DOWNLOADS? RADIO'S DOWNFALL??

RADIO. IT IS WHAT IT IS. NOT WHAT SOME WOULD LIKE IT TO BE- OR BECOME. IT'S
AMAZING HOW MANY PUNDITS AND OBSERVERS WANT RADIO TO MORE LIKE THE
INTERNET. YES, WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ATTRACT MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE TO
LISTEN TO OUR OFFERINGS, BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. WE'RE BOTH MEDIA, BUT
THE DELIVERY MECHANISM IS MUCH DIFFERENT. ONE IS FREE, THE OTHER IS PAID
FOR. ONE ARRIVES AT YOUR EARS VIA FREQUENCY WAVES, THE OTHER THROUGH
HARD WIRES,CABLE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT. SO, THE FIRST CHOICE MENTIONED IS RADIO, THE OTHER(LATTER)CHOICE IS THE INTERNET. ONE COULD REPLACE THE
OTHER, BUT THEY CAN NEVER BE ONE AND THE SAME. BOTH MEDIA...DIFFERENT
VEHICLES. JUST AS AIRPLANES, BOATS AND TRAINS ARE ALL TRANSPORTATION, BUT DIFFERENT VEHICLES AND DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET TO WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
ONE COULD REPLACE THE OTHERS, OR BECOME MORE PREFERRED OVER OTHERS, BUT THEY CAN NEVER BE ONE AND THE SAME. COMMON SENSE. WHY IS IT THAT
SO MANY INDUSTRY PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE RADIO INTO AN INTERNET SOURCE.
CAN'T HAPPEN. SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. RADIO MUST VIE IN THE MARKETPLACE OF
IDEAS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS TO BE THE MOST PREFERRED MEDIA OVER ALL
OTHER SOURCES. IF THE PRODUCT IS BETTER, AND THE COST IS MUCH BETTER,
THERE SHOULD BE SOLID COMPETITION FOR THE LARGEST AUDIENCE. AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I THINK. THE PROBLEM TODAY IS, THE RADIO INDUSTRY LEADERS
WANT TO GIVE UP OR GIVE IN TO THE FASTER GROWING INTERNET COMPETITORS.
IT'S THE PRODUCT AND PRESENTATION OF THAT PRODUCT IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS. PUT REAL PROFESSIONAL'S ON THE AIR, PROGRAM IT FOR MASS APPEAL
OR A DESIRED AUDIENCE, AND THE LISTENER WILL FIND YOU, JUST AS YOU FOUND
THIS PAGE. THE LISTENER-LIKE THE SHOPPER-IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE BEST
PRODUCT AT THE BEST PRICE AND AT THE EASIEST TO FIND VENUE. WE IN RADIO
HEARD THE SAME OLD "THE SKY IS FALLING" SCARE SCENARIOS WHEN TELEVISION
CAME INTO PLAY. NOT ONLY DID RADIO SURVIVE IT'S VISUAL COMPETITOR, IT
THRIVED. THERE IS HOPE RADIO FRIENDS. IT JUST TAKES THOSE WITH COURAGE
TO MAKE BROADCASTING OVER THE AIR ALIVE, LIVE AND FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND AGAIN. THAT'S MY RADIOPINION, WHAT'S YOURS?

DID RADIO’S DOWNFLL START WITH MORNING MAYHEM SHOWS?

It used to be fun to listen to Radio in the morning. Not anymore. Remember when
it was just ONE person doing the morning drive shift? Over the past decade or so,
morning drive has turned into morning drivel! It’s now composed of two to ten
sophomoric and moronic radio wannabees who usually feature unprepared, unintelligent gibberish, often laced with profane and inane language. Humor from these broadcast
amateurs is often confused with laughing, giggling, & snorting; coupled with titillating
double entendres and the downright obscene. This banal and anal attempt to entertain has finally reached critical mass with most of a dwindling radio audience. Finally, radio management in
their haste to improve a meager bottom line, has wisely decided to rid themselves of this
un-necessary expense. Who needs to pay this many people to be unfunny and provide little
more than a menagerie of maniacal mayhem in the morning? There’s no comparison with
today’s A.M. amateurs with the great pros of the past. Can you imagine putting today’s
lame lineup against the likes of Rege Cortig, Wally Philips, Happy Hare, Robert W. Morgan,
Hawthorn, Don Sherwood, “Coffeehead” Larsen, Robert L. Collins, Charlie Tuna? No
contest really. This is just another example how radio could become great again if it would
only learn from a great past. Radio is all about sounding good, with the first appeal being to
the ear. Just tell me what’s appealing to the ear these days. Sorry, time’s up.

That’s my RadiOpinion, what’s yours? - Gary Allyn

Performance? What Performance?

Here’s my response to the most recent Houston Chronicle Editorial which advocates Congress to pass the Performer’s Rights Bill. This bill if passed, would require all AM/FM stations to pay for artists "performances" when their music is played over the airwaves. My question has always been: What "performance"? A performance is the act of playing and/or singing before an audience for pay. What radio stations play is a recording of a prior studio performance for free.
This is a "quid-pro-quo" arrangement with the artist, the artists’ label and others, to enable the artist to then make financial gain from song sales, concerts and other such "performances".
If this capricious bill is passed, it seems that radio stations will have no choice but to charge their own "fees" to the artist or artist label for the air time used to play their "performance". At the very least, radio should charge a "booking fee" for scheduling these "performances" on the
air. It also seems fair to me, that a radio station could purchase the song from whatever source-thus owning the song -(and the artist receiving a royalty)to play on the station owned by that company. Why would a station have to pay twice? The Chronicle’s editorial mentions that these
"performances" are used to attract audiences to attract more commercial advertisements. Not entirely true. There are many factors used to attract an audience and ratings. Music may be the largest segment for music stations, but not the only ones. How about contests? Personalities?
A good news department? A stations power and dial position? Promotional budget? What percentage would apply to music "performances" in attracting a station’s audience? 60%? 70%?
A radio station would pay 100% value to a performer, while only receiving 60-70% return on invested dollars. Meanwhile, a station’s overhead for all other segments remain constant. Does an author plugging his/her book on Larry King get a "royalty" for appearing and getting a free
plug? Does a heart surgeon get residuals from a patient for repairing his/her heart for each day the patient lives? (Would the surgeon or the hospital pay it if this were true?) Does an architect who designs a bridge or building get residuals from each person who crosses the bridge or enters the building? These people have "talent" too! Musical artists must feel special in some way to demand to be paid for free exposure of their work on a radio station's air waves. Artists and congress....it’s time to
rethink this unnecessary money grab for pre-recorded"performances". That’s my RadiOpinion.....what’s yours?

Gary Allyn

It Came Upon a Midnight Clear(Channel)

Here's my comments for the Holiday ssung to the tune "Let it Snow":

Oh Radio out there is frightful,
And our jobs once so delightful
Now lost, there's no place to go,
Let 'em Go! Let 'em go! Let 'em go!

It doesn't show signs of slacking,
Our shows replaced by voice-tracking,
And the ratings fall way down low,
Let 'em go! Let 'em go! Let 'em go!

After we finally lose our jobs,
Clear Channel says: "it's the norm",
Just hold back all those sobs
Fill out that unemployment form

Radio is slowly dying,
And the FCC lets 'em keep on buying
While their budget gets trimmed waydown low,
Let 'em go! Let 'em go! Let 'em go!

Happy Holidays, and to all a good job seeking sight!

A POWER SHORTAGE?

After being in and around Radio for more than 50 years, I contend the main problems with this busi-ness has remained two-fold: TheFCC and Corporate CEO's. Eachentity is usually headed by nonbroadcast experienced people. TheFCC has over-reached it's originalpurpose: to assign call letters,and limit power & frequencies. Ihave always thought this strange idea of private companies having to "lease" a license from theState for the privilege(not theright) to broadcast. To me, it all goes back to Radio's beginning when it was never considered tobe a part of the "press", who's"freedom" is protected under the Constitution. Can you imagine if Newspapers had to do what Broadcasters have to do in order to print? Why, there would be great hue and cry if one corporation owned 1,200 newspapers? That would be considered too much power and influence. Not so with Radio.The NAB is, and always has been,a powerless entity. And not much has been heard from AFTRA either.
Broadcasting is not a "necessity"in the lives of most people forthem to rally to our cause. It strikes me rather odd, that in the age of more and more regulations and silly laws enacted at all government levels, that the FCCwants to de-regulate! This froma panel of people who are mere political appointees. The real power is still in the people..only we can initiate change.
Gary Allyn

RATING THE NEW RATINGS SYSTEM

Early results are in on the new PPM (Portable People Meters) from Philadelphia and Houston, and so far I would have to give them an "A-". I give a "minus" because I don’t believe there is any rating system that is going to be completely or entirely accurate. That being said, the new Arbitron electronic monitoring system may be the best available tool for audience measurement now being offered. One thing for sure, PPMs out-perform the old diary method. I never liked diaries, did not believe them to be accurate, and the methodology was based on erroneous recall of diary participants. I knew this forty years ago when I was a Program Director in San Antonio, and a day time Spanish station placed first in the ARB at night! I was suspect of Arbitron diaries when an ARB diary keeper came by the station to ask me what it might be worth to be paid for filling out his diary in our station’s favor. I was in dismay when a "book" came in showing an album rock station in the ‘70's as number one, yet had only three diary keepers in the Men 18-24 category...each one represented over 30,000! Radio ratings have always been a little "skewed" in some fashion, an inexact science to be sure. I remember twice in the sixties when C.E. Hooper
ratings were taking their co-incidental phone call polling to see who was listening to a station in the past fifteen minutes of their call, I received calls while on the air on our station’s "hotline" (or inside) phone number from Hooper’s surveyor. Naturally, (and truthfully),I said I was listening to my station. To think large advertising buys were made off such mis-information. Now, with the new PPM method, this shouldn’t happen as much. I suppose a rating participant who carries one of these "page-like" devices could call a station and ask to be remunerated for listening only to that station. It’s happened before, as in my above recalled story, and people are very clever at
winning prizes or obtaining favors from the broadcast media. I still believe that a ratings participant knows he or she is a part of something important, and
won't necessarily listen the way they normally would. However,the PPMs have already shown in the early sampling returns, that the diary method was quite poor indeed, and certainly didn’t follow a radio listener’s every movement of the dial. This is going to change a lot of things in the way Radio programs, and the way it sells that programming. A change that’s for the better.
That’s my RadiOpinion, what’s yours? www.garyallyn.com

ADS...THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF THEM

Have you heard the latest? Commercials that is. They’re getting shorter and more frequent. I think this is an idea whose time has come. Especially to Radio, a medium in search of more revenue and less clutter. These new "quickie" ads are referred to as "adlets" or "blinklets". I like ‘em. For years I have been saying to the few who would listen, that shorter commercials would "free" up more time for more program material and content on the air. After all, programming has sacrificed much over the years with shorter promos, condensed liners,
shorter newscasts(even NO newscasts), fewer DJs and air talent, no jingles, and smaller budgets. Now it’s the Sales Department’s turn. This should have happened long ago when individual music selections got longer. It’s the old management quandary. How to meet the annual budget and make a profit, while satisfying the listener’s desires for fewer commercial interruptions.
"Adlets" are 10 second spots, while "Blinklets" are 2 seconds...mere mentions. These mini-messages are now being embraced on Madison Avenue, so there’s hope for a change in the way commercials are bought and sold. Many stations are charging 20 percent of their station’s one minute rate card rate for the "adlet", and the "blinklet" goes for 10 percent of same rate card’s one minute rate. Station’s using the new shortened ads are limiting these to no more than a mixture of 3 per hour to further cut down on clutter. This is debatable with me however. Whatever, or however a station chooses to produce revenue and spread it’s commercial load through-out the sound hours is a matter of individual need and/or programming taste. But I applaud those for trying a new approach to ads and their placement. I believe there can be even more dividing of the length for ads and commercials. Why does it have to be 30 and 60 all the time?. This was ingrained into Radio sales consciousness many years ago, an idea stemming from the old "network" days. As long as the division of commercial time adds up to 60 seconds( for timing on network situations), why can’t commercials be 15 seconds, 20 seconds, 40 or 45 seconds...even 50 seconds? How often have you wished you had 10 more seconds when producing a 30 second commercial? Or sometimes you don’t need a full 30 or 60 seconds to get the advertiser’s message across. Instead of resorting to "fill" music or sound effects, the sponsor would have a choice of a 20 or 40 second spot. Much is changing in Radio these days...technically, musically, and formatically. Now change is needed commercially! I always liked the old Top 40 promo line: "You’re listening to the sweet sound of success" (station jingle). People(i.e. listeners) love to be associated with success despite what they tell survey and ratings takers.. A winning station is usually a successful top billing station.
Now, there’s a better choice of ways to achieve that success. Multi-length commercial time. That’s my RadiOpinion, what’s yours? -Gary Allyn www.garyallyn.com