Newspapers Are the New Radio

From Jerry DelColiano:

Newspapers Are the New Radio: "I'm kidding -- just kidding.

A little.

Let's say some of you are right and I'm wrong -- Tribune CEO Randy Michaels is raiding Clear Channel for radio talent to reinvent -- newspapers.

That's what some people believe.

Now Randy has hired former KIIS-FM, Los Angeles GM and later Clear Channel market and regional exec Roy Laughlin as a Special Consultant. Former Jacor employee Jana Gavin is now Senior Director/Business Development for the Tribune Interactive division.

This adds to the many former Jacor (and Clear Channel) employees who have joined Randy & the Rainbows in their effort to reinvent the large metropolitan daily.

There is no doubt that good radio people are just as qualified to shake up the print business as anyone else. After all, both radio and newspapers change very slowly. They think change is something that you don't notice. Boy, do they have problems now that Michaels has taken over.

Tribune's new Chief Innovation Officer Lee Abrams told the Conclave recently that he wants to look at bringing great change to the American newspaper -- including the classifieds -- a former moneymaker that is being bled dry by Craig's List online.

Meanwhile Clear Channel is threatening to do what it does best -- sue -- their employees who bolt to join the newspaper business -- I mean, Michaels.

Wait a minute.

You can see what's happening, can't you?

Randy Michaels, the former successful head of Jacor (later sold to Clear Channel) is reconvening Jacor 2.0 -- the Sequel.

Right now all Michaels and friends have to run is newspapers and local TV stations -- both, by the way, out of their area of expertise. You could fit their joint newspaper and TV experience onto a very short resume. Or maybe that's good.

Either Tribune owner Sam Zell has fallen off his motorcycle one time too many or he and Michaels are sly like a fox.

I'm betting on the fox.

Once Clear Channel shareholders approve the sale to buyout specialists Lee and Bain, the new owners will be free to operate them and/or sell some assets.

I'm betting they will sell some assets.

In fact, I think Lee & Bain already have a potential buyer for some stations in Zell's Tribune entity.

Wouldn't that be a coincidence to have a slew of great radio people biding time working on newspapers and ready to hit the road running when they get their hands on some stations?

If Tribune really wants to remain in the newspaper business, they will find it a very tough lesson to learn that you can't turn newspapers around.

Young people don't read them.

Baby boomers have been reading them less and less.

And the generation that did read them -- The Greatest Generation -- is mostly gone now.

If you rebuild it, will they come?

Not unless it's all online. In that case, there is a potential future for a scaled down version of what we have come to know as print journalism.

For that matter, Tribune eventually buys radio stations, can Randy & the Rainbows turn them around?

As good as they are they will probably find that what we've been saying all along applies -- young people have abandoned radio and all that is left is what I call the available audience (baby boomers who love radio and older members of Gen X, their children).

CBS Radio President Dan Mason has been dealing with this realization since day one at the helm. He's bringing CBS stations back into the radio business for the available audience. It isn't easy -- even for a seasoned pro like Mason. Some stations are doing better than others. But it's still the only real option for terrestrial radio which is why you see CBS Radio also getting into new media.

So there is no getting around the fact that even the best radio people looking for one more good battle have an uphill fight.

If they want to end their careers drinking Randy's Kool-Aid about newspapers, that's fine. I don't think any of them are that dumb.

But without doing some serious -- if not humbling homework -- about the generation that got away from radio, reinventing newspapers or radio just won't happen.

The future is in the content business -- online, in social networks and on mobile devices. That's where the next big influx of population has migrated. Content providers like radio broadcasters must go where they live.

You can't blame a sentimental crowd like the radio people at Tribune for thinking they can save newspapers -- and even radio, but it's that kind of arrogance that got these two industries in trouble in the first place.

The next generation has moved on.

And the last generation of radio pure talent has gone back to reinvent the two things that this generation rejects -- newspapers and radio.

Stop the presses.

Look beyond the towers and transmitters.

The future of content is online and in mobile devices.

For those of you who would prefer to get Jerry's daily posts by email for free, please click here. IMPORTANT: First you must check your mail or spam filter to verify your subscription immediately after signing up before daily service can begin.

Thanks for forwarding my pieces to your friends and linking to your websites and boards.
"



(Via INSIDE MUSIC MEDIA™.)

Another chance: Audio Presentation on Radio's Future

From HEAR 2.0:

Another chance: Audio Presentation on Radio's Future: "

I don't usually do this, but I'm offering another chance for you to hear the presentation I gave to NRG Media a few weeks ago.



It's titled 'Radio After Arbitron' and it provides an overview of how the future will change our industry and what we should do about it.



I'm offering this again specifically because this presentation has so far been downloaded nearly 20,000 times, meaning it has spread well beyond the boundaries of our industry.



So if you're the person who hasn't heard it yet, this post is for you. Enjoy.



MP3 File



Mark Ramsey - Hear 2.0 - Hear 2.0



"



(Via Hear 2.0.)

More on sales commissions...

Tom Tom Taylor has some great stuff in his newsletter at http://www.radio-info.com today from Steve Marx. Here's the deal:
Cannibals loose in radio’s sales bullpen? In the debate over online sales that was raised by Radio One CEO Alfred Liggins, sales consultant Steve Marx emails T-R-I to say that both sides are right – “at least somewhat.” He says “there are so many cross-currents in today’s choppy media marketplace that any simple explanation is likely to be partially right, and largely wrong.” He says “I’ve been involved in radio sales for 43 years, and I’ve seen it all. Here are some truths you can take to the bank: Jacking up sales commission rates [as some operators are doing for new media sales] sometimes works. What’s remarkable is how often it doesn’t work. One reason is that human beings don’t respond to cash incentives like Pavlov’s dogs to a clanging bell.” Steve’s prescription? “Neither salespeople nor clients should be choosing whether to use a radio schedule or a program on the station’s website. Neither by itself can work even a tenth as well as when you put them together.” He says his CSS (Center for Sales Strategy) works on integrated marketing solutions that “begin with the reach, attention, and spark of radio, and continue with the information, interactivity and functionality that only the web can provide.” But here’s the payoff – “I’ll tell you the #1 reason why radio revenues are down today.” Steve Marx of CSS finishes up his email to T-R-I with a flourish: The sales slump “has nothing to do with the Internet or sales commissions. No one else is talking about it, but maybe we can change that. There are simply not enough radio ‘feet on the street.’ First it was the creation of 4-6-8 station clusters and the combining of sales departments. Then, it was consolidation of ownership and supposed economies of scale. Now, it’s a weak ad market, and downsizing or ‘right-sizing.’ Every one of those cataclysmic events has resulted in reducing radio’s sales force.” Then Steve lays down a challenge for T-R-I readers: “Count noses. Marketwise, how many people are selling radio today, versus five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago? When fewer people knock on fewer doors and ask fewer people to buy, can the outcome be in doubt?” By the way: the Center for Sales Strategy has just posted a White Paper about online advertising – the five “A words” are aggregation, automation, algorithm, auction and accountability. “The end of the old media contract” is a free download here.

To commission or not commission - there is no question...

There's been a lot of talk recently about whether radio stations should commission their sales people higher on spot sales or on "non-traditional" sales.  Here's a bit from Tom Taylor's column:

"Yesterday’s T-R-I story about higher commissions for new media is A) correct or B) not correct. Two emails literally take opposite positions and start with “correct” or “not correct.” They’re in response to the observation by a veteran sales in exec in Tuesday’s Taylor on Radio-Info that stations risk cannibalizing their “regular” advertising revenue by dangling higher incentives in front of sellers for online and new media space. Jay Freedman of Fusion Innovative Marketing says “Your story is not correct. While there are higher commission rates for online and non-spot, that has always been the case, because it’s a harder sell. The reality is that it’s 2008, not 1998. Times are changing and advertisers are looking for more options. The message of your article [which is the anonymous sales exec’s observation, not mine] sends a wrong message. Stations need to find revenue in as many places as they can.” While T-R-I reader Hal Widsten of KWED is 180 degrees away: “Alfred Liggins [the Radio One CEO who suggested the possible cannibalization on a quarterly call] is definitely correct. If large companies have diverted their sales departments’ attention from selling radio to selling the Internet by increasing commissions, that’s bad management. Salespeople should be focused on one goal, and that’s to sell time on the mothership. Extra salespeople should be hired to sell Internet-only related business.” My thanks to both gentlemen for stating each position far more succinctly than I could’ve – and this is a discussion that won’t be ending any time soon."


This argument is just plain silly.  You should pay the highest commissions on the product that is going to produce the most actual profit for you if the channel is "greased."  Who cares if the revenue is attributed to over the air spot or interactive?  If the net profit and revenue volume is in line, then pay the commission!

A radio station is a sales machine. It doesn't matter whether the revenue comes from selling spots or selling hot dogs.

Performance Royalty for Radio

Lots of words have been written about this, but it's like the debate about the death penalty and the "right to life" - the real world is more nuanced than the apologists for either side would have us believe.

It makes perfect sense that if the streaming music providers need to pay performance royalties, then the radio stations should as well.  In fact, it makes sense that every "public" performance of a work should be targeted with a fee.  So, this includes any situation where more than one person is present in a place where a CD or other recorded music is played.  You church Christmas party, your July 4th block party, the local bar where they play CDs for ambience, the Labor Day Firemen's Barbeque for MS.  All of these venues should be paying an ASCAP/BMI writer's royalty today.  This, of course, is the same logic that applies to film.

On the other side of the coin, the performer makes a sum of money for each track sold at retail (albeit, a tiny sum).  So, it can be argued that public performance of the performer's work provides promotional exposure of the work and will drive people to purchase it. Which is absolutely true (assuming the recording appeals to anyone).  We know from marketing research that repeated exposure to a sound recording will eventually motivate a listener to take action - the old "frequency of 3" principle.

What really makes this smell to high heaven is that the record companies find themselves in the position to ask for these fees because of the very fact that the radio industry has provided free promotion exposure to these acts for the past 86 years.  Frankly, I would proposed that radio stations submit a bill to the record companies for all of the airplay - free promotional exposure - that their product has received over the years.  If they want to open Pandora's box, then so be it.

Here's some links to find interesting commentary on this subject:

Broadcast Law Blog 

Mark Ramsey's Hear 2.0

Inside Music Media - Jerry Del Colliano

Kurt Hanson's RAIN

Radio Interns Blog...

Google Alerts turned up an interesting tidbit today - a blog written by some interns at Entercom/Kansas City...

http://therockblock.wordpress.com/

I thought that this quote was pretty good:

" I had no idea how intense the process was to make a 15 second commercial.  sales has to get in touch with the client, see how much money they can get from them based off of a proposal for a commercial length.  The price also depends on who would say the commercial and when it would air."

 

 

Honolulu's Brock Whaley: "I have heard the future in my car" [9]

A great piece written by a former colleague of mine at WQSR when the calls were in Tampa/St. Pete. Brock Whaley is now back in Hawaii, and he decided to experiment with WiMax as he drove around the Island. Now Brock gets it! Posted by Kurt Hanson on RAIN.

"Honolulu's Brock Whaley: "I have heard the future in my car" [9]:

Honolulu radio programmer Brock Whaley (via RAIN reader and Madison AAA programmer Tom Teuber) reports:



I have heard the future in my car.



I have had a very exciting weekend so far. My curiosity got the best of me. The result was beyond my wildest dreams. I have experienced the future of radio and even of DXing. It’s like I’m living with the Jetsons.



I’m sure you heard about the huge Clearwire WiMax deal that went down this week…



Big players. With big expectations. With big plans. Leading to a big payoff.



We have Clearwire here in Hawaii, so I thought, What the hell? Will it work in my car? Can I have the world’s radio stations at my fingertips while I drive around Kailua and Honolulu? Can I listen to London, Atlanta, and Chicago while I drive to Safeway and back?…



You bet your ass I can!



I have heard the future in my car. A future that is damn close. A future that offers thousands of more choices then over the air radio, satellite radio, and certainly HD radio. A future that the vast majority of broadcasters have yet to acknowledge, let alone plan for…

"



(Via RAIN: Radio And Internet Newsletter.)

More Internet Radio coming to a portable device near you

There's no doubt WiFi-based portable internet radio is coming - and it seems really, really soon! Once the penetration of these devices exceeds 25% of the population, all bets are off for terrestrial radio.

From Mark Ramsey's Hear 2.0:

"More Internet Radio coming to a portable device near you:

Internetradio



You can already get Internet radio on mobile devices, of course, through services like FlyTunes and others.



But as the ubiquity of Internet radio devices expands we'll find 'radios' becoming part of almost everything with a WiFi connection, and a new chip like this one might speed that process along:



RadioPro's $15 eBOM drives the cost of making an internet radio down dramatically. This not only opens up the new product category of portable/wearable [Internet] radios, but also makes it economic to add the technology into existing successful consumer electronic product segments - many of which are highly competitive and could benefit from the introduction of new features.

For example, CSR predicts that by 2009: 40% of MP3 / PMP players will have Wi-Fi internet radio, 50% of DAB and satellite radios will have Wi-Fi internet radio, 30% of home hi-fi systems will have Wi-Fi internet radio.



In other words, the pitch goes, cheap Internet radio could become a 'feature' of products which currently have no relationship to radio whatsoever.



Terrestrial stations are (rather amazingly) still asking whether or not they should stream. When in fact the real question is how do you propose to make your stream easy and convenient to find and dramatically different from millions of alternatives?




"



(Via Hear 2.0.)

The latest on Podcasting

Podcasting - it's for the masses, now! A post from Mark Ramsey's Hear 2.0 blog...

The latest on Podcasting: "

I like the new study from Tom Webster at Edison Research on podcasting.



Lots of good tidbits here, primarily swirling around this idea:



Your station needs to produce podcasts. What the Hell are you waiting for?



Usage is growing. Despite, I might add, being handicapped by a horrible label ('podcasting' - as I noted two years ago, much to the consternation of critics at the time).



As Tom notes, those who make podcasts are increasingly using different terminology instead (surprise, surprise) - even the so-called 'podfather' himself.



And speaking of podcasting, here's an introduction in plain english for those of you who remain uninitiated:



[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MSL42NV3c&hl=en]



[thanks to Michael Geoghegan for the link]




"



(Via Hear 2.0.)