If you’re still working in radio in 2014 and you’ve been in the business for a decade or more, give yourself a round of applause. You’ve survived, you’re still slugging it out, and you obviously believe in the efficacy of the medium and how it serves its various constituencies.
But it’s never easy. Because in the same way that proud professional and college athletes have to put up with Sports Radio know-it-alls who spend every waking moment over-analyzing and criticizing their play on the field (often by people who never held a bat or took a sack), too many people in and around radio are doing the same thing.
Everything and everyone’s under the microscope, innovative efforts are dismissed early and often, and a condescending tone reminds readers just how dense and unqualified they really are when it comes to competing in the new media space.
As Paul pointed out in his “Climate Change” post this week, new ideas, experimentation, and exciting initiatives are being launched throughout the industry, but often go unrecognized, ignored, or even written off.
Pundits who often sound like Oscar the Grouch, digging through the garbage of the radio business – where pretty much everything sucks, isn’t enough, won’t work, and is too late – are quick to point out inadequacy rather than potential. Instead of providing guidance, their analysis is filled with doubt, ridicule, and even personal attacks that have gotten old and shopworn.
Far from being an apologist for radio companies (I sometimes hear from executives who tell me I have a tendency to be overly critical), it is important in industry blogs to call them like we see them. But fairness also has to play a role, especially as it pertains to the hundreds of employees whose jobs always seem to be on the chopping block, while Oscar-esque columns often predict upcoming cuts, downsizing, and reductions.
But so it also goes with the Eeyores among us – and there are many in our ranks. These are people inside and outside radio who are convinced that it’s over or will be soon. Funeral arrangements for radio should be made, there’s no hope, and all opportunity has been squandered by the industry’s penchant for profits over creating compelling content.
To those who focus more on gloom and doom rather than optimism and opportunity, I say that if you’re working in radio, you can affect change from the bottom up. Spawn those ideas, sell them up, and if that fails, either try a different company or do it yourself. I have always been amazed by the people that don’t work inside radio stations, who provide goods, services, and intellectual capital to the industry from the outside. There is no shortage of ways to make money, even on the fringes of radio, if you’re inventive and tenacious enough.
I can tell you from experience that if you come up with something smart, clever, scalable, and profitable, you can succeed in the radio business today – and possibly even flourish. The term “lemming business” applies to many industries, radio among them. A great idea will be copied and pasted in market after market, cluster after cluster, and company after company. But you’re not going to get there with that Eeyore attitude, where hopelessness always trumps opportunity.
So to the Oscars and Eeyores among us, the same energy you’re expending in shooting ideas down or writing them off as banal and “it’s been done” could be better spent in the pursuit of innovation and invention. If you’re as good as you think you are, add to the intellectual capital of the radio industry because deep down inside, you surely had a sense of love and loyalty to the business.
Radio isn’t what it used to be, but neither are cars, phones, or books. They’re changing, adapting, improving, and morphing. That’s what makes the future exciting, mysterious, and exhilarating.
The rumors of radio’s demise have been greatly exaggerated by people outside of radio, including your brother-in-law Stan when he tells you he has become an exclusive Sirius listener, your wife’s best friend Laura who is now a Pandora P1, and all the media analysts who are always quick to write off the business.
But when it comes from within, there’s a name for it: fragging.
So here’s an idea: why don’t we stop it and get back to the basics of working together to figure this thing out? We need every bright mind in the business to offer solutions and collaboration. Among all those Oscars and Eeyores, there have to be some truly constructive and clever ideas that could be put into practice – a new format, a new platform, a new streaming concept, a new sales concept.
And if you really believe that radio’s CEOs are too conservative, scared, or dumb to figure it out, then do it yourself.
It’s time to put up or shut up.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Radio + Thanksgiving = Gratitude - November 27, 2024
- Is It Quittin’ Time For SiriusXM? - November 26, 2024
- Radio, It Oughta Be A Crime - November 25, 2024
Yup & absolutely! Just like you said Paul,during that Conclave session here in Cleveland in ’05. “Either you’re part of the solution or part of the problem”.
Appreciate that, Slats. I thought of that famous ’60s line when this post was written. Thanks for the comment.
Bravo! Well said….as a 30 year veteran of this industry, I have seen radio’s demise predicted more than once. It’s about what we do and how we do it that will see us survive. If we only stop once to embrace the impact we can have on people’s lives, it will keep us going and going and going. It’s not always about the money….in fact, for some, it’s rarely about the money. It’s about the voice we have to do good.
Julie, appreciate the comment. You’ve been a champion if the medium your entire career. Most appreciated.
I seriously love the call to action, Fred – it’s needed. In fact, this piece could’ve very well been a manifesto for ringing in a spirit of innovation at every level of the industry.
Unfortunately, I seems this potential clarion call to innovation was placed in service of silencing critics. I’ve already lamented this in regard to Rick Cummings’ admonition of un-named, un-sourced “critics” and here it is again.
And I have to ask, Fred – why? Is there REALLY a legion of critics or “eeyores” churning out a torrent of un-constructive industry tear downs? And if so – do they have a bigger platform or better access to power than you – or Eric Rhodes or Inside Radio or AllAccess and their regular stream of frustratingly cheerleady coverage? I’m guessing no.
So what this and Mr. Cummings article is attempting to do in my view is chill debate and silence anyone that questions the press release. This can’t be good for Radio and those of us that want to work on the next steps the industry must take.
You say group heads remarked you can be “too critical” – and that’s the problem. By far, Fred – you are not.
The industry seems too thin skinned. I don’t see genuine industry leaders complaining about critics. Radio betrays it’s own self-esteem issues when it does.
Everyone – listeners and employees alike have their own media platform now. This is what it looks like when the Deer get guns. Radio needs to get used to it. We negate unfair criticism with overwhelming success – not finger wagging.
Radio is awesome in so many ways and that need to be promoted. But Radio is behind the times in many, many ways too.
Those of us that have worked in media outside Radio see this far more clearly it seems than those that have never worked outside Radio media. It’s frustrating to experience. That stuff deserves far MORE debate, discussion and criticism – not LESS. That is where ALL the opportunity is in my view.
I don’t see how it serves Radio to be silent about the vast discrepancies I’ve experienced between other media and Radio in terms of internal culture/innovation, corporate leadership, revenue generation or product design. The opportunities for improvement are too vast.
So it’s the Cheerleaders that present the bigger problem to me than any critic.
Cheerleaders make people feel content with the status quo. That used to be valuable – today it’s deadly.
Critics can point at areas ripe for innovation and change. Critics make me think about what’s possible – what’s missing.
Cheerleaders make people believe going to work in Radio today should look exactly like it did yesterday – because everything is great!
And in my experience -that is exactly what is happening on the ground in Radio today. And it’s frightening to me.
The world whizzes by and we keep doing the same damn things – day after day. All while Cheerleaders cheering 92% Reach! Everything is fine!
Radio is not dead. Radio is not dying. But it’s not living up to the potential of this historic moment either.
I can’t be silent about that. No one that professes to love this industry should be silent or afraid of boldly addressing it either.
If that makes me an eeyore – than count me as an eeyore.
An eeyore that loves Radio. 😉
I love your last line because you (and I’m in this camp from time to time, too) use your cynicism and sharp whip as a creative motivator. I’m not saying that cheerleading is the goal. I would hope it would be to channel that love for the business into innovations and initiatives that can move the needle. Maybe we make the distinction and call it being a Pollyanna. That kind of denial doesn’t advance the cause. So let’s criticize away but let’s also come up with answers, solutions, and ideas. I hope this comment adds to the conversation. I very much appreciate you taking the time to craft a considerate response and I hope others do, too.
I appreciate the thought starting open forum, Fred – you walk the talk.
I agree with Jeff Schmidt.
According to articles posted here: One day it’s hurting. The next, radio’s O.K but just needs help. Fred, you can’t play both sides of this fence.
I’ve read thousands of your words. Many can be summarized as telling the industry it’s far behind where it should be (especially relative to the changing dashboard).
“Pundits who often sound like Oscar the Grouch, digging through the garbage of the radio business – where pretty much everything sucks, isn’t enough, won’t work, and is too late – are quick to point out inadequacy rather than potential. Instead of providing guidance, their analysis is filled with doubt, ridicule, and even personal attacks that have gotten old and shopworn.”
There are a few parts of your paragraph which need highlighting: “…where pretty much everything sucks, isn’t enough, won’t work, and is too late – are quick to point out inadequacy rather than potential.”
1) Where’s the potential when – and you know this is true – there simply isn’t enough human resources in a radio station today to produce QUALITY programming, commercials, promos, on-the-street presence, and talent coaching. One person being responsible for what five people used to do is cutting-for-the-sake-of-profit.
2) “providing guidance” – I’ve read hundreds of ideas from others, and produced a quantity of my own for how radio could gain access to it’s potential today. Yet all that I’ve seen are copycat actions, like the limping SweetJack. I watched the radio industry turn its back on Google’s offer to sell ads, which, if nothing else, would have given radio the leg-up by learning from the best. Now that programmatic buying is gaining a foothold, that would have been a valuable alliance. (There was bid-to-buy ad sales going one nearly a decade ago. I was involved, and radio ignored it too.)
3) We have people in executive suites who know nothing about producing the products of radio – to audience or advertisers. They have no concept of how difficult a task it is. Their sole concern is that quarterly statement, and their bonus. It’s hard to respect someone who devastates an industry it took thousands of hard working – now fired – people decades to build.
4) “too late” is how radio has been operating since consolidation. If others didn’t have ideas, there would be nothing that the radio industry could hold up and call “new.” iHeartRadio has always been chasing what Pandora built; and even with over a thousand stations promoting it, iHeartRadio can’t get close to Pandora’s audience (which is built on word of mouth and knowledge of how digital works).
How much time and energy was wasted on HD Radio (despite warnings)? How little effort is placed on offering advertisers accountability? How many thousands of people have been ousted because the higher ups wanted to bring home million dollar plus salaries, while those doing the work are now some of the lowest paid employees in America?
You have a dog in this digital hunt with jacApps, but you also need the approval of radio owners to maintain a thriving consultancy. I see why you’d write what is above. But it is double-speak.
(If picture not present, view here: https://audiographics.com/gallery/graphics/transition.jpg)
Here’s that picture I sent to you last week. It shows “transition,” and it’s a metaphor for radio. I welcome anyone to argue that we’re not already far down this road of change – which the radio industry has nearly completely ignored or tried to copy on the cheap. I’m not being a pundit. That’s acknowledging what’s happened over the past 15 years.
I also sense that perhaps pundits aren’t too far off in saying radio’s been late. From a comment-reply by your brother, Paul: “While the radio industry could really use an infusion of capital for R&D, it also needs to invest in changing its orientation, because once we truly understand the power of digital platforms, and then augment them with our traditional business platform and leverage the cume, we can be unstoppable.” I agree with this statement, spoken in present tense, about an industry that hasn’t yet grasped digital. Is that being a pundit or realistic, twenty years after introduction of digital?
To end: I went and did it myself. So, according to how you ended the above, I won’t quit pointing to what’s not being done, or how it can be done in the digital world – I love radio that much. As I wrote many years ago: “It’s like watching your child being ambivalent about school. You know they must learn, but trying to get them interested is frustrating.”
Too many people refuse to call this situation as it is through fear of losing their position, or salary. We need more who speak up like Jeff Schmidt. Holding back, to me, is worse than being a pundit.
Ken, these are the days when I know this blog is effectively accomplishing what I hoped it would become – an intelligent, thoughtful forum where people would be comfortable exchanging ideas. I sincerely appreciate you calling bullshit on some of the things you’ve read in today’s post or in the past. Honestly, from day to day, the emotional swing that we all experience in radio (and I feel it as much as anyone, even after all these years) sometimes shows up in this space. I make every effort to be consistent, analytical, and logical – and honest – but there are some days where it’s hard to pull off.
I have railed against the defensive, head in the sand claims that everything’s fine, radio doesn’t have a problem, and that all is truly well. It’s not. The industry has to change, has to morph, has to adapt. And some of that won’t occur on the local level. Corporate staffs are changing, in some ways faster than what’s happening on the ground in local markets. The digital and traditional sides of some companies are sometimes at odds with each other as the industry tries to turn its corner.
But I think that the rampant negativism that attacks owners personally just debases the conversation, kills its credibility, and reduces the conversation to name calling. And that’s what I tried to address in today’s piece. Never perfect, of course, but an attempt to try to find a better balance. That’s what consultants often do. 🙂
Thanks again to you, Jeff Schmidt, Kevin Fodor, and some of the others who have elevated the conversation, engaged in healthy debate, and honestly discussed the issue. The one thing in common – we all love radio and want it to be better. How that gets done is the devil in the details.
Appreciate the time and the passion.
…And I truly appreciate your bringing all up for discussion. These exchanges are rare, but required.
Ken, thanks. Great to hear from passionate radio fans who want to see the industry adapt and turn the corner.
Fred:
I concur. Radio has issues, just as all businesses do. You have been right over the years to point out the stupidity of some operators. And you’re also right to call out some of these so-called radio “know it alls” who have not worked in the business now for several years (or more), but yet think it’s their place to trash a business just because they can’t get a job, because they refused to grow and learn new skills.
Someone told me a long time ago, “the only thing constant in this business is change”. I took that to heart, and that’s why I survived consolidation.
I don’t agree with everything I see in this business. I agree radio should be more local. I think some owners are shortsighted…others have screwed themselves and because of that, good people are getting hurt. But, I understand it can’t be “Live And Local 24/7” anymore. The financials don’t support it. Likely, the FCC will not force Clear Channel, CBS, Cumulus and whoever to sell a thousand stations or so at rock bottom prices so Ma and Pa can get back in. And even if they did, Ma and Pa would lose their shirts trying to do radio the way they used to do it. Which would put us right back where we were in those stations: with poor salaries, no benefits, no remote talent fees, no endorsement fees, nothing but that minimum wage (or close to it) hourly rate. Heck, I remember…I started for far less than minimum wage when I started in 1974! ($80 a week to be exact.)
I refuse to apologize for radio being a business. But, I do believe it can be great again. If those of us who have survived the last 20 years can somehow be part of the solution, instead of being part of the problem.
As for the rest of you…go play your 45 vinyl collections, splice with your reel to reel recorders and revel in what once was. I choose to be part of the future. I teach broadcasting in college. I tell my students, “I can’t say what radio will look like 50 years from now. Whether it will be AM and FM, or internet, or on some to-be-created digital band. But there will be a business called “broadcasting”. And it will need people to work in it. That’s where you come in.”
You see, Fred…I have never considered myself a “disc jockey”, nor an “air personality”. That limits your scope. I am a broadcaster. And to me, that’s where the future can lie…
Kevin, thanks so much for the eloquent, heart-felt comments. Clearly, your ability to roll with the changes, look at the industry (and your career) in the hard light of day, are part of the reasons why you’re still in the game. There is much wisdom here, and I appreciate you taking the time to sharing it.
Fred,
You really struck a nerve with this piece. You couldn’t be more correct. As someone who was trained under the Randy Michaels/Jacor programming tree, being taught that content is king and to always worry about being great on the air first and foremost, the state of management in radio has gotten really sad for someone who loves the business and medium as much as I do.
Thank you for putting a finger on exactly what the problem is. We need more content/artist development to compete with all the digital mediums where people are getting their entertainment. The audience is multi-tasking and we need to adjust. You’re a leader that can help with this transition as you understand very well what the challenges are.
Brent, thanks for the kind words. I spent the evening with groups of radio listeners, talking about some of the changes you refer to. It’s a different day, requiring new solutions. Just sitting down talking to people about their media habits is educational and sobering. I learn something new every time I do this – a great exercise for anyone in radio. I hope today’s post was a reminder that the industry needs to pull together to optimize our strengths rather than pull each other down. Appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Didn’t radio die when TV brought a screen into the home? Didn’t Rock & Roll likewise die in the 1950s? Well, they did…in the forms they existed. I was a child of that era, and the lesson was, and is, shape-shift. Evolve. As a creator of content, and a marketer of mine and others, I thank the Jacobs clan for the acknowledgement of the value of longevity. Also, as one who’s FM Rock DJ brand is Lobster, I am amused by the image evoked in my minds eye to “affect change from the bottom up.” The ideas have to get through a lot of dense water to float to the top.
Paul, the deep sea analogy is a good one. As several of these comments note, change and innovation will have to be instigated in the corner offices. I believe there’s more awareness in the executive suite than many in radio think. But the task at hand is a challenging one given the economic winds of the last few years and the disruptive changes in media consumption and usage.
I would LOVE to add to the intellectual capital of the radio industry, but I’m pretty much PNG because I’m “too critical.” And it’s absolutely true I’m critical—but I, too, feel like too many in the industry see many critiques (especially those that are well-documented) as “garbage-digging” when in reality they may be efforts to document painful mistakes made in hopes that they can be rectified and/or avoided in the future.
The continuum between Eeyore and Pollyanna should be vast…but is it?
Thank you for making the call for unity/consensus. Regardless of one’s perspective, I think that’s something every true lover of the medium should really be working toward, particularly as the rate of change in today’s media environment is not kind to dickering and infighting.
Thanks, John. That’s precisely where I was trying to go with this. It is not an easy task, making a living in radio, much less trying to improve the system at the same time. Appreciate you taking the time to weigh in.
I’ve enjoyed reading all of this discussion and have concluded that the level of negativity or optimism is largely irrelevant. Radio’s future will hinge much more on solutions than whether the dwindling, overworked and huddled masses see the glass as half empty or half full.
I don’t think industries can really change from the bottom up – transformative leadership and vision must come from the top and IMO it has not. Since the advent of consolidation, there has been only one response – fire people. More and more people. New forms of media competition have sprung up the response has been clear and radio has spoken with one voice – fire people. Revenue has taken a huge hit with no real recovery – the answer…FIRE PEOPLE! Tough to be positive given that reality.
I agree that making this personal will devolve the conversation, but it should be noted that the hardworking folks who have been fired because the people at the top were too lazy and or self centered to attempt any other solution took it personally. I think an argument could be made that a handful of leaders ruined the radio industry – apparently (based on the decisions they made) caring only about their personal, short term financial status. In time, it could well be proven that many of radio’s leaders breached their fiduciary responsibilities to the entities entrusted to them to stuff their own piggy banks. Someday, someone should do a case study on the radio business and how it was that since radio consolidated for the most part, the wrong, perhaps worst people ended up in charge.
I’m surely an Oscar, but I’m still not quite an Eeyore. I think radio still owns a lot of good will from its loyal listeners – more than it deserves given a radio’s cavalier attitude toward their changing tastes and habits. It really isn’t too late to right the ship, but that day is coming if this year’s flat revenue is met with yet more firings. And there will be a tipping point which will be very difficult to reverse. Attitudes change quickly these days – whatever your beliefs, radio should take note of how quickly attitudes on gay marriage and legalizing weed have shifted.
IMO the problem is and always has been at the top, so the solution must come from the top. If radio replaces current leadership with people of vision who are willing to take prudent risks and experiment their way to collective solutions, watch how positive the conversation gets. And watch the bottom react!
You most definitely have Oscar tendencies. But you’re not taking it out on the suffering workforce that is still employed by broadcasting companies. Your vitriol is usually reserved for the top echelon, and I agree with you that the solutions can only come from the top down. The CEOs in radio are under immense pressure, trying to fix the airliner while it’s flying at 35,000 feet, while still (somehow) making their numbers. Like you, I question what benefit consolidation ultimately brought to them – and to all of us. I know that’s probably another blog post, but the question about whether this is a better industry today than it was in 1996 strikes me as pretty simple. There’s a group of the “40 Most Powerful” that would take exception with that, but I think the thousands in the rank and file of radio (or used to be) might take exception. Thanks, as always, Bob.
Immense pressure? Surely that was true in 2008 and 09 and I agree that radio did what it had to do to survive then. But now, most company balance sheets (with the glaring exception of Clear Channel) are fine, with no danger of any covenant violations. Some privately held companies are sitting on a ton of paid for properties and free cash and even the public ones are on reasonable financial footing.
Yet all are doing essentially the same things they did in 2009, with no apparent pressure to change or fix anything. No beta testing of any new products or initiatives, no digital efforts of any consequence, no serious attempts to negotiate with the music industry or AFTRA. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
So how is the pressure to “fix” the airliner manifesting itself? With multimillion dollar pay packages that incentivize little more than mass firings?
Let me put it another way: How much of your PERSONAL resources would you bet on radio’s revenue and usage five years from now? Would you be willing to hinge your retirement on these leaders, their past actions and future plans?
I think that in a flattish environment with loads of debt there’s more pressure than you think. We talk a lot about content and innovation here, but the other story (that we DID cover this week) has to do with the struggle in the sales department. The smooth relationship between ratings leading seamlessly to sales is very rocky, causing even brands with solid Nielsen numbers to often swim upstream. Again, I am not apologizing for the industry. As for my personal resources, the fact that we are consulting broadcast radio and selling them apps (as Ken Dardis pointed out) is evidence that I have a lot of skin in this game. Thanks again, Bob.
Great comments. Radio is getting through this transition period quite nicely.
Take a look at magazines, phone books, newspapers, the music business, movie rentals, and dozens of other media businesses who are gone or faltering.
Never easy, but you’re right that other legacy media are struggling mightily. The disruptive times in which we live.
Wow, love all the comments and thanks as always Fred for your thoughts. So many points made are part of the solution today. The advertising landscape has changed, Consumer behavior has changed. So many more choices for businesses to market their product or service, It is all things digital and from a business standpoint the saddest thing I see is how slowly the media sector has transitioned to investing to create the infrastructure to offer what advertisers have a big appetite for which is online solutions. The radio industry went from $23.0 B in 2007 to $16.0 B in 2010. It has grown since then to around $17.0 + in 2013 but the outlook is for flat revenue in the future. Digital represents 4% of the industry revenue. That is not good and that metric demonstrates how slowly we are moving. Meanwhile, digital spend will be up 16% this year and increase $18.0 B dollars to $138.0B. The growth is explosive. Radio has the audience reach and if more broadcasters were capable of providing integrated solutions to their customers, we might see low single digit growth which is a better outcome than flat. It’s not hard to see where the advertising dollars are being spent and create a platform for your people to compete for those dollars. There is a disconnect on that thought process and lack of vision and that does come from the top. There are several companies that are innovating and investing and they are delivering very good results and creating value for their shareholders. They are privately owned. I could go on but one last thought. I congratulate the folks at Beasly Broadcasting who announced this week they were cutting their spot loads on some very strong brands, on the product side, the industry could reduce and should reduce their commercial loads 30-40% and that would enable them to increase prices and they would attain revenue lift. It is possible in an industry that has no growth. Thanks for letting me share my views. Let’s continue to have the dialogue, it may help in reshaping the thinking needed to move in a better direction.
Gary, thanks for the kind words and for bringing the all-important data side of the challenge to the forefront. As we have observed for some time now, the digital opportunity is in front of us. Some companies are moving faster than others, but the challenge is to continue improving and innovating, while maintaining as much revenue as possible. The programming people who read this blog would remind you that revenue growth in the digital space will not be possible/sustainable without more investment in content and research. I continue to be amazed (and depressed, at times) by how many broadcasters don’t participate in our Techsurveys – a perfect, affordable way for them to better understand their audiences and their brands in this rapid-changing environment.
It’s a big industry that is not unified, and that is one of the true challenges facing radio as it competes with single-purpose competitors from SiriusXM to Pandora to Spotify. But as many have pointed out, radio brings a lot to the table historically and even today in its ability to reach consumers and motivate them to take action.
I am very pleased that this very long string of comments has remained civil, respectful, logical, and constructive – all the elements that were discussed in the original post that need to be in place if radio as an industry is able to make the turn and live to fight another day – or life. Thanks, Gary, for adding to the process.
Fred, thanks for the thought-provoking post. The content I see working best in digital platforms so far is in niches or personally-customized channels, where radio lacks traditional expertise. The idea of radio coming up with content which is competitive on digital platforms seems odd to me. I suspect in the future we’ll more often see innovative ideas migrate from digital distribution, where the cost of failure is low, to broadcast. We’re already seeing YouTube success earning access to American Idol and The Voice. The Connected Car will provide new paths for audio content producers to make it to radio.
There’s more to innovation than figuring out ways to be late to the platform-bundling party, especially if you show up with less than cutting-edge content. I think the “Nash” national branding project is interesting. The big groups will be cash-strapped for years to come, and investing in building a national brand could be good bang-for-buck, especially after hub-&-spoke has left dozens of stations using the same playlist and presenters.
Paul, you may be right that a mass appeal medium like radio is challenged to create more niche-driven, customized programming. But we do know that great brands – whether its Oreo or Coca-Cola – have the potential to leverage image, recognition, and trust to spawn more narrowly focused products. Say what you will, but radio had the ability to experiment with HD2 and HD3 channels to create a format minor league where programmers could have practiced to create niche formats from EDM to a food channel. It didn’t happen.
As for NASH and national programming, big companies may be forced to create these scalable channels, and they have success. But for smaller companies from Alpha to Hubbard to Greater Media to Beasley, the need to stand out with locally driven formats and programming intensifies. You have to hit ’em where they ain’t, and if you compete against Cumulus and Clear Channel – especially in the same market – your pathway is probably pretty well defined.
Thanks for chiming in with thoughtful views and observations.
People outside of radio have always bashed radio. Offer them a chance back in and they will take it almost every time. The only challenge radio has is fear of failure. It’s participants unwillingness to roll the dice. Let’s take chances. Let’s make mistakes. Let’s have some fucking fun.
Lazlo, great to get some perspective from a content creator. And I think that “woe is us” attitude prevents risk-taking and just nurtures more fear. What if it doesn’t work? Then we’ll do something else. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in.