More Trouble With Radio...

I've responded to Doug Erickson on AllAccess, hehe.....

http://www.allaccess.com/consultant-tips/archive/6349/a-passion-play#comment-44563235

Here's what I wrote:

Doug's insights are of course spot-on. Content IS king. But there's more to it than just that. But what? A growing number of radio experts realize that "something" in radio just ain't right.

But so many of them, present company excluded, hack at the leaves only. In order to know how to fix a problem, you first need to understand what it actually is. But, just like auditing the Fed, the very fact that people finally notice that "something's" rotten in the state of Denmark is a very positive thing. If this reaches critical mass, who knows - we just might get some real change. For a change.

To be sure, there is no easy recipe here. We're not just dealing with years of self-imposed and deeply-entrenched rationale for why the status quo is great. The real problem with radio these days is the spirit of the times. It's the Zeitgeist, folks!

It's that same centralized corporate-wanna-be-governmental structure which is eroding the individual liberties of ordinary citizens one at a time; it's that same bottom-line-obsessed chicken-sh*t attitude that forces record companies to churn out mindless cookie-cutter songs performed by people in diapers, while discarding patient artist development; it's that same flock mentality coupled with obsessively-controlling mindsets of station owners, which forces straight-jacket-like "formats" on presenters and deliberately divides and polarizes their audiences.

You a triple-A listener? Well then top-40's not for you! And you ain't ever gonna listen to jazz either. Don't you dare surprise anyone with your radio shows!
Huh?

Does someone here actually know ANYONE (just ONE person!) who ONLY listens to ONE kind of music? Only one "format?" If you do, I bet they ain't much fun to be around! WHO invented this drivel? Who wants to be Big Brother here? Since when do ordinary intelligent people need this kind of thought-control? We ordinary folks like to mix things up a bit y'know. You can't "make us" care for your programming if YOU don't care! And DON'T tell me that you also ONLY care for JUST your station's format!

When an "elite" station decides on doing just ONE thing for a select audience, that's, erm... ONE thing. But when an ostensibly "popular" or "commercial" station decides on polarizing their listeners, treating them like a "really large elite"... Dude...! There's no such thing as a "large elite". It's an oxymoron. Look it up, I swear I'm right.

But then, you see, virtually ALL commercial stations have adopted this INSANE model by now. And they've all developed an acute case of F.I.B. (format-induced blinkers), not even marginally aware they're just going in circles! And have been blissfully doing so for the better part of the last 30 years. No wonder everyone's all dizzy!

Does it mean there's something wrong in playing just rock? Or just hip-hop? Well, no, not really. But if you're gonna do it 24/7 then dontcha think you're missing out on something? You MIGHT be pleasing that oddball 1% of your audience who really are too darned THICK to enjoy anything else, but you're LOSING your remaining 99% who WILL switch to an R&B station now and then. And while switching, they will NOT think of you as their heroes either. When switching back, they'll tune in to ANY other station, because it SOUNDS THE SAME as yours. "Yea but we have these great DJs with their special voices and 'characters'." Sure, man. You do. But if they're not allowed to speak their MINDS and play what THEY like, then they're just cute VOICES. Form over substance.

The normal intelligent listener who only has a little time to listen to radio is looking for something that will hold his or her attention. Something that will give them that "gee I didn't know that" experience, or "wow, that's so cool - I'd never have heard THAT if it wasn't for THIS wonderful station!" kind of thing.

Variety is the spice of life. Modern popular radio has forgotten that, big time.

Internet is winning with radio because people make their own variety. Only thing is, it's so darned confusing for even the savviest web-surfers, that finding something fresh and new - and GOOD - is not all that easy. THIS is where radio has a HUGE OPPORTUNITY. Be the taste-makers. Not reluctant-but-willing major-label followers (hehe, I think this summarizes the paradoxical conondrum radio is in pretty nicely).

Think about it. Radio and Records eat out of each other's hands... while growling at each other. It's a case of one hand washing the other, but not really wanting to. And WHO is responsible for this? The short-and-sweet answer is: ANYONE who supports this!

I suppose there is just one way to solve this problem. It's hugely unrealistic, I know. Because it involves letting go, relaxing controls and allowing oneself just a touch of humility. Something like "gee I DON'T think I know everything, so maybe I should take a chance on this thing..." And that of course means guts.

You might think that the root of the problem lies with the TOP brass. Not with the fine men and women who actually man the mics. You'll rightly point out that it's because they want to CONTROL everything, they don't TRUST YOU the presenter to know what you're doing, they're AFRAID to lose even a quarter rating point on trying something new, and they are therefore the corporate equivalents of the NANNY STATE. They crawl up your backsides with high-powered microscopes, treat you like idiots - and convince you that you really, really LIKE IT!

But then... you know what happens next? When YOU are asked what YOU would prefer to do - you wholeheartedly endorse the current model. You wouldn't change a thing.

So - that's who's responsible.

Content costs money. Yes. I can attest to that more than most. But what price integrity? Vision? Passion? Guts? Honesty?

This is why people like Doug need a bigger following.
Create an "eye-openers' club" or something, Doug.

Best of luck!

:) xx paul
http://www.famegamesradio.com

The Trouble With Radio...

It's been a while, eh? That's what a 24/7 working week can do for ya. No time to write blog posts. But today I felt strongly compelled to comment on a post on AllAccess.com. I quote what I wrote below - it was written in response to an article by the rather legendary Guy Zapoleon (you can read the original article here, it's most interesting: http://www.allaccess.com/consultant-tips)

"
Excellent and insightful analysis, Guy. Thanks!

But in my view, it's just one aspect of the problem.

Would you indulge me in a little rant?

Mainstream radio strives to second-guess their listeners. It's a "taste filter" on the one hand, and a "trend-follower" on the other. Already here you can see a contradiction in terms and the reason why this is all but an illusion.

Today's mainstream radio neither shapes the taste nor does it truly follow (monitor & reflect) what the public is listening to - or may want to listen to. And this, more than anything is the root of the problem. This is why people are turning to the jungle that is the internet, and reluctantly go back to radio for some guidance, and quickly return to the web filled with disappointment. There's such a huge need for guidance through the maze of new music, and radio doesn't even BEGIN to address this vacuum.

The perceived "folk wisdom" among radio programmers seems to me to be to follow the major record labels. But to make matters funnier still, the opposite is equally true. The labels follow what they think radio wants to do! And this, we know, is a case of the blind leading the blind.

The result? Even the "extremes" sound like "doldrums!" Flicking from one station to the next, the listener is soon filled with a sense of boredom. And it's not just that all stations sound virtually the same these days. It's compounded by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the music is cookie-cutter, square and simply uninspired. Who picks all those gawd-awful songs?!

So what does radio do to address this problem? Do they seek out NEW music? New ideas? Better DJs? No. But they SAY they do when they do their "new music discovery" shows, which are nothing new at all, as we all know. Do they keep their hand on the pulse, try to figure out what listeners want? Nopes again. They SAY they do, because they receive listener feedback (but they "interpret" that feedback through the prism of what they think they know about the market, through labelling genres and styles and through mind-boggling over-formatting).

I'm old enough to remember the days when a station might play King Crimson right next to the Stones, followed by Bobby Vinton, and then throw in a little comedy track perhaps. Hell even an occasional Classic! Days when the DJs went out and soaked up the music of their communities and then played whatever THEY liked.

I don't think I know anyone in my immediate surrounding who only listens to one style, or only to the latest music, or only to the oldies. And I interact with hundreds of people of all ages, regularly. In fact, just about everyone I know is genre-agnostic and much, much more open to TRULY new music than ANY radio station seems able or willing to admit.

Radio is running around like a headless chicken now and it's looking for solutions to its woes in market analyses like this, and relies on artifically-imposed "rules" for what sort of balance their programming needs to have in order to retain their listener base. Mind: not "gain new ones" - they're happy just to hang on to what they have!

But the answer is so much easier than most programmers think - and it's also a lot harder. It's harder, because it requires guts (hey, anyone remember what that is?), and imagination (I'm not even gonna ask...) - and keeping your ear close to the ground. And it's easier, because all radio needs to do is to allow some fresh blood into the system. It's that simple!

Want proof?

Check out the little internet-based radio show called Fame Games Radio (www.famegamesradio.com). It's also being broadcast terrestrially in the States (as of recently through Envision and Triton/DialGlobal; previously through ABC), as well as in various countries around the world. The show's mission is simple. Play the BEST new music in the world (and "new" in this case means "unsigned" or "independent"), and let the community decide what the station should play, i.e. what really is "best."

The "community" is made up of listeners, artists, music professionals, radio jocks, PR people, licensors... but most importantly - they are real FANS of music. As a result, you'll hear FameGames shows with heavy metal right next to light pop, right next to some jazz...

And you know what? ALL the music there has immense crossovver potential. The show is formated as a "competition" with 6 lively hosts representing widely different demographics - Americans and Brits, kids and older people, rockers and hiphoppers, professionals and fans.

They meet the "populist" requirement (catchy songs, crossover potential, popular competition) with more "elevated" demands (not just slickly produced pop tracks get airplay, but ANYTHING which is "credible" and good and which people get behind!). The result? Some of the best and most insanely compulsive music you've never heard.

So how's this "proof" you may ask? Well, okay. After four years on the web, well over 5 million listeners. And that's not counting terrestrial. And continued growth plus a huge following and loyalty from the stations that do take a chance. And all that against ACTIVE opposition from radio stations which COULD help. Not just help "FameGames" along with all the great new music they promote, but also help themselves!

Want proof that radio has lost its edge and vision?

• CHR stations don't want FameGames because it's not "new music." It's "unknown music." Huh? (So now we know that "new" doesn't mean "unknown". Cool, let's alert the dictionaries).
• Rock stations don't want the show because it sometimes plays hiphop.
• Urban stations dont want it because it plays too much rock.
• Talk stations don't want it because there's too much music, and music stations don't want it because there's too much talk.
• Extreme stations don't like the occasional doldrums, and the doldrum stations hate the occasional extremes.

Meanwhile listeners vote with their feet.... erm... ears...dials - whatever.

Also meanwhile, the radio industry is analyzing what to do.

But it's like the four blind man examining an elefant. The first one has the trunk, the second holds it by the tail, the third's got one of the legs and the fourth is touching the belly. What is an elefant? It's like a snake, says the first, so be very very careful! It's a kind of whip, says the second one, so use it like one. It's like a pillar, says the third, so clearly it's meant to support things. It's like a drum, says the fourth, it's for banging!

Analyses, like yours, Guy, are precious and invaluable. But if they aren't taken in context and if radio professionals don't become LISTENERS themselves - radio will never recover, simply because it will never know what that elefant really is.

Kind regards,

Paul

"