What’s on your mind?

We have the technology.  You can use it!

It dawned on me that those visiting this site may have an idea or two that THEY would like to share…something not necessarily in direct response to one of my articles.  Therefore, I’ve set up this particular posting as a place solely for YOUR comments, suggestions, philosophies, etc.  Just click on the green “Comments” link below and share with the rest of us!

One way to fix the industry…

Hey, it could (possibly, maybe, we hope) happen. 

I was talking with a friend this afternoon who is still employed in the radio industry (that makes one of us), and she wanted to know what the industry would be like in five years.  My first response was, “dead.”  Then I found myself espousing the theory put forth by people like Jerry Del Colliano and Tim Moore, that if the ownership of the industry could somehow get back in the hands of actual radio operators, they would figure out how to serve communities in the 21st century, compete with all the other audio options, and still make a living for themselves and the people they rely on to put together their product.  Tim writes, “either the devaluation of programming is finished..or we are.” 

I don’t believe it needs to be “radio the way it used to be” in order to be successful (in fact it probably does NOT need to be that), but I do believe that the people who were successful operators once upon a time would certainly figure out how to best do it again. 

The current “operators” certainly haven’t. 

One idea I have is sort of a “social network” of a radio station.  I’ve even got a website of detail on the concept at www.soundcharlotte.com. 

Curious what you think. 

Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale…

What if you combined several like-format stations into a regional super-station?

I’ve spent a good chunk of my career in a couple areas of the country that just might be logical places to do exactly that:  the Carolinas and California’s central valley…and I’m sure there are lots of others.

For those companies with a laser-like focus on the bottom line (hey, just fishing where the fish are), what if you took your stations in Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Greenville/Spartanburg, and Columbia…and you did mornings on all five stations from Charlotte, middays on all five out of the station in Greensboro, afternoons from Raleigh, etc?  California might do Sacramento, Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield.

You won’t have to try to fool anyone that your programs are “live.”  They are “live!”  All you need is one very good personality/host at each station to contribute that station’s simulcast daypart for the entire network.  That’s it.  I’d even have the jocks talk about where they are located as they go through a broadcast day.  How about live on-air contests pitting the five cities against each other?

What about commercials, and the necessity to run different local spots in the different markets?  That technology’s already here.  Same way you run one set of spots on your FM signal and another on your web stream!

A geographically wide regional service bringing listeners a better AC station, or a better Country station, or a better Classic Rock than many companies are giving their individual markets now, and with less expense to boot.

Am I nuts?

Social Networking on the radio?

How would we do that?

Much has been written about the challenge of competing with all the newer web-based technologies.  Should we compete with i-Pods by trying to sound like i-Pods?  Can we make headway with users who find their web networks more personal by making our radio stations less personal?  Are we rocket scientists or aren’t we?

I had an idea for a way to really engage the audience…to “socially network,” if you will…via a traditional broadcast facility.  Here in my home market, I’d call it SoundCharlotte and an entire website of explanation awaits your click here.

Yeah, it’s just a little of what they used to call “full service,” but with a 21st-century presentation, and a LOT of two-way, immediate, interaction with our users. 

I’d love to hear your feedback.

Are you PPM ready???

Maybe you shouldn’t be…just yet.

I’ve been reading all the discussion on the pros/cons of the people meter, including the very interesting and quite logical “rulebook.” 

Just a thought:

Of all 300 Arbitron “rated” markets, only two are currently “live” on the PPM.  And most of the remaining 298 won’t be going PPM for years, if ever.  Yet, we hear stations across the country rushing to program “for the people meter”…and wondering why their current diary-generated ratings are collapsing.  Especially in the Adult Contemporary arena, I’ve heard stations so intent on removing any interruption to “the flow,” that they’ve actually removed a good chunk of the content that made their product attractive in the first place…and they’ve reduced the station ID/branding opportunities to the point that top-of-mind recall by diary keepers is suffering. 

I believe winning at AC includes making the station a “portal” where listeners hunkered down in their workplace cubicles can find a live and/or immediate connection to the outside world.  Taking that dimension away turns the connection into nothing more than the dreaded iPod-with-commercials.  And if PPM technology is still several years away where you play, it’s important that diary keepers still receive a reasonable dose of station imaging to keep the station name top-of-mind.  Yes, let’s clean out clutter, but let’s make sure it is clutter first.

Back to the music, slower?

Wait!  Hold On! 

Clear Channel is now trading in their 3-breaks-an-hour “Less-Is-More” clocks for new 2-break clocks?  (Same amount of commercial time, just in two bigger clumps instead of three smaller ones.)  Didn’t they have all kinds of research just a couple years ago showing how three was better than two, ‘cuz the breaks were shorter, and you could say clever stuff like “back to the music faster,” which would obviously make you the “fewer commercials” champ in your market?  Except, it wasn’t about fewer commercials.  In many cases it meant more ”units” an hour…just shorter ones.  So what’s more irritating: 3 sixties, or 6 thirties?  Same total length.  And on top of the “spots” add a promo, a website plug, a traffic billboard, the weather billboard, a studio sponsor, maybe a “blink” or an “adlet,” and of course a shot or two for the HD Alliance…none of which count as “commercials”…and that’s some bad pile of units you’ve got there.  During my time with LIM, I never went the “fewer commercials” route in our imaging, because I don’t want to lie to the audience.  We did say, “fewer commercial minutes,” but not “fewer commercials.”  We did feature head-to-head, same-hour comparisons of total number of songs played vs the competition.  That really showcased a genuine, measurable, advantage of LIM to the listener, and I suppose stations could still do that comparison of the positives under the “new” clock arrangement, but will listeners even believe that once they get a load of one of the two new giant unit-fests each hour? 

“Inside Music Media“ publisher Jerry Del Colliano happened to mention the spotload issue the other day as just part of what he’d do as a radio company to turn things around…

“Bring proven, top-notch programmers back to produce the best radio you can using the formatics that get ratings and the talent that still resonates with the available radio audience. Cut the commercial load to eight units – ten in morning drive. Let the client buy up to 60 seconds of commercial time or as little as ten – but the station still only carries eight to ten units. Price accordingly. Raise the rates. My programming friends will attest to the fact that this can be done easily and listeners will like it. Ratings will go up.”

I want to work for Jerry’s company.