Here's an email recently sent to me by a true veteran of the biz, after I had requested his thoughts on the current state of radio and the outlook for the future of it. Some of you may know him, some may not. He's got decades of experience on the talent, managerial and ownership levels... in small markets and large. He's seen it all and here's his two-cents, unedited. It's worth a read.


/// My thinking is that radio as we know it is gone forever. Things never return to the "good old days". They change. The first thing one has to realize is that the demise of radio was caused by multiple factors.

1. Extreme fractionalization within the industry (too many stations). This began in the 1980s with FCC Docket 89-90. Once the FCC had realized what it had done, it tried to help by allowing duopoly's. That wasn't enough, so they went further, ultimately ending up where we are ownership wise today.

2. Mergers into mega-giant broadcasting groups started the ball rolling in another disastrous direction. Suddenly, these companies were so big that radio could no longer be trusted to the dumb managers who had come up through the ranks as either sales guys or programmers. Why, they were nothing more than glorified car salesmen. It would take geniuses with MBA's from Harvard to run them. Never mind that they didn't even know what "stop set" meant.

3. Technology grew at an enormous rate. Computers, satellites, etc., could do things never done before. Why, you could actually run a station without people. Imagine that. None of those dumb disc jockeys who wouldn't get their hair cut or get to work on time. Heck, programming could even be done in one place and fed to dozens of stations at once. Who needs anybody locally.

4. Technology again surfaces, this time in the form of satellite radio, iPods, and the like. Not only do we have 3 times as many stations on the dial as we need, we have all kinds of other ways of delivering music. After all, there's not much local left on the dial, so why not get it just the way we want it on an iPod.

That's four things merging into the Perfect Storm. Add that to rising costs, huge debt from stupid purchases made during the consolidation feeding frenzy, and you have a financial nightmare. What do the MBA's do? They cut more costs. Where can they cut? Only one place, personnel. After all, the machines can do more work, they never complain.

But, you already knew all of the above.

In my opinion, radio will not come back. It's too far gone. Radio had one thing going for it that nothing else had. That was warm, live communication and on a local basis. That's all gone. Not only is it gone, but the younger population which is getting less young every day, doesn't any longer care about anything local.

There is little or no talent being developed today. There is no workforce who understands what it is all about. It's a little bit like when TV came along and the radio talent that produced the dramas, game shows, etc. on radio drifted away. It became no longer possible to produce that kind of radio. Sure, you could probably train some jocks for a new wave of radio, but the good ones had years of development experience in small markets before they went "major". Those farm clubs no longer exist.

Is it time to grab a dial spot and hold on for a resurrection? In my opinion, there isn't going to be a resurrection, unless the person grabbing the dial spot has the idea such as Todd Storz did in 1949 that would relaunch radio. But remember, he didn't have any competition for the mass of ears. There was a void and he filled it. Today, you better have an idea to compete with at least 20 other forms of distractive competition. Any thought that the "good old days" will return is ill conceived.

Ears are not the only thing you'd have to be after. More important is the ad dollar. I won't waste space listing all of the places ad dollars go these days, but there are far more than there have ever been. Radio was always a tough sell, it's now even tougher.

What's the future for broadcast talent? There will always be a couple of slots around for someone to fill. There has to be at least a body that can talk within each cluster. If not, I'm sure the FCC will step in and insist there be one for emergencies. We've had a situation in the Mid-West where the local officials couldn't find anyone at the local cluster to sound the alarm of a tornado coming. It's created quite a stir. It happened to be a Clear Channel station.

To drift a bit, one thing that I think caused radio to go so far south so fast with the consolidation was the thought that managers and programmers could handle a cluster of stations. I say that is ridiculous. Well run stations of the past had management that concentrated on ONE station and wore it like a suit. When FM came along, and management had to run two stations, an AM and an FM, one almost always suffered. Try adding a cluster of 6 or 8 stations to one management team. All stations become lifeless automatons as we now find in every market.

The only type station that has survived is a single high power AM in each market to carry the hot talk shows like Rush Limbaugh, etc. With the Obama administration vowing to wipe out talk radio with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio will be forced to satellite or somewhere else that's unregulated. That small remaining glow will go out.

Several years ago, I sat down to a lunch with a group of big time program directors from the 1960s when radio was absolute king. Present, in addition to top Storz program directors of the day, was the head of Radio and TV for Kansas University at Lawrence, KS. Talk got around to what could be programmed today to gain an audience. The conversation diminished down to the level of discussing a possible music mix. No ideas came forth that indicated anything that couldn't be done with a computer or an iPod. The bottom line is that radio just isn't needed any longer. Every market needs one high power AM to disseminate emergency information, nothing else is needed.

Strangely enough, I don't get in a car without popping the radio on. But to what? One of two talk stations. Never anything else.
When those are forced to begin presenting the "liberal viewpoint" by law, I'll probably give up completely on radio. So will many others.

It's gone, it ain't coming back. You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until Wall Street completely tires of it, just like they tired of the dot com business a few years back. ///

...any thoughts?

I'm just glad I'm close to retirement. It was a nice 36 year run. Looking at the stock prices, it appers wall street has left radio. Radio R.I.P.

The fairness doctrine matter is a rough split on both sides. I spent some time online, in a few venues, ran a poll or two, and engaged in some conversations.

Both major parties are split on the doctrine, with the right being a 3/5 against, the left being 6/10 against. IMHO, from my seriously flawed sampling, the general bent toward the doctrine is not in favor, but not by much!

Some advocacy on this, would keep that off the table, and I think it should be off the table.

This could end up being the left version of Rowe V Wade, in that they bring it up, but only to drive votes and interest, not to really address it, just like the Right has done with Roe over the years.

Financial issues aside, I think pulling radio OUT of the markets to private ownership again remains the best move. When things are running good, Wall street sets high expectations, and milks it. When things are not running so good, those same market expectations crush any chance at returning to some viable business model.

When times and tech changes, innovation is required to maintain the impacted businesses. This takes some investment, and with that comes lower earning expecations, and that's where Wall street does more harm than good.

Can't build a business, or turn it around, and also expect there to be no profit issues along the way.

Radio is right there, getting hammered.

I find the general public perception of radio still favorable, despite all the choices. Just playing tunes, with a personality popping in and out, isn't gonna make any serious money. I believe that's over.

Too many other choices. Anybody can spin tunes and get a personality, or some other entity to break things up, so there just isn't a lot of value in that.

Talk interests me greatly and I believe it's still got a lot of potential for both local and national revenue.

Everybody connects a few times per day, just to stay relevant. Some do it with TV, others Internet, others Radio, Paper, whatever. The point is they do it.

This then still plays to the core strengths of radio:

1. It's just cheap ass. Find a radio, and you are golden! You get to hear stuff, and you get to hear it for only the cost of powering the radio! This value proposition is basically unmatched by most other media delivery forms.

2. Radio by nature is local. Stations have a foot print, and that foot print is a local one.

3. The general perception might be negative, but there is absolutely a very wide perception of radio, in that most people know what it is, how to use it, and such...

This can be leveraged, and is a good thing.

When I am around younger people, I see plenty of them looking for the scene, and many of them look on the radio for it. This is being diluted with cell phones, iPods, and Internet streaming, but the core behavior is still there.

IMHO, the biggest problem is relevancy, not technology.

The added choices make the problem more difficult, but that's about it. How people behave in this regard hasn't changed all that much, and still, a very large fraction of younger people have lots of early radio exposure time.

We lose them in their late teens and 20's because of relevancy, and the potency of the other choices, not because the technology of radio is a problem.

For what it's worth, we don't lose them on quality either. Nobody cares about that in this day of compressed, mangled and slurry audio. I thought for sure we were gonna see that go away, once bit rates improve, but no. It's all still there, messy, and people lap it up!

(the more channels aspect of HD then makes sense as a differentiator, but quality is not so much of one)

Of all the things I hear negative about radio, two resonate over and over and over:

1. Playlists suck, for a lot of reasons.

2. The commercials are ANNOYINGLY LOUD AND FREQUENT.

Talk radio listeners will deal with commerical spots better than music listeners will. I think the reason is there is far less of a disconnect between one person talking about the politics of the day, and another person, or the same person, talking about a product briefly.

With music, it's worse. We've got the tunes, and that's good, THEN WE'VE GOT REALLY LOUD SPOTS THAT JUST MAKE YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE DIAL, AND OH MY GOD THEY ALL RUN THEM AT THE SAME TIME, SO FUCK IT, I'LL TURN ON THE POD.

Radio has to fix that somehow, some way. I think it can be done.

If I were king, I would do the following:

(cont)

1. Produce more talk programs and produce the damn things in Stereo. Retool existing ones for stereo too.

This makes the format more appealing, and somewhat easier to listen to on both AM and FM. On AM, use the modulation technology that is stereo, and just do it. HD, AMS, does not matter, just do it.

On FM talk programs, having a stereo broadcast means being able to weave music and other audio into the mix, for a more robust set of presentation choices. The better talkers will take advantage of this, making for more audience appeal and perhaps longer listening times.

Also, nice, stereo spots, given THEY ARE NOT THE SAME LOUD AS HELL ONES WE GET NOW on stereo broadcasts, have more appeal to people purchasing them.

Win win, IMHO.

Interestingly, I think the best overall way to beat down the spectre of fairness, is to produce more programs and promote them. If people are hearing that, they are gonna calm down about the fairness bit, and everybody is happy.

I don't buy the whole "conservative talk is the only viable talk" bit. The nation is roughly split, and there is majority consensus on many non hard core conservative issues. That means there are many potential listeners for programs that fit that niche, and all it takes is for some hosts to give it a go and find out how it all works.

Maddow is a shining example of that, BTW. Her TV and radio programs are just excellent, and the only ones my wife, who hates all of it, will listen to or watch with interest every day.

Lots of lessons to be learned from that woman.

Talk then is a two pronged deal. On one side, we've got some quality improvements to be made, and on the other content innovation and stimulation.

On music, the problem is more complex. I don't believe there are any clear tech solutions to enhance the thing. It's good enough, and the core elements are there, so it's down to content efforts only.

Want to know what I find very interesting about those people I know listen to radio? They are into the drama of it as much as they are into the content; namely, music.

This is why people listen to talk, BTW! Being informed is the core driver, but what keeps them coming back is the daily relevance and the DRAMA. If you get into politics at any level, truth is YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! It's freaking great, and that's why so many talk consumers, consume talk regularly. They want to know how the story turns out, not to get all the news.

You do that with Internet, Paper, or some other boring thing, WHEN YOU'VE GOT NO OTHER CHOICE!

Music formats then need to weave in some social context. There has got to be some basic DRAMA incorporated into the format that has broad appeal. That means stories that reinforce the music and the branding associated with the station.

We all know the core elements of drama. So, begin to exploit those and build on those. People will connect, get hooked on that and enjoy the ride on a more daily basis. When we are in the middle of a good story, we wake up and wonder about it. What's gonna happen? Who is screwing who and how? You all know the drill.

I can think of a ton of ways to put some context that has daily relevance on music formats. Some have been posted here, and I'm sure you all have lots of good ideas, so do those!

(please! Because I like radio, I like the stories, I like having something to keep me relevant, entertain me and make me think)

(continued and remember, you asked!)

So, who wrote it? Are you allowed to reveal that info?

Rather than post a book-length answer to "any thoughts", let me share with you a couple of today's news headlines:

From R&R: "'Half (of all) Radio Companies Will Be Gone In 36 Months' Forecasts (Cumulus CEO Lew) Dickey"

From Tom Taylor's T-R-I: "Q4's Big Rumor - Layoffs ahead at Clear Channel?" An excerpt: "Some folks suspect there will be major layoffs in late December. Some say January, with the budgeting being done now. Some say it's a question of winnowing out the bottom performers in the sales department and going lean and mean. Some say it's a question of San Antonio settling on 15 key formats that it will do nationally, and that there will be little if any role for local PDs except in the biggest markets. "

There you have it. The overall health of radio is nearly in critical condition and by this time next year it may very well be in ICU.

That is - assuming no government bailout.

For both, some cross branding done in such a way as to permit carry over to other media forms is essential.

There is absolutely no reason why radio content has to be radio only, so why even bother? Audio streams are great stuff. They don't require high bit rates, making them easy to distribute, they can be enhanced with video, and so long as the resulting production works audio only, you are only improving the chance of appeal, with almost no downsides.

Everybody that is cool, should have a web cam, so that people can see they are cool, and they should be using IM technology, to chat up those that want to sample the cool.

Again, I find what Maddow is doing very, very interesting. She runs a radio show, has leveraged that to a TV show, and has connected the two nicely.

You can catch most of the popular topics on the TV that day, or on radio the day after in the last hour.

On the radio, she does a bit more depth, and is more silly sometimes too. Lots of fun, and a perfect blend where the two technologies are concerned.

On the net, you can stream, or grab any part of it, or the works on streams or podcasts.

In short, Maddow is a brand, and she uses all the avaliable media delivery technologies to get it out there so people can connect and stay connected when it makes sense for them.

Way too many lessons to learn from that woman.

Anybody with any kind of talent like this needs to study that, leverage that and start branding in that fashion.

If radio were to start investing in these kinds of things, they will pay off, and prove to be a training ground for up and coming talent, and when that pool of talent is bigger, radio has more to work with, and can become more relevant, and that will solve many of the problems we here about all the time.

There you go. If any of this kicks any kind of ass, just remember where you read about it.

Thanks.There's much here to read and absorb. Sadly, I think much of it is true. Just for the record, though, Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he is against the return of the Fairness Doctrine. (not that that would wipe out talk radio anyway)

Imagine where radio might be if the members of the HD alliance had invested half of that money in talent and programming for traditional radio instead.

HD radio still would have a shaky future and traditional radio might have found a way to make itself compelling to current and future listeners.

Absolutely true!

We didn't need HD radio. What we do need is content innovation.

Thought experiment for you all:

There are two stations. One is top notch quality and the other is middle of the road.

The high quality station is boring. The middle of the road one is compelling enough that you wonder each day, "what will happen now?", "Who did what?", etc...

Which one do you listen to?

Some of us are into the audio for the sake of it being good audio, and would listen to the pristine station. Most of us are there for the stories carried by the audio, or the experiences.

They would tune the lesser quality station.

This is why we didn't need HD radio.

Let's not get off track here. Yes, we all agree HD Radio is an answer to a question nobody asked. But radio's problems are a LOT deeper than wasting money on new technology.

The only way the radio business will get better is once it's out of Wall Street and back on Main Street. That - and a few FCC rule changes (eliminating "unattended operation" rules, for example) will start to bring it back.

If things stay the way they are, however - Lew Dickey's prediction will probably come true - but in 24, not 36 months.

Anyone could have written the original post with opinions gleened from any one of dozens of daily blogs. I agree with Joe and also think it would have been nice to identify the author. The radio business is what it is and has a tremendous advantage over other media in that it already has the penetration. So quit complaining and do something with it!

Bill, I can assure you that the original post was written without picking opinions from blogs. It was, however, solicited by me and the author kindly responded after giving it a few days worth of thought.

The fellow who wrote the e-mail has no problem (one way or the other) with being identified and I'll tell you who it was after a couple of days of hashing and rehashing... is that fair enough?

In any event, I don't believe he's simply being a negative naysayer. He's just offering his professional opinion based on his 50yrs+ of interacting at all levels of this business.

/// mike

MK said perfectly what I've been trying to say and wanting to say all along:

"Radio had one thing going for it that nothing else had. That was warm, live communication and on a local basis."

Thanks to Brade to pointing out the error, specifically:

"With the Obama administration vowing to wipe out talk radio with the return of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio will be forced"

which is inaccurate, and also:

"One of two talk stations. Never anything else.
When those are forced to begin presenting the "liberal viewpoint" by law"

another patently misguided notion.

Having specified those two anomalies, the general theme of the essay is not only close to being spot on, but also should come as no revelation to anyone who hangs around here or has been in or near the broadcasting business in the last quarter century.

The Docket 80-90 expansion did not present the problem the author alludes to (sounds like Vic Ives in 1982 when we were at Magic 107 told me 94.7 would screw up the whole market share formula) ... it didn't. Docket 80-90 added at most one new entry to a market. Docket 80-90 simply relaxed over-stringent interference rules that were unnecessary. When the rules were written in 1934, solid state electronics and filtering were not in existence. The advances in science from after the second World War to the time of the Docket had been completely ignored by the FCC. The advent of duopoly and the relaxing of ownership rules in general were part of the conservative politics of Ronnie Reagan, et. al. They were not a reaction to anything, rather a step towards limiting governments role in broadcast ownership sistering the Reagan initiative to suspend the Fairness Doctrine in totality as useless and unenforceable in their attempt to limit government's involvement with programming and public service. We've had that discussion numerous times on both sides of this board. The consolidation of ownership is just as much at fault for destroying the landscape once known as radio as is the technology that has developed to compete with it. The deregulation of ownership changed licenses into a commodity, like hog futures, to be bought up, traded and sold all in an effort to return profit to the shareholders of the mega group. The inability for the previous generation of suits to understand this was not lost on the workforce, the few that remained that is.

Adding insult to injury, the new mega owners discovered that by down classing licenses in the lesser populated areas, stations in the city sized markets could be upgraded and by down classing licenses in the cities, outer area stations could be dropped in to the city areas. That's why the dial is so crowded today. In the original model, the competitive nature of ownership kept stations from moving beyond their intended coverage limits in an attempt to monopolize the airwaves.

For whatever reason you wish to emphasize, radio just doesn't offer what it used to. Largely automated and de-localized, radio no longer is the medium from which one can obtain immediacy of any kind. Blaming it all on the internet and iPods is pretty lame. Truth is, stations, both radio and TV, chose to be late comers to the cyberworld. Stations now boast about their on line presence, but they resisted going there because, frankly, radio and tv are owned and operated by people lacking great vision. Formula driven and fearful of technology and the expanding base of competitors both on the dial and on the net, the few string pullers in the industry have nothing to offer. The proof is on the air, if you can stand to listen for more than a few minutes. I know I can't anymore. It should come as no surprise to those of us in the engineering community. Most owners I worked for knew little of science and technology. I always thought if you were going to succeed in electronic advertising, you needed to know not only advertising, but also technology. When I found myself in a ten year fight for 105.9 I was further dismayed when the field of competition had an even lesser understanding of rules and regulations of the industry, being mindlessly led along by high priced legal counsel and the funding of huge money interests. What a lesson.

For a while in the 90's when radio was ignoring the impending wave of cyberspace and instead focusing on the Reform Act which was the final nail in the coffin for the diversity of ownership, microcasting became a viable format which further splintered the listenership. After the completion of the downsizing ten years later, clusters of 7 or 8 stations compete against rival clusters. Programming is like a cheap fruit cocktail, where the pears and peaches taste the same. Is this cluster A pears or cluster B's? Is it Dole or Libby's? Does it matter? Is there no place on this dial where one can find some legitimate entertainment? Would assholes like Rush and Hannity have even half the audience they do if there was something else more appealing to the crowd that likes outrageous interpretations?
(Think the all Frank Zappa format).

Radio died in 1996. What we have now is a placeholder for the bandwidth formerly known as radio broadcast. Soon, the radio in your car will have an interface like an iPhone. You can dial up the stream of your choice. The bandwidth will be reconfigured to deliver unlimited sources of infotainment. It's already beginning to happen. The government will eventually pull the plug on the AM dial altogether. Broadcasting terrestrially over long distances has been obsoleted by both satellite broadcasting and cellular technology. The FM dial will dry up, too. Broadcasters will have to choose between being a programming source or going into the wideband distribution service, providing the hardware and routing for all the streaming content provided in any market.

It's not a negative. It's evolution. Survival of the fittest. Radio has lost its ability to fit. It's not the first technology to become obsolete and it won't be the last.

Ya obsolete like :

Going down to the Western Union and sending a telegram.
.................................................

Infact, speaking of Western Union. Alexander Graham Bell went to the Board of Directors of Western Union and tried to sell his Telephone Patent and entire system design and himself as an Engineer for Western, in 1877. He proposed that he design a telephone system for Western allowing as how they already had the infrastructure for stretching telephone wires, while he ( Bell ) being employed by Western as their chief engineer of a telephone division on a 20 year contract.

He, of course demonstrated the telephone system he could develop and so on. What he really wanted was a job ! He had been down to eating 1 meal a day, so his wife and child could have 2 meals.

Western turned him down. Said that they collectively could not understand why anyone would want to talk to somebody else over wires when they could just send a telegram instead ! 6 months later he hooked up with an engineering friend, who was skilled at business and teamed with Bell to create Bell Telephone !

Vision versus the lack thereof !

I will never forget one segment of the Tom Leykis show that aired the summer of 1995. Tom said, "Some people have been asking me, 'does your show have its own Website?' I tell them that no, we don't have a website and we don't need one. Why would you want a Web site for the program, anyway? So that you could see the logo? We're on the radio. If you want the Tom Leykis show, go to that low-tech device, once thought to be a high tech device, called a radio and listen..."

In the world of 1995, Web sites were simple text documents with a few pictures interspersed. They had not yet gained mainstream acceptance. Tom made a couple of mistakes that now seem pretty obvious:
1) Assuming that the Web would never appeal to anyone, except for a small community of tech enthusiasts
2) Not anticipating that audio could one day be delivered through the Internet
3) Seeing his show as a strictly aural presentation that could not be enhanced with text and pictures

I won't be too hard on Tom because in 1995, I didn't see a website for a syndicated show as anything more than a convenient place to post an affiliates list so that if one were traveling to another city, one would know where to find the show and so that one could tell friends in other cities where to listen. It also took me until at least 2001 to see the Internet as a medium whose reach extended beyond techies, nerds, and geeks.

Interestingly, I once saw a newspaper story where KXL's management was remarking that they believed that they got on the World Wide Web bandwagon too early. They stated that in the first few years of the website being operational (mid 1990s), they saw no measurable benefits from having it.

Bill Says
So quit complaining and do something with it!


Exactly! Turn your radio off and don't listen to it! Maybe one day These huge companies will realize that the programming they are delivering to the public is absolute CRAP!!! The half assed voice tracking, the ridiculous liner card radio that does NOTHING. I never thought that radio could get this bad. It's amazing the public will put up with this garbage that is filling our airwaves!

Assuming the thread has made it's initial splash and now seems to be winding-down, I will report that the original author of the e-mail referenced in the first post is none other than my friend and former employer, Mr. Deane Johnson.

Regardless of who has had political feuds and theoretical arguments with the man, the fact remains that Deane is a fellow with a credentialed pedigree in the broadcasting business. Whether you agree with him or not, it stands that his opinion is worth listening-to.

PS: I wish he were back on the board, but can't fault him for growing tired of the petty slings and arrows.

PSS: Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

RADIO:

..not just a service of records...
..but a record of service...

Deane is one of the wisest people I've ever known in this business, and, imho, one of the nicest.

Mr. Minckler....bravo!

I have the utmost respect for Deane, and I greatly value his well written, albeit gloomy, prognosis for the industry. Although wishing won't make radio come back as the entertainment and information force that it once was, I wish that Deane might come back to this forum someday.

Ditto, Alfredo!

here's a different, or is it, perspective...


From an advertiser’s perspective, the consolidation of radio companies has resulted in sound-alike stations, said JIM POH, VP/Director of Analytics and Media Planning at CRISPIN PORTER & BOGUSKY, which handles radio ads for clients like BURGER KING and DOMINO’S. "The group ownerships in various markets tended to blunt the edges of the formats, so that each of the stations could play across more demographic groups, and that way could share more of the revenue from various advertisers," POH said. "The downfall of that is the medium isn’t as relevant, the stations aren’t as relevant to people as they were."

From AllAccess today

Deane is one of the wisest people I've ever known in this business

With his wise words about the radio industry ONLY! For the barbs he throws on the other side are in ways so far from what he knows in radio terms it's sometimes unbearable.


I wish that Deane might come back to this forum someday.

He did for a short run. I to wish he would return. But for now Blind Barn is his passion. And making sure his son stays healthy.