Is Radio Entering A New Network Era?

The 1930s and 1940s were the network era for radio. Big bands, big broadcasts, big drama, and big talent filled the airwaves. Every show was a major production, often with a live studio audience, an orchestra, and a cast of characters whose names became larger than life. Americans stayed close to their radios as radio reinvented entertainment.

Is radio entering the next network era? I think it's highly probable. Though the jury is still out on how well a national talent like Ryan Seacrest is doing on the air on stations across the country, I think there is a strong possibility that radio will be made up more and more of national talent who do not pretend to be local. Radio networks have, of course, remained strong for decades and continue to be strong, offering morning shows, 24-hour formats, talk programming, and more. I predict that most of the  programming on most local stations will ultimately be network-driven.

As big radio companies face bankruptcies, have little money to operate, and are coming to believe that high-quality national programming is better than local programming, we may well see the end of local radio at companies like Clear Channel, Citadel, and Cumulus. It's already a proven model with talk radio greats like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Ramsey, Stern, Dr. Laura, and loads of others. Talent rules. So why not convert every music station in every format to a national format -- national talent with quality production values, writers, and programming excellence?

 

Frankly, it's hard to argue. Television has been all-national for decades, with little local programming other than the evening news. Much of radio will be the same.

Great content usually rules, and I see little reason to believe that filling radio's airwaves with great syndicated talent is a bad thing. Until the floods, the fires, the riots, and the local disasters. It is at those times that localism rules, and stations that continue to run their national programming without a plan to cut in with strong local coverage will lose their local loyalty. At the same time, they'll reinforce the value of the stations that have remained local.

My guess is that the broadcasters with a local heart, less pressure to cut every possible expense, and no need to achieve high margins will remain local. But can local win over national? Does local TV programming beat Letterman, Leno, and Conan? I've never heard of it happening. But I believe radio is considered more like a neighbor or a close friend than television can ever be, and that stations with true hyperlocalism can survive and thrive even in a new golden network era.

Radio networks will become one of the new growth areas for radio investors and may become the new stars within broadcast portfolios. The bottom line is that content wins, and whoever can provide the best, most relevant, and most entertaining, programming will hold the golden ring.

Eric Rhoads

(Reprinted from the 8/03/09 issue of Radio Ink Magazine)

Comments

[Jane Mitchell]

AMEN to all of your points.

[Bill Sepmeier]

I think Radio's been entering this networked era since about 1990. It's the reason Jacor / Clear Channel bought (and kept) my former company, NSN Network Services. We were the folks who worked out digital MPEG localized-break, store and forward satellite networking and integrated automation for voice tracking, working with Tim Valley (Audisk) and ComStream, and we supplied Cliff Gardiner with the first such satellite systems in 1992-1993.

Of course, non-localized radio networking from Satellite Music Network and TranStar had been around for at least 6 or 7 years prior, utilizing 15kHz analog television subcarrier technology; each had a couple thousand full-time affiliate stations. Overnight talkers had Larry King via hi-fi satellite on Mutual even before that. If anyone saved AM, Larry showed them how back in the late 70's and early 80's.

But in retrospect, developing the model for the re-emergence of network radio which has evolved into what has taken over the industry today is not something I'm proud of. Today's localized-voice-tracked radio model is fatiguing tripe. Pandora, in my own opinion, beats any format in the broadcast arena... it plays what I want, when I want it and doesn't pretend to be human.

I saw the inside of a radio station at age 12 , during a 6th grade tour, and began working in radio when I was 14. The remarkable smell of years of stale cigarette smoke somehow soaked into and blended with old green pulp record shucks, the whispering of a thousand stations in an air monitor in a semi-dark studio suddenly 'chunked' into silence by starting the plates of an, even then, old Gates BC-1G at 4:30am ... the magic of sitting down in front of a well worn but rock-solid Gateway console; these are the memories of my first true love in this life.

Networking, as it was done in the 40's, was a process that involved thousands of talented people.

The live local radio that I grew up with in the 60's and 70's involved human beings and talent, too. Lots of them. Some were totally crazy - shoot, most of us were, probably - but radio was an entirely human powered venture. It was easy work, but hard to do well. It was spontaneous and fun and ... radio was all about being alive, for everyone, on both sides of the mic.

Today's digital voice-tracked networking; my 'baby,' conceived in 1988, born in 1992, which grew into a child raised by accountants and Wall Street, has grown up a mutant and one I wish I'd had the vision to abort.

Certainly someone else would have brought it to life, it was after all simply a reaction to the times and technology, but it wouldn't be on my conscious.

If today's digital voice tracked hard disk digital droning called networking is the only future for the industry, then may God help me for my part in helping drag it into the world.

[Darryl Brown]

Good article, Eric. Something that's been a reality for some time, though. It's a shame that it took total devastation for our business to wake up to the fact that talent wins ratings from wherever he\she sits, physically. It starts and ends there. And it's about TALENT not voices. Not readers. I would like to clear one thing up though. There will continue to be a proliferation of syndication not the old school network behemoth that we just missed as kids. Syndicated shows will break through if the personality is passionate about RADIO and how he\she communicates to their audience. Personalities who are big on name and short on message will not have marathon legs. I beg them to continue acting, writing, singing or preaching. I hope they continue doing what they do best. I hope that they only come into this business if they bring their hearts with them. We need commitment from every source possible in order to forge our new niche in mediaworld. We don't need short timers. We're witnessing what they can do to a business.

P.S. Syndication will continue to have an even greater impact on formats that cater to non-white consumers. I'm sure it was an oversight but is there any reason why there was no mention of that (or their respective personalities) in your article?