WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR?

WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR?
Well, we’re in the communication business. While this appears obvious,
there is much more to that word communication than just thirteen letters.
In the business of Radio Communication, it means connecting a listenable
"product" or format to the listener’s ears. Especially in Radio, the first
appeal is to the EAR, just as in Television, the first appeal is to the EYE.
Just HOW we sound appealing has been the subject for debate over many,
many decades. What sounds appealing to one, may be a turn off or tune-out
to another. In other words, this whole area of communication is subjective
at best. It’s really what’s in the mind’s "ear" as to what is appealing.
If you agree with that thought, then one must decide WHOSE "ear" are we really
talking about? Whose "ear" are we to do the appealing? You, the programmer?
You, the air-talent? You, the General Manager? You, the Music Director?
Or is it the "ear" of the listener? In many cases, it’s a little of each. This is
probably the wrong approach. As I said at the out-set, we’re to connect with
the listener’s "ears" in order to communicate our "product". Therefore; it would
follow, we must find the best, easiest, most direct way to do it. All too often
over the past 20-25 years it’s either been a "corporate" or "company" policy
of force-feeding the listener(s) in a market as to THEIR way of trying to
appeal to the audience. Instead of becoming easy, simple, or direct, the
Radio community has decided on complicated research methodology which
has been skewed to fit the "corporate" or "company" philosophy. If the
ultimate goal is the most listenership, i.e.; listeners, then it’s that market’s
listeners who should be "telling" you what THEY want to hear…not the other
way around! In Radio, there’s just too many intangibles that go into the make-
up of a listener-friendly station. Honesty, believability, attitude, tempo, and
probably most important-information and entertainment…to mention a few.
All this, BEFORE research of any kind. This is the basic "stuff" of any Radio
Station. Simple really. Today, Broadcasting and communication has become
too difficult, confusing, and un-necessary for even those in this business to
understand. No wonder the poor listener is drowned in a "sea of mediocrity".
Voice tracking has replaced the "live" D.J. I always thought that it takes a "live"
voice to attract "live" real-time listeners. It prevents spontaneity and the instantaneous
quality which Radio always promoted itself on...and prided itself in.
No wonder rating shares are down(along with revenues). No wonder Satellite Radio
and the Internet are poised for a "golden opportunity" to take over what was once-in
Marshall McCluhan’s words-a "Hot Medium". A medium that has now "cooled"
due to improper management dictates and diluted federal regulation.

EARSHOT: "lest we forget, it’s the Public’s airwaves"

That's my RadiOpinion, what's yours?

PASSING THE TORCH TO WHOM?

For those of us who were fortunate enough to be a part of Radio's "Second Golden Era", many of us
wondered whether our work was going to be "little noted, nor long remembered"-to paraphrase Abe
Lincoln. In most lines of work, a "Torch" is passed on to those who follow. In Radio, the "Torch" seems to be smoldering, if not almost extinguished. If we are to "pass the torch", who would receive
it?  A Voice tracker? Syndicated program hosts? I Heart Radio? Maybe you know someone.
It's a rather sad commentary when you listen around the dial(AM or FM) and find little in the way
of "Star" quality personalities, interesting communicators, or creative programming. On the other
hand, where can a radio novice go to learn the radio business? Most will say a small market is the
place to start. But this is where most stations run syndicated programming,very little local involvement, and no budget to pay a decent wage. Broadcast schools are few, college radio is a
possibility, but campus operations have few commercials to educate the new generation in the world
of REAL Radio. Talking about radio in a classroom is of some value, but "hands on" experience is
still the best way to learn. The new radio wannabe can always go online and download various
radio air check sites and listen to the way it was done in "The Golden Era"(1935-1955) and/or "The
Second Golden era"(1955-1975). Listening is NOT doing! One has to find his or her niche and
personality without copying those of the past. It's hard to be an "Original" in most any field, but radio
is quite difficult to be original and achieve desired rating success. I'd love to pass along my half a
century of radio experience...but really, just where are you? Come out and be heard please.
That's my RadiOpinion....what's yours?

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 & 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 sung 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,
Cumulus 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 way down 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 business has remained two-fold: The FCC and Corporate CEO's. Each entity is usually headed by non-broadcast experienced people. The FCC has over-reached it's original purpose: to assign call letters, and limit power & frequencies. I have always thought this strange idea of private companies having to "lease" a license from the "State" for the privilege(not the right) to broadcast. To me, it all goes back to Radio's beginning when it was never considered to be 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. The big corporate owners aren't going to say anything. But, remember this...
Broadcasting is not a "necessity" in the lives of most people for them 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 FCC wants to de-regulate! This from a panel of people who are mere political appointees. The real power is still in the people..only we can initiate change. We are in the business
of Radio because we have a "voice". Isn't it time to speak up and speak out for the profession we
wish to make a living in? Use that voice and let Government know we need to have some common
sense brought back to Broadcasting. What we need is another power "surge" from the folks...yes,
Radio folks like you and me.  That's my RadiOpinion, what's yours?

-gary.allyn@gmail.com