Monday, March 15, 2010

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
"