Radio Losing In Recessive Times (Dec 4, 2008)

Internet radio's existance is being challenged by ridiculously high royalty payment demands by the RIAA. Terrestrial radio's existance is being challenged by declining listenership, declining advertising revenue, abysmally low stock values, and, yes, limitations of its terrestrial signal due to protecting distant adjacent and co-channel stations.

We've read a lot in the past few years about Internet radio's struggle for survival. Just yesterday, due to higher royalties and slowing ad sales for its Launchcast radio service, Yahoo is forced to partner with CBS Radio for its Launchcast service. Beginning in February, CBS Radio will stream the 150 Yahoo! Internet radio channels alongside its own combination of the 150 online simulcasts of its AM and FM properties and the over 200 AOL Radio channels the broadcaster took over in June. CBS Radio sales teams will also now handle all ad sales for Yahoo! streams.

Internet radio may be in for some serious consolidation as expenses need to be reduced in order to stay in business, and we're finding out that, just like terrestrial radio, Internet radio will be full of company mergers, with fewer companies in the business of streaming music-based stations, duplicate jobs and feeds eliminated, intellectual properties transferred, and more feeds run by one company instead of many companies or individuals running one or two feeds.

Steve West, for example, has Radio Nigel, a streaming classic alternative rock station, and could benefit if his station partners with a bigger company, but run the risk of being ousted by the buying partner altogether, so there are risks involved in merging operations with another company.

Terrestrial radio stations are suffering from the effects of the recession. Companies are trying to lobby the government into letting them own and operate 10, 12, 16, or even all of the radio stations in a given market regardless of market size or number of stations in a market. The problem with that is that there would be just one company running every station in town, and there would be no provision that would force a company to lease something like 25 percent of its broadcast time (between 7am and 11pm daily) to third-party programming at a discounted rate.

The limits of broadcasting on AM in the night are serious if you're KLSD or KCBQ on the AM side and its signals are cut so low that they don't reach North County at night. The simple fact is that there are too many AM stations in the USA and many of them are stuck with limited signal countours that limit their ability to get listeners, sell advertising, and reach the bottom line. There needs to be some kind of reform in the works that would allow the AM stations to add signal boosters to hard-to-reach distant areas. That would allow the stations in the metro area reach the outland suburbs at night better.

Would better programming on terrestrial radio help its sagging fortunes? What is better programming anyway? What is it to you? Every blogger and columnist has their own opinion on what should get on the radio. None of the radio stations are taking any hints from the bloggers, yet their ratings continue to sag while portable music players are all over the nation. Is it too late for radio to try something new that they're not trying such as programming for a wider audience?

In the past twelve years or so, every opinionated writer has written the evils of corporate radio mergers. Is corporate radio's existance in jeopardy because of the recession as well as the exodus of listners towards portable music downloads? Who is to blame for the dumbing down of top 40 music (now known as contemporary hit radio)? What's the difference between A/C, Hot A/C, Modern A/C, and Soft A/C? It's still A/C to me.

Lack of musical diversity due to radio consolidation, propping up of unpopular format ideas, and lack of keeping up with the times have made the listeners weary of the same old stuff and have flocked to other forms of music.

HD Radio, touted as everything except being able to pick up digital signals well, has been plugged by the broadcasters for years, yet sales continue to not reach expected levels. The consumers are not stupid. The store owners that sell HD radios can't sell them because many of their stores can't get all of the digital signals from all three of the transmitting sites in metro San Diego county: Rancho San Diego, La Jolla, and Tijuana. They just can't sell HD radio as long as the broadcasters don't boost up their digital signals, which in turn interfere with adjacent and alternate distant signals.

HD Radio might sell better if something like DFSX Radio is on an HD3 channel. Give the listeners something interesting to buy it for.

Talk radio is also turning off liberal and independent listeners with talk show hosts giving negative opinions about gay marriage, Democrats, abortion, and other topics. What listeners want is talk radio that doesn't bash individuals, cultures, or ideas on an continuous basis. The younger listeners cannot relate to Roger Hedgecock, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, Rick Roberts, and other 50 years of age and older listeners (I'm 48). Do the younger listeners want to hear younger talkers and ideas that are more mainstream with their line of thinking?

What about radio formats? Radio Sophie isn't doing anyting significant in San Diego. Neither is Blazin' 98.9, Jack-FM, or other low-rated music stations. Try something like pure dance or adult rock and roll that grooves and rocks, music you can drive your car fast on the freeways to, for a change.

Terrestrial radio needs to get a grip with the people they're serving and serve up some ideas that agree with the majority of the listeners who are interested in them in the first place!