Grammy Cast and Radio at the Cliff
By Brian Lambert
I'm worried because I found myself actually enjoying last night's Grammys. I've made merciless fun of this thing for years, ever since the "Academy" drooled all over the likes of Christopher Cross and Toto in 1980s, stiffing Bruce Springsteen and Pink Floyd. I mean, how far up do you have to have your head stuck up there to miss those two? But Sunday's Grammys, especially in HD, was pretty glitzy eye and ear candy. Keely Smith and Kid Rock. That was funny. Herbie Hancock and Lang Lang duetting on "Rhapsody in Blue." Excellent. Amy Winehouse. Great pipes on that train wreck.
Unlike the oh so self-serious and windy Oscars, the Grammy crowd at least understands that this is a premium opportunity for a lot of people to show their stuff to a mainstream crowd. Obviously, you can't run movies live, but the Oscars could steal a clue or two from its recording brother and deliver more bits celebrating the best moments in the year's movies.
But as I watched the Grammys, with its heavy emphasis on the usual suspects so heavily promoted by the record companies and in such monotonous, heavy rotation on broadcast radio—and I like Amy Winehouse, her CD is in the car deck—, I kept hearing echoes of the latest portents of radio-industry doom.
Last Friday, Jim Cramer, the arm-flapping hysteric of theStreet.com and CNBC, declared the death of music radio. The business has been done in essentially by a lack of imagination on the part of major operators, such as Clear Channel, whose multi-billion-dollar private-equity deal, he believes, is inconceivable now that Clear Channel's stock price has cratered so badly. (Clear Channel stock has lost 35 percent of its value since fall 2006).
"Radio is finished as we know it," says Cramer, who you can obviously choose to believe or not. But all indicators (or "the metrics" if you want to sound techy and cool) point to a rapidly eroding audience for music radio almost as bad as it is for daily newspapers.
The link above says, " . . . veteran industry analyst Jim Boyle, usually a
sympathetic voice . . . declared in a note to investors that 'radio is
indeed the "new newspapers" with its slow-to-no growth prospects in the
mid-to-long term.'
(The story also quotes Radio Advertising Bureau figures showing ad revenues down 2 percent, 6 percent, and 5 percent this past October through December, respectively.)
Every complaint music fans have made for a generation still apply and are now like a knife into vital organs. Stale, highly-repetitive playlists featuring only a couple pre-selected songs of the most-favored artists; generic, if not voice-tracked, DJs; absurd ad clutter; and tremendous corporate debt loads as a result of multiple consolidations that have wrung every available nickel out of the business (cutting to profit) and back to short-term investors. To this self-defeating scenario, you add those 150 million iPods; individual, ad-free radio stations; and the next sound you hear is music radio's casket being lowered into the ground.
Says one commenter on the hear2.com sight linked above, "I think music radio is dead or dying. Companies are still spending tons of $$ on music radio but it is almost like they are waiting for the best of the unknowns to rise to the top so the money can be shifted there. I think talk radio is vibrant. Watching music radio die sucks, but it had its time and it was a damned good run. The companies that run music stations have sucked the life out of the stations."
Note, though, the delineation between music radio and talk. Anything capable of delivering unique, live content still has a fighting chance although syndicated talk is starting to feel like a double-edged sword with its lack of local content and little inclination for on-air interaction—interactivity—with callers.
It is hard to imagine two industries with less in common than the music industry and daily newspapers. Believe me, no one looking like Beyoncé has ever walked through a newspaper newsroom. If she does, someone better be following along close behind handing out nitro tablets to the rumpled, pasty sports reporters. But for all the recording industry's troubles with piracy and file sharing, it is possible to see an expansion of access to audiences by artists otherwise shut out of its "star system."
However, the music industry's reliance on broadcast radio as a primary promotional tool seems destined to break down much sooner rather than later.
Poll
The music end of the radio industry is having a daily newspaper-like meltdown, with most radio aimed at people who haven't adapted to iPods.
How much radio to you tune into? Take our poll.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I got a second-hand Sirius receiver and a year's subscription to the service as a gift a couple few years ago. At the time, I couldn't envision a circumstance where I'd continue paying for it after that gifted year. But four years later I remain totally snookered by it. I can't even credit the variety of 100+ stations, as I really only listen to about three or four of them on a regular basis, complemented by some occasional light channel surfing.
One significant selling point, I think, is the way satellite has breathed new life into the stale role of the radio DJ. A satellite radio DJ, secure in his own bailiwick, has a chance to be an actual curator, someone with personality AND expertise, not just some goofy hot air bag either honking a bicycle horn or doing his best Imus/Stern imitation. The college/indie station I like has a pretty wild, synergistic show that's alternately hosted by some three or four of the web's music-wonkiest blogs. And knowing there's a couple of slots on the dial where you can always get an Elvis, Springsteen, or Grateful Dead tune gives you a little of the same reliability that makes the iPod a serious threat to terrestrial radio. Tack on a handful of NPR stations and the fact that a non-cable subscriber like myself can get football and news, and I see satellite radio continuing to gain ground.
I've wondered for a while now, though, why MN-based PRI bailed on its Sirius station. Any answers there? And what's up with the potential Sirius/XM merger?
LAMBERT: I'll check out the PRI/Sirius story. By all indications the current FCC will OK the XM/Sirius merger. My bet is that Mel Karmazin, the "super salesman" who briefly ran CBS, will "enhance shareholder value" by quickly filling the majority of popular commercial free formats with ads. With him it's genetic.
Posted by: Brian on February 11, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Where exactly do you think the money comes from to PAY "editorial" guys like yourself?
LAMBERT: I don't know. From dull, indifferently programmed, anachronistic radio stations? I'm sure you'll tell me.
Posted by: bertram jr on February 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM
What came first -- the death of music radio or the death of the Superbands? Remember when it was fun to get the latest Eagles/Boston/Fleetwood Mac album and play the entire thing?
I can't remember the last time that I was excited to buy an entire album. It's all about hits and pretty faces now. Radio only plays songs that are tested to death. Remember in the early 80s when Cities 97 actually had a deep playlist with tons of new and unheard music?
Satellite radio can deliver the same music without commercials (if they do load it up with spots, you can add Satellite to the dead pool). Everyone wanders around with iPods that have no FM tuners. It's easy to load the iPod down with the same dull crap that radio is playing.
Clear Channel took an artistic business and turned it into a widget factory. Seems to me they got what they deserved. I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before they have computers doing the voice tracking.
LAMBERT: Unlike newspapers, which really are crippled by the overhead of printing plants, trucks, carriers, etc. Radio has much more its own greed to blame. Greed=debt=cutting-to-profit=risk-aversity=bored audience. I do wonder though what happens when radio station licenses fall to such low multiples entrepreneurs with a good idea dare to step back in?
Posted by: Dave on February 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Satellite radio is for Boomers who have no clue how old they've gotten, or how stale their musical tastes have become. Conelrad was more interesting than satellite radio.
Elvis, Springsteen, the Dead? I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 out of 3 of the artists mentioned are dead, and the other one was late to a format that was dying just as he was breaking out.
LAMBERT: Hey, only Jerry Garcia is dead of the Dead. But you're right. Once you take a look at the channel offerings on satellite, it's striking how much of it is some variation on Classic Rock. That said, I'd still like to hear Dylan's show.
Posted by: Mark Gisleson on February 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Hey, Bertram, Jr., tell us, what draws the ears to radio and eyeballs to magazines and websites. The advertising?
Or, might it be that what enables guys in tassled loafers to make a living peddling air time and ad space is the efforts of the content providers to create editorial product compelling enough to draw an audience and, thus, make it worthwhile to buy ad space or air time from sharpies like yourself.
Wait, everybody get ready for the Carnegie maxim he gleaned from the wall while drinking on the expense account down at Runyon's...
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on February 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Anyone who's listened to satellite radio knows that it is a) not all-music, and b)that the music channels are not all golden-oldies.
And yeah, everybody's getting older. But I'll take the worst of the '60s, '70s, and '80s over Kanye West every time. Even the Guess Who.
Meanwhile, speaking of content providers...a few of us regulars (me, Leinfelder, Ethics 101, Dave, etc.)were having drinks at Nye's the other night and we got to wondering, now that the writers strike is settled, how much we'll be getting for contributing to this scintillating online discussion. Please tell me the check is in the mail...
LAMBERT:L You'll be getting your standard fee. Which is to say .001% of any after tax profits, minus expenses. What's more, you'll like it.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on February 12, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I pay a couple bucks a month for Yahoo's online music service and it's "stations." I rate songs, artists, albums and am fed new stuff based on my preferences. It's introduced me to some great music and I've bought a few CDs based on it.
I listen to it all day at work and in my basement playing Wii with my son. I only listen to the radio in the car during commutes and then split half-and-half between music and news.
Where I see radio (music, that is) going is a morph of a Yahoo-type service and satellite. You load your songs into an MP3 type player which reads what you like ... you can then flip over and have new songs the algorithm thinks you'd like stream into your player via wireless, satellite or whatever.
LAMBERT: YOU should be running Clear Channel. Of course we'd make you sign something prohibiting more than 10 minutes an hour of ads ... oh, and you'd have to produce actual local news.
Posted by: new media guy on February 12, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Now, if Leinfelder could just connect the dots that the jig is up on the puerile left wing slanted "content" that his fellows at the former MSMers churned out.
Current commercial radio is very much the model of the very socialism he espouses:
The same repetitive low quality product force fed to the masses, while the owners squeeze out all of the profits.
Yet, the right-thinkers in talk radio thrive.
It MUST madden the likes of you guys no end!
LAMBERT: Maybe it was something I had for breakfast, but you're making even less sense than usual.
Posted by: bertram jr on February 12, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Ah, yes, Runyon's.
There was a bar, back in the day.
I believe the quote you are thirsting for is:
"You can take away my factories but leave me my salesmen and I shall be back in profitable business in no time".
Or some such.
LAMBERT: "Or some such." I think whoever that great capitalist was probably still had a line on raw materials.
Posted by: bertram jr on February 12, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Huh, that wasn't my comment ... Mine was posted under Frogman of Grant. I guess I got his.
Posted by: new media guy on February 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Oops, perhaps I'm confused ... the "posted" is *below* the post, not on top. Never mind, sorry for my confusion.
LAMBERT: You're excused. This is state of the art hi-tech in here.
Posted by: new media guy on February 12, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Ahem, Bertram, old bean, Lambert and his right-wing side kick enjoyed better ratings than their more consistently "on message" replacement.
So, I'm not tracking this alleged argument of yours. And how you arrive at Clear Channel as a socialist organization...well, send us all a postcard from that parallel universe you inhabit.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on February 12, 2008 at 1:53 PM
One word for how screwed up music radio is: research. Or rather, call-out research. This is what the stations due to gauge listener reaction to songs on their play-list - calling a "random" sample of people on a twice monthly basis, playing them 15 seconds each of about 10 or 12 songs and asking them if they like it, if its familiar, etc.
My 41 year old ex-wife is repeatedly on the 93X call-out list. Now understand, her musical tastes lie more to KS95 and WLTE (one of the many reasons why there is an "ex"), so naturally she is a PERFECT choice for a hard rock station to call her every month! I got to listen in while on one of these calls and EVERY newer band she ranked as "unfamiliar" or that she didn't like it, while every AC/DC, Led Zep and oh-so many other bands heard ad nauseum was liked and familiar.
Nothing wrong with classic rock, in fact, those aforementioned bands got huge and maintained their legacy THANKS to radio - but prior to research and the clear channels of the world owning them all. When your programming decisions are based on random samples and research, when a 41-year old single mom from the northern suburbs is called and asked about songs on a STATION SHE DOESN'T EVEN LISTEN TO, well, you get what you pay for.
And that's one of the reasons why I pay for Sirius - unbelievable variety, for every musical niche, just like cable or satellite TV.
Ever wonder why you hear the same 10 songs on Cities 97? Think they will EVER play enough BoDeans or Goo Goo Dolls? Their "research" dicates that they will never play those songs too much!
LAMBERT: What always gets me laughing is the assertion by sales staffs that their station's listeners are all, "Six figure incomes". You know that crowd, right. Very busy. Successful by most standards -- and glued to ... Sean Hannity hours every work day. Apparently the keys and heater crowd never tunes in for broadcast radio.
Posted by: essar1 on February 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Oh sure, KDWB - that listenership is ALL six-figure incomes...you can tell everytime they call in hysterical for Star Party tix...
LAMBERT: Right. And Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee withstanding, how many six-figure types are still undecided about evolution?
Posted by: essar1 on February 12, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Clear Channel has socialized the PRODUCT, brain-iac.
Much like what your dream of socialized medicine will offer - marginal care and products, it offers pablum for the masses, with no room for deviation.
Anyway, good luck with that festering boil of class envy you have been suffering with for years.
And if you are able to PROVE that Lambert's daily beat-down by Janacek beat Jason Lewis, let's see the evidence.
LAMBERT: On that last item, I only cop to the marginal improvement in audience size between Lewis an Sarah & I, compared to the quantum difference in salary.
Posted by: bertram jr on February 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Wanna count more than ten artists on this Cities 97 playlist, libtards?:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/Playlists/GetStationPlaylist.asp?Company=1004243&Format=7&FromListOfStations=True
Why do you libtards want to cram your Rotting Scabs, Festering Boils and DJ La-Z-Bum on the MAJORITY of ordinary people who work for a living? What part of "majority rule" don't you libtards understand?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY and the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DEMAND that these questions be answered, libtard:
Why do you hate ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING?
Why do you hate GIVING THE PUBLIC WHAT IT WANTS?
Why do you hate REAL PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD?
Why do you hate AMERICA?
And if you hate AMERICA so much, why don't you GET THE HELL OUT OF MY AMERICA AND GO TO SURRENDER MONKEY LAND?
Oh yes, libtards--HOW BIG WAS YOUR CELEBRATION ON SEPT. 11, 2001?
And I better not see a "LAMBERT" underneath here, libtard, unless YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! YOU DO NOT INFRINGE ON MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! DO NOT MOCK THE CHRISTIAN PATRIOT MAJORITY, LIBTARD!
LAMBERT: Bertram/dwight/elitism, my man, my man. Take a couple Xanax. Chill, baby. You'll blow the cap function on your keyboard if not an artery.
Posted by: Elitism Fighter on February 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Wow, I think you've actually innoculated yourself against parody pretty effectively with that spasm of self parody. Well done, I guess.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on February 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM