march 12th

Listeners quit caring about Radio Rat after his second post.

1996

I think "radio" cares plenty about their listeners. Who in the business really doesn't want to entertain and add value?

Nobody.

The problem is not "caring", but a disconnect about how to best add that value, and a structure of ownership that does not leverage competition to it's best.

Really we've got public companies who need to make their quarters as often and as huge as is possible every time. This forces a more short sighted approach that is seen in many industries, not just radio.

Those people in those affected industries have the same trouble as those in radio do.

This is perhaps the biggest negative impact mega ownership of radio has on the medium, and has nothing to do with anyone caring or not.

We've got some really great stations here in PDX right now. I'm liking it more than I have in a while. The perception that "radio sucks" also fails to take into account those stations that are doing well, focusing on the poor ones, or maybe just the sheer numbers of ones that don't appeal for one reason or another.

Also fails to account for one's personal issues. There is an emotional connection between many people and the radio they enjoy. Not making that connection, or more importantly, failing to let go of one made and gone, makes that person somewhat jaded and unable to rationally identify with the radio they are experiencing today.

If it sucks that hard, and you just don't feel like anybody cares, why not just turn the thing off for a while?

I've done this --actually I think I might be headed to a place where I'll do it again. Tune for some specific programs or times and just let the rest go for a while. Each incremental change really has little impact. Letting these accumulate for a while does.

They quit caring about listeners when big corporate radio was allowed to dominate all the big markets and the bottom line became all. You have to realize how the mind of an executive works. If one of their performance goals is to sell their mother down the river, they'll do it no matter what it takes. It's how they get all that insane compensation. It's OK though. The listener doesn't care about radio anymore either. See you on my iPod.

In 1996 The FCC waved their middle finger to all radio listeners. Now its time that the Public wave their middle fingers to the FCC and these huge Corporate companies that have destroyed radio stations.
Until Radio starts caring about listeners than I say FUCK RADIO and hello IPOD!

If they don't care about us, than why should we care about them??? Afterall, if It wasn't for us (the listening public) they would be out of business!

satellite radio is looking more and more attractive to me everyday.

Executives work to make the most dollars as much of the time as is possible, while keeping costs low.

Change the rules of engagement and you change all the executives in one shot. Some regulation will fix radio, and other things.

If "caring" is worth more than not, they will "care", it's as simple as that.

I've worked for station owners who only cared about money and some who actually cared about putting out the best product possible. But even their goal was to make money.

Remember radio has two customers, advertisers and listeners. Get listeners, and you get advertisers, which in turn give you money to continue operating. Advertisers need listeners to hear their messages. At the same time listeners have been conditioned to tune out advertising, mostly by stations that couldn't sell their product or new stations trying to build a listener base that they later could sell to advertisers!

Radio might have a hard time if all listeners left, but as long as there are people that can't afford a computer or iPod, and can't or won't pay for downloads or XM or Sirius, free radio will continue.

Listeners are the product and advertisers are the customers.

........Author: Zibbyzubb
Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 6:25 pm

satellite radio is looking more and more attractive to me everyday........

Do you REALLY think satellite services care any more about their listeners than terrestrial broadcasters do? Of course they don't. I've been a Sirius subscriber for about two years now and while I do enjoy their programming, I don't feel that they care about me any more than a conventional station.

I would think they care less!

They have no local tie.

I meant satellite is more attractive as far as music selection goes. I am not a subscriber but looking at the variety offered at XM, I see a few channels that I would have on most of the day.

I think that the media environment that exists today, i.e. one with a ton of choices--whether it be niche channels on cable/satellite TV, dozens of terrestrial signals in the larger cities, satellite radio, or even web sites that cater to very specific interests--is a double edged sword. On the plus side, media consumers tend to love these hyper-specialized programming options because they are more consistent than what was available, say 20 or 30 years ago. On the downside, this model tends to demand large conglomerate ownership, both to get a large enough audience and to satisfy advertisers. These big conglomerate owners tend to be publically traded companies that have to have a short term financial focus in order to please their stock holders.

For the purposes of this thread, I think that "caring about the listeners" hasn't been defined adequately. For instance, is auditorium testing of music a sign that a station cares about the listeners? Does OPB radio care more about its listeners than KEX? Does KPSU care more about its listeners than KNRK? If you find something on XM satellite radio that you happen to like, does that mean that XM "cares about you?" etc....

I drank the koolaid man. KNRK really, really cares!

(trust me)

You know you are supposed to mix that with water and not Snort it right?

(No disrespect to NRK, not my kind of tunes, just commenting on Missings Kool-aid consumption)

Can radio stations really care? They can only give the impression, or make people feel like they care. Individuals can care, and many do, even in corporate radio. It takes a group of caring, passionate individuals to evoke that feeling from listeners.

Hate to have to go back so far, but an excellent example would be 610 KFRC. This station was running on all cylinders, providing compelling entertainment and information 24/7 for many years. Everything that came out of the speaker (mono) was top-notch. KFRC provided programming that attracted listeners (the product is the listener, thanks for the correction Semoochie), then their expert sales staff converted that into $$$. I don't know, money may have been their only concern, but that is not the impression they gave when people listened.

Not all of us have experienced a KFRC, but I'll bet many of us worked somewhere that tried emulating that spirit.

Fast forward back to the present radio model, and you see the challenges. It sure seems harder today to evoke that caring feeling. Perhaps people are more cynical today. Maybe narrowcasting has ruined it for those stations who still want to "broadcast".

I don't see automation as the main problem either. Listeners (not us on this board) probably don't know or care how it happens. It's "theater of the mind" anyway; they will think what they want to think. Otto is just another tool in the programmer's arsenal. Used well, I believe one can sense a PD’s touch even through automation.

If the passion is lacking, it shows, live or Memorex.

As long as they are "broadcasting", no station will ever have the perfect music mix, and I think most listeners are sophisticated enough to know that. It takes a team of passionate and caring individuals in front and behind the curtain to create those P1s. Give and you get.

Of course that might sometimes take longer than two books…

I’m sleepy now,
Ron