people back on the air in all time periods. They aren't big companies, but as their ratings begin to grow, you'll be hearing about them.

Thanks Hal. I will always remember you as the guy who came to talk radio to my class at Hillsboro High in '70. I think I walked you all the way to your car and would have jumped in just to keep hearing about the biz!

Why can't people be sourced from where they live?

If you get rid of the studios and offices, centralize the management teams, there are a lot of dollars free.

So take some of them, invest in quality of service network technology, VPN, and some kick backs to help get home / mobile studios started, and lay the foundation for this to occur.

I see several components to this:

1. Companionship. That's the connection between the person doing the broadcasting and or content creation (and this is content creation, being that's it's talk oriented), and the listener.

The key here is daily relevance and some basic drama element.

2. Live 'n Local! This is actually two things!

3. Live - If it were me, on-demand, interruptable programming is a must. The most cost effective approach to live is done at times that matter. This is not all times, just key times.

When something happens, specific times of day, etc...

4. Local. That's what this is about! If the broadcast is to have daily relevance, then it needs to be sourced from the location where said relevance is attractive.

5. Recorded. It has been demonstrated that listeners can connect to a recorded program. IMHO, this is the primary mode where live does not add value. Must be interruptable, period.

The WGN example is one that's been discussed before. Frankly, that's working right now in some talk circles. A particular station has a market that proves rich for a particular niche. Could be politics, could be racing, whatever. That station then invests in programming that can be moved to other markets where it's appealing, but perhaps just not easily sourced.

Don't forget the subscription podcast. Ideally, these are available on a time delay archive for free, for sampling and or people, who just are interested in hearing a show once in a while. Paid members get the real deal, commercial free, right after the show has aired.

6. Program guides. It's easier to set expectations when the programming schedule is known. Why isn't RDS being used for this? The scroller should indicate what's on now, and what's gonna be on next!

A visit to the web site would see that up, front and center, with links to the podcasts for sampling, streaming, subscriptions, etc...

The listener should be able to extremely quickly, via the radio know what's on right now, what's gonna be on, and what the station identity is.

On the Internet, and via the Podcast, should be able to easily select what they are interested in, live, or recorded.

Also, on the internet, it would be wise to source the live stream, and the local stream. For shows where calls in make sense, why not?

7. Leveraging other content forms. The better shows right now, feature hosts that do live programming, write books, publish blogs, interact via e-mail, offer a variety of podcasts and such.

I would add to that, extra content relevant to the show, so there is ALWAYS a reason to check in. A particular host then owns a niche totally. Any syndication then identifies the source station, host, and niche clearly to the point where it's an authoritative entertainment source.

Where teams make sense, a studio makes sense. Where it's a largely solo affair, ditch these and the management of these, using network technologies to move programming from place to place in atomic pieces. Either you get one, or you don't, and if you do, then it's interruptable for live programming that makes sense.

IMHO, the anything and everything bit has appeal in that it can be done anywhere. That same business appeal does diminish potency. For talk programming, many people prefer a strong niche.

There has got to be some expectation of what the overall topic is. Other wise, it's random enough to suffer the same problem music programming does; namely, if the mood does not match, it's a switch out.

Continuity is key for talk. That's where the strength is, and this is why political talk works so well. Every day the drama advances, people get invested in that, and they follow that.

Could work with hosts that expose themselves personally too, but their lives then must be interesting enough to expose!

With the home studio, source it where it lives bit, niches can be well covered, with their stories running with daily relevance, and the hosts can be entertaining and personable and the whole thing hangs together.

Some examples:

Peak Oil - This is non-partisan for the most part, good stories, lots of news, phoners in are fantastic! Share your sustainability stories! Coping with higher energy prices, tips 'n tricks. What are you gonna do, if the oil stops flowing? Etc...

(I've done a few shows on TalkShoe and this niche is just RIPE for the picking! Please produce this! I know many that would listen)

Society, the law, and technology. This happens to be a personal interest of mine, and it's a rich topic as well. What it needs is somebody who can put the stuff into context and tell the story in an entertaining way.

Lots to do here. Our big brother society, cameras everywhere. Citizen cell phone cameras. Privacy in general.

New media commentary. It's not all good. How, why, what it might mean!

There are others.

So, my point is these things are produced in chunks that make sense, and are produced where the story is rich enough to warrant said production.

Other stations then, can aggregate these into a them that works for their market, mixed with the live bits that make sense, where warranted.

(do them in stereo, so that FM makes more sense too. Bumpers, street sounds, guests and such all make great sense and are more appealing in stereo. No reason not to do it, if the network tech is used. The bitrates are there, why not?)

As a counter point, iPods can deliver companionship. Say a person is listening to a great radio show produced on the east coast. It's time delayed 3 hours.

Happens all the time, yet people still feel connected, mostly because they hear other people connected, and can relate to that.

An iPod filling up in the morning then would deliver the same impact, with the only differentiator being interruptable programming to add value to the radio live stream, where the local events warrant it.

And in the context of niche programming above, radio stations or perhaps the larger companies could easily provide a service where said iPod gets filled in the morning, not unlike RSS works for the Internet.

Something to think about.

This is one of the ways I do use the Pod today. Some shows are produced weekly, or are worth listening a day behind, whatever. They work.

They would work a lot better, if some interaction was provided via the Internet for consumers of the shows.

Forums do this. E-mail does this. Blogs with commentary do this.

On the e-mail, that's obvious.

On the forum, it's simple. What you do is run a thread for each show. Commentary trickles in from wherever and whenever the show is consumed. People connect, and it's golden.

All that really has to exist is the potential for people to connect, and for people to be aware of that potential, and experience others connecting, for that spark of companionship to then exist.

Just saying...

Edit: This does not mean the two are exclusive! I highlighted both means for a reason; namely, that production with those ideas in mind means content that can be delivered in multiple media formats. That's a good thing for the content creators. They are the ones that need to get paid, and the more diversity they have on that, the better their overall position is.

Since we're throwing predictions out, as soon as the first in-car radio with built in WiMax service is released (you've seen the Clear commercials/billboards) radio as we know it will be pretty close to dead.

$20 per month for in-car broadband Internet service would mean you could listen to any of the thousands of commercial free Internet radio stations at the touch of a button.

There might be a little hope for stations that are exclusively local talk radio, but that would probably be it...

Doesn't that depend?

What if stations right now, focus on their station brand, then co-opt the new media where it makes sense?

It then is possible for KXXX to be just another stream on the wi-max service, does it not?

Missng: Many good points, but they're mostly about the hardware, not the software. Surely, local content will save local radio. But since few show any willingness to do it, I'm thinking of a national substitute.
Yep, a little Monitor, a little NPR, at little BBC. Certainly availble on other platforms, on demand, downloadable and all that.
But riddle me this: how many places on the dial (local or satellite) will you, driving in the middle of nowhwere in the middle of the night, know if another 9/11 happened? Or more likely, something serious but a step or two down from 9/11 like a big earthquake or a gas leak?
Whatever you think of my employer, Fox News Channel has mastered the cable news version of companionship and community. Steve Doocy is a part of many more families than John Roberts (a very fine journalist) will ever be.
Most of this brainstorming is selfish. I'd love to design a news/talk/companion/full service format that I could listen to and work for.
But then, right now, I have the greatest job ever. What am I talking about?

Well, it's a split really.

The way I see it, thinking through the hardware part (and really some of that is just management and work flow, business process related stuff), is the enabler for software, ie: content creation.

When radio first appeared, it offered the potential for a lot of new content. And that vacuum was quickly filled. Same for TV, print, Internet, you name it.

Always happens.

Radio, as it exists right now, does not appear viable for a whole lot of reasons. We've hashed those out plenty right? So, don't go there right now.

The key is that it's not viable in it's current state.

It's also been fairly well identified that content efforts are the key to improving the state of it. In this, I agree!

Also related is the realization that quality really isn't a factor. We've hashed that out too, and it's a wash.

That leaves us with how to get the content in a way that makes sense?

I really like your idea, and think it has merit. I would consume those things for sure!

However, it's really just a stop gap, and doesn't really leverage the core strength of radio; namely, the expectation that it is local, and that it's live or relevant on a daily basis.

Top marks for relevance, IMHO. Don't mean to imply that this idea is not relevant. I think it would be, but it would be in the sense that national political shows are relevant.

I won't even bring FOX into this discussion. Politically there is FOX, then technically there is FOX. Two different things! I've great respect for HOW FOX does a lot of things. The what is a topic for the other side!!

Anyway, about half of my post was hardware stuff, the other half was software stuff. Niches. Locally produced niches, that can be assembled to fit markets on demand.

That is done right now with talk. Why not expand on that and bring a lot more to choose from?

That's the software part.

It's national in the same sense you are thinking national, in that the sum of it would come from all over the place. It's local in the sense that the parts that form that sum really are tuned to the market where it's being delivered.

The biggest downside I see to a little Monitor, NPR, Beeb, etc... is that they are already available, so where is the value add?

Is it the hosts and their drama and relevance, or is it just that particular combination is presented some how that isn't available elsewhere?

Gotta have one or the other, or the high availability of media choices will dilute the value of it to the point where it doesn't make sense. That is exactly what happened to music radio. That isn't happening to talk radio, because it's got a very high value add in both these areas, and the source of it is radio!

I'm asking because the array of media delivery technologies is always expanding. Treating radio like a media delivery tech, diminishes it's strength.

If, on the other hand, it's a blend, with a personality framing all the little bits, announcing the up and coming bits, commenting on this and that, there is a very nice value add in the form of context!

Maybe I can put it this way. As a resident of PDX, I consume various media. Some national, some local.

What does this mean to me, and what do other PDXers think about it?

Those questions are very relevant.

Eg: I watch the national take on things, NPR, Monitor, etc... then tune to KPOJ for the PDX take! That's a huge value add for the station.

Now, Thom syndicates a national show. In other markets, wouldn't it then make sense to offer the same kind of local commentary?

So then, expanding on that with other niches that maybe are not so hot-button political, that can be syndicated, would open the door for local stations to add their own layer above that, for context!

If it's interruptable, we hear about 9/11, and that means having some people willing and able to broadcast. Some discussion left on that, but maybe not all that much technically. More on the business arrangements than anything else.

So the Peak Oil niche I highlighted as an example would be produced somewhere that is Oil central, or where there is a hot bed of sustainability research and development going on. Ideally both!

Those shows get brought to PDX, and that station then has a local presence framing them in terms of our local politics, and perhaps highlighting local companies or small business that are relevant as well.

I no longer tune radio for simple news or music. Those things can be had anywhere, for free, on demand, and are rich in content and I have near infinite choice.

I tune to know something about PDX and the Nation in layers. What do other people think. What does it mean? How might it impact me? What do I have to say about it?

BTW: This is why I like themed music programs. They have context, commentary and other things that add value. The music itself is a freebie, essentially. In fact, because choice is so easy, it's often more fun to explore other choices and consider them in that context.

Bob's hip and cool club music remix program tells me what local DJ's are playing, where it's at, who likes it, why they like it, and what's up and coming, for example.

Just playing that music during a day part on shuffle means absolutely nothing anymore. I've got that, and I've got it with no hassles, spots and such!

Edit: I would listen to programming of this kind, given there is a local tie-in of some kind. Could be a morning show, in-between show commentary, something!

And that's all I'm gonna write on it.

Maybe the answer to the original question on this thread lies in looking to the past, i.e. to the days of network radio. Have a set of national shows, preferably that are broadcast live so that they stay relevant on current happenings. The affiliate stations would drop in "local" shows interspersed with the national programming to customize the offering for its city.

Note that in the above paragraph, the word local is in quotation marks. This is because there is no reason that all of the parts of these programming elements need to be produced entirely in the market where they air. For instance, a Portland studio could produce features meant to air in Eugene, Bend, The Dalles, etc. If this is done, care must be taken to be faithful in making the programming so that listeners in those markets can identify with it. There would be nothing more embarrassing than to mispronounce the names of local landmarks and sports teams while trying to do the "hometown" thing.

Alternately

Darkstar is right, for the most part. Once WiMax comes in, traditional terrestrial radio as we know it is dead. Which means it gets to be taken back by the hobbyists.

> Which means it gets to be taken back by the hobbyists.

If any one of the automated jukeboxes or simulcast stations went dark, and a pirate jumped on that frequency, I think there is a good chance that I'd be much more entertained listening to the pirate. This is quite sad.

I am eagerly expecting the day when pirates jump on the frequencies previously occupied by Bustos stations and on 910. I am also awaiting a long-overdue 1290 pirate.

>_>

Your wait may not be all that long...