Clear Channel has announced that it is going to try and “improve program quality” at all the radio stations that it owns in the country through–gasp–allowing station managers to program their charges in a way that’s relevant to their local audience. Yes, “hyperlocalization”–a buzzword that, since it’s being employed by a bunch of Internet startups these days, must be worth something, right?–is the new name of the game at the radio behemoth. Sort of!
The plan involves improving quality at each station’s day parts — the blocks of time stations use to sell broadcast advertising. Day parts are typically broken up into the 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. morning drive-time segment, the 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. mid-day segment, the 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. afternoon drive-time segment, the 7 p.m. to midnight segment and midnight to 6 a.m. late-night segment.
Managers will have the latitude to choose content and talent for their stations as a way to generate more audience and ultimately advertising dollars.
“Our programming objective is to increase audience size and engagement across all day parts and all platforms,” says John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. “At the same time, we face a particularly difficult economy that makes it extremely challenging for some local stations to invest in developing the highest-quality programming and talent. Despite the difficult economy, we see enormous long-term opportunity in investing in things that immediately improve the competitive situation of our stations.”
Of course, any goodwill that those buzzwords garnered is torpedoed by Hogan talking about how it’s great that Ryan Seacrest and his invasion of pretty much every radio market in America are “part of the company’s long-term strategy to strengthen its competitive position,” thus solidifying his position as the most overemployed man in the country (if not the world). So basically CC’s position is “pick your talent, but just make sure you pick our talent.” It’s so… Mafiosish!
Clear Channel works to improve music, on-air talent [Dallas Business Journal]
Regardless of if this is a sincere attempt or not (probably not) does it really matter at this point? Radio’s consolidation has tightened up playlists, added more commercials and basically driven out a healthy amount of listeners. Of course, it can be argued that radio is meant to serve a mass audience which means that it should aim to please the most people possible. However, I feel like companies such as Clear Channel often forget that several people (especially those 18-34) who listen to the, er, “alternative” types of music, can often have a fair amount of disposable income and, thus, be attracted to advertisers.
Take New York City as an example. If you like Top 40/Rhythmic music, you have about 6-7 stations to choose from. If you like hard rock, you have 0. If you like country, you have 0. If you like alternative, you have about 1/4 of a station (and you have to sit through Boston, Pink Floyd and Aerosmith in between your beloved Death Cab, The National, Green Day, etc.) Point being, there are SEVERAL audiences being ignored because every station is trying too hard to please everyone. I realize that there’s not the same “drive time” in NYC as there is in other stations, but everyone always forgets about the suburbs here where people do, you know, drive cars around.
Finally, we all just have to realize that as cool as free-form radio may sound, there’s just not a lot of motivation to listen to it. Do you really want to sit through 12 different music nerds picking their obscure playlists when you can just as easily make your own? Also, people seem to forget that “hit music” brings us together in many ways. If we keep getting more fractured and more niche, we’re no longer going to be able to go to shows with our friends (since no one will like the same music). Radio does serve a purpose and there IS a reason for repeating songs. Just not ad naseum like so many stations do.
I spend all my radio time listening to BBC Radio 1 (or 6) online. I really appreciate the leeway they give their DJ’s. Of course there’s the “playlist” that has heavy rotation on the daytime shows, but it’s really like listening to separate personalities when each DJ does their slot. I think it’s in huge part due to huge radio pioneers like John Peel, who made radio in the UK something to make an appointment for.
Say what you will about Zane Lowe, but you can’t deny his actual love for the music he’s playing…and his excitement at playing something new. Maybe it’s the difference between having a national radio station and the regional ones here in the US.
However, I actually think that making Clear Channel stations more local will weirdly have the effect of making it as intimate and honest as the national BBC stations in the UK. Well, as much as you can while still keeping the ad dollars rolling in.
Aren’t they making their stations LESS local by piping in syndicated doucheba–er–talent?
This has made me become a fan of services like Slacker and Pandora.
Don’t worry Maura, Seacrest is not employed anywhere outside the US.
@Lax_Dangerhouseyet! DUN DUN DUN….
If you break down the Clear Channel quotes, he’s not really saying anything new or ground breaking here.
“Managers will have the latitude to choose content and talent for their stations as a way to generate more audience and ultimately advertising dollars.”
- They are not saying the DJs will be given more latitude in what they play. The PDs will have more latitude to use the station to generate more listeners which leads to more ad dollars. That’s like the sports analogy “If we score more points, we will win the game”. What exactly does that mean? And are you telling me anything specific to the game?
“Our programming objective is to increase audience size and engagement across all day parts and all platforms,”
Again - if we score more points, we win.
“At the same time, we face a particularly difficult economy that makes it extremely challenging for some local stations to invest in developing the highest-quality programming and talent. Despite the difficult economy, we see enormous long-term opportunity in investing in things that immediately improve the competitive situation of our stations.” - Read as “Some stations won’t be able to develop their own content so we will provide the syndicated stuff for them. Which is the total opposite of “Hyperlocalization”.