Twin Cities Radio for Twenty-first Century Hard Times
By Brian Lambert
The return to status of the Twin Cities' most successful radio
manager of the past generation--Mick Anselmo (soon taking over
WCCO-AM, WLTE-FM, and JACK-FM)--spawned several conversations on the
subject of what to do with a medium--commercial radio--that people
still enjoy but in an age of digital convergence (i.e. iPods,
satellites, etc.)? Everyone knows audiences will abandon the second they are given
something equally cheap and easy to consume.
There's a theory out there for every avid listener. This is mine.
Fundamentally, every radio format playing in the Twin Cities today is a genetically linked successor to formats that have existed here since the medium was invented. Pop music, talk, news and information, caricature personalities. Same old, same old. As I've said ad nauseum, I don't see how music-formatted radio survives the transition to the iPods-since-birth generation. Why listen to music you don't like when you can carry 10,000 songs you do like--none interrupted by a Denny Hecker ad--in your jacket pocket?
Talk-based radio is something different. Talk is (or should be) local, current, expansive, and constantly changing. But as programmed by traditional, monolithic entities such as CBS Radio and Clear Channel, talk radio has been resolutely directed at the C- students in the general population, listeners whose allegiance has been guaranteed by spooning them steady, heavy doses of patronizing misinformation, which is to say anything and everything they want to hear--big government is only out to screw you, the unfettered free market is the only thing that can rely on--and nothing ever that upsets them or confronts their superstitions.
I hold no real hope that Mick Anselmo will revolutionize Twin Cities radio when he takes over WCCO in a couple weeks. He has corporate masters in New York who are as committed to the stale concepts of terrestial radio (satellite is really no better, which explains its cratering stock value) as his former masters at Clear Channel.
But the profoundly serious economic era we are entering should be a wake-up call for anyone in "traditional media" with the ability to adapt to the moment.
My guess is that a much-larger-than-usual segment of the population will begin avidly seeking realistic, accurate information on a rapidly transforming culture. Financial, social, cultural. The works. The giddy, silly era of listening/wasting time with carnival acts ginning up bogus theories and misinformation for fun and profit is dimming. Of course, some resolute knuckleheads will cling to the "wisdom" of the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, etc. But for the most part, the curtain has been pulled back on the tricks of those acts. Their "wisdom" has been splayed out in the dessicating sunlight and revealed to have about as much substance as infomercial pitchmen.
While traditional radio people will spin wheels for a few more years, trying to figure out how to tweak existing formats to bleed the last drop of profit out of them, someone would do well to consider delivering actual news . . . and analysis . . . over Twin Cities commercial airwaves. Frankly, I never cease to be astonished at how much energy "radio professionals" will devote to nicking a few tenths of a ratings point off KQ's "classic rock" dominance or K102's country audience while none of them ever seriously attempts to attack MPR's news audience.
Here-- at MPR, I mean--is an audience both large and well-educated. Some even have money. Yet when you talk to commercial radio pros, there's never a hint of inclination to create programming that might attack MPR's listener base. MPR's audience is treated like an alien species, immune to the dimwitted tricks of the commercial trade.
What would that programming be? If I had to pitch it to some busy New York suit in town for an afternoon, I'd describe it as "originally reported, conversational radio that is simultaneously factual and entertaining." The latter facet--"entertaining"--being what distinguishes it from MPR. Present-day WCCO--chopped back to the bone by yet another corporation "cutting to profit"--simply has no ability to regularly dispatch reporters to the streets to gather information and provide a consistent sense of the city.
There is a demand for that.
MPR does, although its actual reporting corps is modest by any newspaper standard, but MPR is committed to a format that, while credible, is aggressively opposed to the personality factor that for better or worse works and builds audiences in modern American culture.
Someone like Anselmo, were he to be given carte blanche from his New York overlords, could look out his window and see literally dozens, if not hundreds, of experienced news reporters cooling their heels as Starbucks baristas or MinnPost freelancers. Never mind the adenoidal qualities of some of their voices. Most are well-sourced and hungry--after a year or more away from regular paychecks--to resume doing what they do best. They are out there for the taking.
(Anselmo, or someone quicker to the draw than him, might even consider offering a deal to MinnPost boss Joel Kramer for reporting content they'll never be able to afford on their own.)
My (semi-) educated guess is that until this economic disaster turns around, there's going to be a very eager audience in the Twin Cities--consistently one of the country's top news consumers, remember--for all sorts of information related to surviving what's coming next. Point being, there's going to be a need for more information--and discussions based on that information--than MPR alone is going to be able to provide.
If either daily newspaper were actually responding to demand, they'd seek out alliances with local broadcasters. But we've learned to expect only too little much too late from both of them.
Traditional radio, almost by definition, is forever trying to repackage yesterday's radio for today. "New and improved," as Mad Men understood the magic formula. The unfamiliar and untried has been far too risky for heavily indebted mega-corporations such as Clear Channel and CBS Radio. They may have been able to skate in other eras, switching out artists and slogans, but this is a time, with actual news providers (and personalities) about to burst out of the Internet and on car radios, they can't fake.
Listeners want reality--with entertainment value that says "we're going to get through this"--somewhere on the dial.
There's a theory out there for every avid listener. This is mine.
Fundamentally, every radio format playing in the Twin Cities today is a genetically linked successor to formats that have existed here since the medium was invented. Pop music, talk, news and information, caricature personalities. Same old, same old. As I've said ad nauseum, I don't see how music-formatted radio survives the transition to the iPods-since-birth generation. Why listen to music you don't like when you can carry 10,000 songs you do like--none interrupted by a Denny Hecker ad--in your jacket pocket?
Talk-based radio is something different. Talk is (or should be) local, current, expansive, and constantly changing. But as programmed by traditional, monolithic entities such as CBS Radio and Clear Channel, talk radio has been resolutely directed at the C- students in the general population, listeners whose allegiance has been guaranteed by spooning them steady, heavy doses of patronizing misinformation, which is to say anything and everything they want to hear--big government is only out to screw you, the unfettered free market is the only thing that can rely on--and nothing ever that upsets them or confronts their superstitions.
I hold no real hope that Mick Anselmo will revolutionize Twin Cities radio when he takes over WCCO in a couple weeks. He has corporate masters in New York who are as committed to the stale concepts of terrestial radio (satellite is really no better, which explains its cratering stock value) as his former masters at Clear Channel.
But the profoundly serious economic era we are entering should be a wake-up call for anyone in "traditional media" with the ability to adapt to the moment.
My guess is that a much-larger-than-usual segment of the population will begin avidly seeking realistic, accurate information on a rapidly transforming culture. Financial, social, cultural. The works. The giddy, silly era of listening/wasting time with carnival acts ginning up bogus theories and misinformation for fun and profit is dimming. Of course, some resolute knuckleheads will cling to the "wisdom" of the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, etc. But for the most part, the curtain has been pulled back on the tricks of those acts. Their "wisdom" has been splayed out in the dessicating sunlight and revealed to have about as much substance as infomercial pitchmen.
While traditional radio people will spin wheels for a few more years, trying to figure out how to tweak existing formats to bleed the last drop of profit out of them, someone would do well to consider delivering actual news . . . and analysis . . . over Twin Cities commercial airwaves. Frankly, I never cease to be astonished at how much energy "radio professionals" will devote to nicking a few tenths of a ratings point off KQ's "classic rock" dominance or K102's country audience while none of them ever seriously attempts to attack MPR's news audience.
Here-- at MPR, I mean--is an audience both large and well-educated. Some even have money. Yet when you talk to commercial radio pros, there's never a hint of inclination to create programming that might attack MPR's listener base. MPR's audience is treated like an alien species, immune to the dimwitted tricks of the commercial trade.
What would that programming be? If I had to pitch it to some busy New York suit in town for an afternoon, I'd describe it as "originally reported, conversational radio that is simultaneously factual and entertaining." The latter facet--"entertaining"--being what distinguishes it from MPR. Present-day WCCO--chopped back to the bone by yet another corporation "cutting to profit"--simply has no ability to regularly dispatch reporters to the streets to gather information and provide a consistent sense of the city.
There is a demand for that.
MPR does, although its actual reporting corps is modest by any newspaper standard, but MPR is committed to a format that, while credible, is aggressively opposed to the personality factor that for better or worse works and builds audiences in modern American culture.
Someone like Anselmo, were he to be given carte blanche from his New York overlords, could look out his window and see literally dozens, if not hundreds, of experienced news reporters cooling their heels as Starbucks baristas or MinnPost freelancers. Never mind the adenoidal qualities of some of their voices. Most are well-sourced and hungry--after a year or more away from regular paychecks--to resume doing what they do best. They are out there for the taking.
(Anselmo, or someone quicker to the draw than him, might even consider offering a deal to MinnPost boss Joel Kramer for reporting content they'll never be able to afford on their own.)
My (semi-) educated guess is that until this economic disaster turns around, there's going to be a very eager audience in the Twin Cities--consistently one of the country's top news consumers, remember--for all sorts of information related to surviving what's coming next. Point being, there's going to be a need for more information--and discussions based on that information--than MPR alone is going to be able to provide.
If either daily newspaper were actually responding to demand, they'd seek out alliances with local broadcasters. But we've learned to expect only too little much too late from both of them.
Traditional radio, almost by definition, is forever trying to repackage yesterday's radio for today. "New and improved," as Mad Men understood the magic formula. The unfamiliar and untried has been far too risky for heavily indebted mega-corporations such as Clear Channel and CBS Radio. They may have been able to skate in other eras, switching out artists and slogans, but this is a time, with actual news providers (and personalities) about to burst out of the Internet and on car radios, they can't fake.
Listeners want reality--with entertainment value that says "we're going to get through this"--somewhere on the dial.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
You have any comment or update to David Brauer's article about the paycuts being presented to top WCCO radio staff? Shelby immediately agreed which doesn't surprise me at all. Who do you think is first out the door there, Paul Allen's am competition or Common's competition? My guess is it's Ms. Mondale's show.
LAMBERT: As a professional courtesy I'm not going to speculate. But there is a pretty clear consensus.
Posted by: ML on November 25, 2008 at 11:12 PM
You'll probably tell me first things first, but while we're at it, how about changing local television news as well? We've had essentially the same format since Dave Moore started bantering with his weatherman 40 some years ago. WCCO's personality driven commercials--the latest being a serious and intent Don Shelby walking down a dirt road populated by wind turbines on either side--always seem a little pompous to me. I could never trust a guy who plays harmonica that badly.
Commercial radio is still primarily for the angry folks, and given the horrible economy and the short term thinking of broadcast capitalists, I'll bet they can tweak a few more years out of their formats. Maybe Bertram Jr. can get a job on the Patriot?
LAMBERT: But if bertram worked at The Patriot who would tell him what to think? Oh wait, those morning "talking points" from the RNC.
Posted by: Peter Weinhold on November 26, 2008 at 6:35 AM
Re: "dozens if not hundreds of experienced news reporters cooling their heels as Starbucks baristas or MinnPost.com free-lancers..."
Although I think you might have gotten carried away as to the actual number of talented people out there for such a venture, it's an interesting idea. What you might have also said, in the same vein, is that many of these people are truly entertaining personalities BUT had to suppress those personalities while they worked for the increasingly staid dailies. Only recently have we had the opportunity to see what a few can do on the outside. Hope someone has the moxy and capital to pursue the idea.
LAMBERT: The odd thing iswhen you tell some civilian that so-and-so big name reporter is actually a pretty funny guy -- and not just when he has three drinks in him -- they can't believe it. The Big J journalistic persona crumbles you know with any hint of humor. Jeeeeezus.
Posted by: Digger on November 26, 2008 at 7:25 AM
The word "talent" in this media business is over-rated, don't you think? All to often it lends itself to the idea of celebrity, beauty, and style at the expense of substance.
In one sense, the impression I've gained from being in the studios and offices of MPR is that there is a working class group of committed professionals who critique each other and there is very little hierarchy of fame, fashion. and fortune.
Maybe it evokes the addage, "You've got a face for radio" however, I find there is a professional and cultural ethic of commitment to thoughtful journalism that is horrifically missing in commercial radio and especially talk radio.
LAMBERT: Fundamentally, I don't disagree. You can lose a lot of substance working "shtick" that so often passes for "good radio". But commercial enterprises will always have to operate with an eye toward entertainment that MPR doesn't. My point is that a commercial format with journalistic legitimacy (i.e. original reporting by well-sourced professionals) married to hosts who are something other than '90s era ranters, for whom facts never get in the way of stirring up their angry base, is something that has never been tried in this market -- and there is both demand and "talent" available.
Posted by: Michelle on November 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I dare say that some of this potential radio reporting talent is lurking, or is that working, at MSP Magazine. Who can forget "Neat Stuff" on The Learning Channel, hosted by none other than Jim Leinfelder? Or what about the cohost of KTLK's "Lambert and Janacek" who moonlights on television as a political commentator? Mr. Anselmo, you don't need to go to Starbucks to find talent.
LAMBERT: Mr. Anselmo has already erred gravely with that latter act.
Posted by: Mr. Monster on November 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Traditional media is in a crisis mode. While more people are turning to the internet for daily information, they still turn to LOCAL newspaper, TV and radio during big events. The problem big events are as predictable as the weather.
Brian you are 100% on the money that a major format change is needed, but do GMs, PDs and the like have the guts to do it.
Radio speaks to a broader issue that we as a society can't seem to have a normal conversation anymore. People really like echo chambers and never want to hear the other side.
What ever happened to a free exchange of ideas? Apparently that doesn't create enough ad revenue.
LAMBERT: I maintain that no small blame for the lack of civility in politics today is that worst of both partisan camps (but primarily the right-wing since they have near absolute control over radio, and have been far more reckless with inaccuracy) have seized control of what media there is that devotes itself to important public issues. Stand operating procedure is to flog any twist in a story for partisan advantage ... i.e. commercial effect. The old school boys call this "passion". The new school calls it stupid and irresponsible.
Posted by: AJ on November 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Brian, why should we expect the Radio Oligarchy to display any better sense than the Banking or Auto Oli's?
First mistake is to think anyone with money/celebrity actually has the sense needed to manage it.
Second mistake is to think anyone with a job actually has the sense needed to risk it (corporatize it by inserting 'power').
And unfortunately, that is why MPR and WCCO will continue to drift, because they also fall for the third mistake--which is to think what is happening to Banking and Auto can't happen to them.
So, I've already written the rants and given solutions before that were ignored. Now, I'm feeling more like a consultant...show me the money, I'll show you the ideas.
Mick...best of luck, hope you don't fall too quickly off the wave you are climbing back onto, or at least hope the landing as gentle as last time.
BL...you get the station, I'll give you 4 hours of good ranting for free; after that, show me the money. ;)
LAMBERT: The ranting thing is of course grossly overdone. Smart people, people who are involved in the life of the city, not just "jeerleaders" and ditto-y knuckleheads would would respond to a format that rewards their intelligence. But no, I don't expect anyone to actually do it.
Posted by: The Other Mike on November 26, 2008 at 2:45 PM
If I had to pitch it to some busy New York suit in town for an afternoon, I'd describe it as "originally reported, conversational radio that is simultaneously factual and entertaining." The latter facet--"entertaining"--being what distinguishes it from MPR. Present-day WCCO--chopped back to the bone by yet another corporation "cutting to profit"--simply has no ability to regularly dispatch reporters to the streets to gather information and provide a consistent sense of the city.
I certainly don't know what WCCO's current age demos are (I'm guessing a little older than me at 33), but maybe...put the emphasis on entertaining. Entertaining does not equal fart and sex jokes. I'm thinking more entertaining or stimulating in the "This American Life" vein.
I dunno...and maybe lose the whole bing at the top of the hour. My alarm clock doesn't need to be that accurate.
LAMBERT: I believe I've told the likes of Anselmo that they really ought to check out this "Daily Show" and "Colbert" thing for a clue to what might make good radio. Factually accurate (maybe even more accurate than "balanced" mainstream news), satirical and staffed by people who can ask intelligent questions. The thing is, until its a monster success somewhere else, it'll never play here. As a Clear Channel consultant once explained it to me. "You may like to think so, but there's really no difference between Minneapolis and Houston." When I asked him to explain the size and influence of MPR up here, he said, "That's public radio."
As though its audience didn't count.
Posted by: AndyMN on November 26, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Isn't what you are describing the equivalent of what Washington Post radio was supposed to be -- "NPR on Caffeine"?
It seems that died because the concept was just too uneven. Maybe it did not have enough time to incubate and refine itself, but if you are in a "for profit" enterprise how much time do you really have? They might have had the best content in the world, but not enough truly engaging personalities to make it entertaining. Do you think the talent pool in Mpls/St. Paul is much different?
LAMBERT: It is the debt load and profit expectations that keep these experiments off major conglomerate stations. There is simply no way to explain slow growth to investors who know for a fact that you can get 15-20% out of robot classic hits radio. If you could incubate something like this on a station that didn't have to return that kind of money from the get go, who knows what you might develop? Point being, when the internet can be delivered to cars, overnight there'll be dozens of "pirate" broadcasters testing all sorts of weird formats -- and eating Clear Channel's lunch -- all $2 a share of it -- to boot.
Posted by: MikeV on November 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Maybe ten years, I worked in Phoenix at a place that decided to launch a nationally syndicated talk format targeted at small and medium-size markets (along with also-ran stations in larger ones). We did 12 hours a day of live programming, and while the shows did vary in feel, the overall format was a hipper, male and female version of "The View." It worked pretty well, at least until we ran into the radio consolidation thresher.
But I wonder if that business model isn't something worth trying. A few hosts working for lesser money in hopes of making a splash, surrounded by a lot of part-timers drifting in-and-out of the studio. Sort of a cooler, less-female oriented 107.1.
I don't think you could convince anyone to try it here. But I'd be willing to bet that people would listen.
LAMBERT: It sounds more tenable than another "Hot Country".
Posted by: Rick Ellis on November 27, 2008 at 9:21 PM
If you want something done right...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97583147
LAMBERT: If that isn't the future I don't know what is.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on November 28, 2008 at 9:22 AM
BL = "The ranting thing is of course grossly overdone."
Good heavens yes you are correct. I did not write clearly what I was trying to say. What I meant to say was that I can give you four hours of ideas to consider. No way do I have any intention of doing a Rushbo or Barriero rant/schtick...ish, I never listen to talk radio and have no intention of changing until your dream radio persona comes to life here.
As for that actually getting radio play, be patient and in a few years, just like newspapers, when the values sink outta sight, then a bargain station will pop up where you might finally get to try your ideas. Me, I'm not that patient, I gave up and moved on.
LAMBERT: Not long ago a full-power FM in the Twin Cities might command a good $40 million on the market. Today?
Posted by: The Other Mike on November 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I think if they learned to do "shtick" better, I wouldn't mind it at all. A comic or parody approach to the news (I guess your earlier statement about The Daily Show or Colbert Report is what I'm driving at also) that is factual yet draws out the ironic, the odd, the comically critical would be better than self-important, partisan spun, self-deluding, truth defiant garbage on commercial radio today. Where did cable find the Colbert's and Stewarts? In the comedy clubs
However, I suspect in the commercial industry it is extremely difficult to change formats or experiment with alternatives. Too much short-term money at stake.
LAMBERT: Exactly. Which is why every "new idea" is based on existing formats and personalities.
Posted by: Robb on November 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM
"...better than self-important, partisan spun, self-deluding, truth defiant garbage..."
He's talking about Shelby, right?
Look, specific formats can be marketed to specific psychographic and demographic targets.
It's that simple.
As much as you abhor the country market, it's arguably the most valuable one out there. Bedrock. American.
Stop trying to unicorn everything.
LAMBERT: In your case are there "psychopathic" targets?
Posted by: bertram jr on December 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Does the same animosity go to commercial TV? With the exception of prime time programming which changes slightly with the times, commercial network and off network TV has left virtually unchanged since the first stations signed on the air.
Daytime fair which includes of the ever interesting game shows, court shows, soap operas, and trash talk shows - mixed in with a few off network reruns - followed by the standard 3 or 4 newscasts and one more soft news entertainment show, rerun or game show. Are these guys "lunk heads" also? The choices in commercial radio look pretty diverse in comparison. Commercial tv programmers have the same challenge radio programmers do - find the broadest audience to generate the most viewers and advertising revenue. While I would much rather watch an in depth analysis on the Minnesota economy, I conceded that I am in the minority of viewers and a station will find more fortune with Maury Povich.
Niche/alternative music has been tried here before on several stations and never built a sizeable audience. If the Current were to go on it's own without tax payers or members supporting it, chances are that it's format would have to be tweaked.
LAMBERT: This issue is WHY broadcasters feel required to pander to the "broadest" market place. Obviously, as you say, because that is where the money is, and because they must to satisfying investors who have come to expect 30-40% profit margins. The emerging model -- accelerating the divide between the informed and the knucklehead cultures -- is far more "narrow" than "broad"cast driven. Its financial survival based more on perceived value of its product than it being the best of a half dozen options.
Posted by: Namzso on December 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM