3-13-14
Edison Research President Larry Rosin asks, and answers, that question in a very detailed blog posting. He's taken a position that he made very public at CRS last month, and it's a position most researchers and consultants would be afraid to take. Rosin's take is that voicetracking is a disaster and the nationalization of radio is mostly bad. He says as Clear Channel props up talent like Elvis Duran, Ryan Seacrest, and Bobby Bones behind the iHeartRadio brand, and Cumulus does the same with America's Morning Show behind the NASH brand, "dozens, if not hundreds, of local air personalities will be shoved aside." Rosin goes into specific detail about what nationalization will mean to the radio industry.
Rosin says the key to what impact nationalization will have on radio will be the content delivered. "Politeness keeps me from commenting on specific shows, but some of the national options today are barely an improvement or in some cases no upgrade at all from what it is replacing locally. Nationalized radio stations become USA Today ? with that one lame little paragraph of ?news from your state,? as opposed to your local paper. There are already tons of national media options."
Rosin believes both Cumulus and Clear Channel are leaving the door open for live and local owners and they should take advantage of that. "If other owners are willing and able to capitalize on it, the decision to nationalize could be a boon to the ?rest of the industry? ? basically everyone but Cumulus and Clear Channel, because ?local? will no longer be a basic price of entry to the business but a clear point of differentiation. I think we can expect the stations that do have ?live and local DJs? to find that emphasizing this point will resonate as never before. We may readily see that ?localness? will supplant music images as the single most vital aspect of stations competing with the national programs. In this sense the ?zag? to the big boys? strategy could possibly lead to more ?net localness? on radio than before."
Read Rosin's entire blog HERE and leave us your comments below
(3/14/2014 10:42:18 PM)
There are already hundred of displaced air talents. "Nationalized content" will almost always be more cost effective than live/local. That's the key metric.
Also, you should notice that Mr. Rosin didn't say that all of the available nationalized content is bad. What I really hear him saying is something that quality broadcasters should already know. To be successful, you'll need to be creating and/or presenting only local or nationalized content that meets a minimum standard.
With respect to Saul, it's not so much the syndicating strategy will fail as it is that most local operations will be unable to respond to the opportunity.
After all, they have already had 30 years to figure it out, and so far - not so much.
(3/14/2014 3:27:58 PM)
My Los Angeles radio stations are:" Family owned and operated, and Live and Local. Programming a local station with
national programming is a very negative way to operate, and places radio in the same category as "Pandora". A few days
ago, prominent executives from Nashville said to me
"National Platforms will fail".
(3/14/2014 2:20:00 PM)
Most of the comment here is “if the local talent is good enough”. Well as I recall that is how talent was developed, by being on local smaller market radio stations around the country. In broadcasting as with every other business in the country today we want employees to “hit the ground running” because we are stretched so thin we have no time to train anyone. If want good local talent, train them and compensate them. Is it true that no one is willing or able to do that?
(3/14/2014 1:09:36 PM)
First things first! Content must be compelling! Sure, it'd be great to have all local talent...but that means local talent hast to be good! Having good local talent, dropping all the lame "Radio 101" junk and creating an interesting brand around good music / talk / sports is key. --In my opinion.
Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend
