Featured Post

Jennifer Aniston is 40!

Those of you who know me or have become frequent readers of Media Realism might be more than a little surprised by my People Magazine style ...

Friday, April 25, 2014

Radio's Rocky Road Ahead


For the past forty years, I have kept close tabs on the advertising revenue of each major medium. Lately, of course, the really dynamic growth has tended to be dominated by on line media and mobile. When you look at traditional or legacy media there have been ups and downs depending on the business cycle. One old time medium, radio, does seem stuck. Radio growth in recent years tends to be crawling along at a 1% compounded growth rate in ad revenue.

I sent some questions out to many of my Media Realism panel members and some friends. The response was mixed. Some said radio was clearly no longer a growth medium but hastened to add that it would always be there. Only a few very young respondents said that the medium was toast. A surprising number of people mentioned a station that was doing great and all such stations tended to be in a top 15 market in a radio metro with a fairly buoyant economy.

My point is that the 1% revenue increase in recent years is an average. For every station that is up 15%, there may be several that are down, sometimes significantly. The same is true of markets. Some Texas markets and a few southeastern metros are seeing solid year to year gains but go out into the hinterlands and it is a different story. A few smaller markets in oil rich North Dakota and Oklahoma appear to be doing great as good paying blue collar jobs abound. In much of America’s heartland, it is a different story. Here a few verbatim comments from station general managers or sales managers:

1) “Last year, I pushed myself and my staff harder than ever. We almost broke even in billing compared to the prior year. Headquarters wanted gains. I fired seven people and the savings in salaries, commissions, and benefits got me close to their objective for me. This year, I have little room to maneuver. We have not had fat in years. Now, I have to take bone. There are no stones left to turn in this market. Everyone knows us but spending is not growing.”
2)“The cable guys are beating our brains out. They come to our established customers and put together attractive packages across a carefully selected range of stations. The smaller clients love being on TV as they could never afford network affiliates. Our market skews older and older folks watch more TV. The new cable GM is a smart young guy who works his tail off. He has raided some of the best radio salespeople in town. How do I compete? Our station has no local talent. It sounds the same as hundreds of others playing the same 30 songs over and over again. We fake community involvement but it is nothing like it was years ago where we mattered in town.”
3) “Two years ago, I told you that I could not wait for corporate to go broke so I could buy my station. I was an arrogant fool. There is no way that I would buy it now even at a really distressed price. The billing base is shrinking. It is almost a structural thing both with our dying industrial base locally and changes in media habits.”
4) A veteran broadcaster who went from radio to TV and, after a couple of firings, is back at radio said, “We have zero pricing power. I did a deal with a TV station recently and we are charging less than we did 22 years ago. Sure, the ratings are lower but they are in TV, too. If I hint at raising rates old friends who I thought were cronies, tell me that if I increase the rates they will go elsewhere. Anytime I called their bluff, the business disappeared.”
5) “Our sports station is doing great. We have a blend of local talent plus ESPN at other times of day. The other stations in our stable are really struggling. I try to have the team package up buys across our offerings but few people bite.”
6) “Radio is not dead but it a no growth medium. You are right about the 1% billing growth in recent years. Remember the rule of 72 from finance class? If I keep up this hot pace, I will double my billing in 72 years. That will play well in New York. :):):)
7) “I have busted my butt the last seven years and we are slightly below where we were in 2007. The situation is similar to what you have written about in Media Realism with mid-sized agencies. You have a few old pros assisted by a bunch of kids. I have kept my best sales guy as he is carrying 80% of the billing. The kids go at it tooth and nail but barely cover their draw most months. After a year or so I fire the worst performers and bring in some new eager young recruits. It cannot keep going on like this.”


We have always said that no two markets are alike. In radio, that is more true than ever. Several people mentioned the tremendous revenue that WTOP, Washington generates. It is, indeed, a great station that does just about everything right. They have a huge news staff and are perfectly situated in our nation’s capitol with more news junkies per capita than anywhere in the country. Couple that with some terrible traffic jams and the station is really in a sweet spot. Yet, their format cannot work in many markets around the country and billing does not exist in most locales to support an extensive team of good reporters.

A very astute media researcher weighed in as follows:

My boss doesn’t think radio is going away anytime soon. In fact, he feels that online is getting credit for too much.  With online’s metrics, advertisers think it’s the end-all.  He hopes that radio can develop metrics that would show its importance in the purchase cycle  -- it creates awareness, but because the audience can’t click on their radio for more information, the media suffers. I really don’t think such metrics can be developed.  We’re still using random duplication in this industry for R&Fs!

                We’re trying to move advertisers into online audio (as we now call it).  Our buying/research software even includes Pandora in a ranker with the Arbitron-measured stations.  I think it’s a disservice, but that’s how the industry is moving”.

A recently retired 40 year radio veteran summed it up this way:

“Radio is like a cockroach it just keeps reinventing itself but I am not sure it has ever seen a predator like the internet. Like all media it is always about content/personalities if you have a strong personality on your station you can survive. We have a radio station in DC, WTOP, that might be the prototype for all radio. For the last few years, they may have been the #1 billing station in the USA.  If you can make your self relevant to your audience you will survive and do well, local news, local traffic. Internet cannot do local news it might be able to do traffic but only in some top markets but the local station can do it better.
The big issue is these huge radio companies are only about what have you done for me lately. Everything is measured by the next or the last quarter, very short term thinking. They do not invest in their salespeople and yet expect them to create revenue in ninety days. If the big companies can get out of the business and let local ownership back in radio might have a chance.”

What do I think? Radio is bleeding but not finished. As long as people drive to work, it will still have a place in American advertising. And, in some markets, some stations are getting some very profitable action out of their web sites. What people fail to recognize is that young people are not embracing it anywhere near to the extent that previous generations did. College kids, and I speak to hundreds, tell me that they listen in the car but never in their dorm rooms or at home. There are just too many other options available that are commercial free and offer exactly what they want, when they want. So, I see a rocky road ahead for radio broadcasters. A few stars will do great but most will struggle and many will fail.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Leapfrog Technologies and Media


Last week I had a conversation with someone about the future of global media. He agreed with me that some exciting things would happen in the developing world and even frontier markets but said that I was way too bullish on the speed of the changes that would occur.

I smiled but countered that their progress will be accelerated compared to past development due to “leapfrog technologies.” Historically, in development, western countries would owe much of their prosperity to expensive infrastructure such as rail lines, great roads, electricity, and telephone networks. As someone who spent the happiest years of my career in Dallas and Atlanta, I would add that air conditioning does not get the credit it deserves for the development of the American southeast and southwest.

Leapfrog technologies have turbo-charged the speed of development and put an upward spike in media usage as they bypass the traditional infrastructure build out that was necessary in prior generations. In essence, they are technologies that allow you to skip a step or two versus previous development paths. A great example was with telephones. About 20 years ago, urban legend has it that the then US West took over the Hungarian telephone system. As they began to update the Budapest lines block by block, apartment houses supers asked to be spiffed by the new phone company or the new lines might not stay in place. The company said no and went wireless.

In Africa, the mobile phone has brought telephony to rural and remote areas of the continent where it never would be profitable to build a network.

To get a handle on the speed of things these days, consider:

1) IOS and Android device adoption has had the fastest technological growth in measured history. Smart devices in the aggregate have grown 10 times faster than the PC’s we embraced in the ’80’s, twice the speed of late 1990’s internet usage, and three times the social media development of recent years.
2) The World Bank has stated that some 80% of the world still lives on less than $10 a day and some 2.56 billion or 35% of the world lives on less than $2 a day.
3) Additionally, the World Bank is projecting that internet usage will jump by 50% from the current 2 billion to 3 billion by early 2016.

With so many people earning under $10 a day, will they soon be buying big flat screen TV’s? Not likely. Yet, many will somehow get a smartphone and will have internet access, music, and video on that single device.

So, if your company is expanding overseas, you need to abandon thinking about legacy media. Perhaps a billion or two prospects of yours will never own a television set. That does not mean, however, that you will not be able to reach them.

If technology has been described as economic fuel, then leapfrog technologies are economic rocket fuel.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Americans Earn Too Much Money?


I was driving on an interstate last week and doing a bit of radio channel hopping. One little snippet got my attention very quickly. Someone was concluding an interview and the guest said (I paraphrase), “The bottom line is that Americans earn too much money. We have had it too good for too long.” Given the flow of traffic, I had to concentrate on my driving and I did not get the name of the guest, interviewer, or station call letters. The brutal candor of the guest stunned me. He obviously would not be welcome at the dwindling number of union halls across the country. So, I did some digging and found out that the mystery man is not the only one in the U.S. with the same opinion.

You continue to hear a lot today about the top 1% in income or net worth (not always the same people) relative to all the rest of Americans. In past eras such as the Great Depression (circa 1929-1941), the very wealthy tended to lower their voices for fear of alienating people or being targeted by thieves due to ostentatious displays of wealth. Today, there appears to be no sense of discretion.

A few years ago, a Greenwich, Connecticut based hedge fund manager boldly said in an after dinner speech that, “The low skilled American worker is the most overpaid worker in the world.” He is not alone. Others financiers at meetings such as the big wingding at Davos, Switzerland have said things to the effect that if the evolving global economy takes four people in India or Southeast Asia out of grinding poverty and an American or two drops out of the middle class, that is a fair trade.

Part of the argument seems to be return on investment. Private equity investors often talk about how by outsourcing work overseas you get people who work for half of what Americans demand, are extremely motivated and just plain tickled to get the work with an American company. Some executives in India look at such tradeoffs coldly. One was quoted as saying, “You had your golden period: now, we will have ours.” Others say that per capita income of the Western middle class has to decline as the developing world rises. Something to the effect of “we will meet somewhere in the middle” is a thought that I have seen across the board in researching this attitude.

You may read this and say, “So what.” Perhaps we have had it too good for too long and don’t people have a chance to rise if they work hard? I cannot argue with that. But, some things gnaw at me a bit. Americans have not had an increase in median income in nearly 30 years. Does that sound like an overpaid group of people to you?

Also, I have an unusual hobby which sometimes serves me well. I love to read annual reports of publicly traded companies. Each week, I probably break down three or four, crunch the numbers, and am amused by the nonsense that CEO’s often put in their letter to shareholders. This past week, I was reading the Wal-Mart annual report (full disclosure--I am not a shareholder). There was a passage in the report that made me sit bolt upright--

“Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control … These factors include  changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement[al] Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, and changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”

Wow! This was not picked up much in the mainstream media but some in the blogosphere did jump all over it. BUSINESS INSIDER did weigh in with the following:
“Walmart, for the first time in its annual reports, acknowledges that taxpayer-funded social assistance programs are a significant factor in its revenue and profits. This makes sense, considering that Walmart caters to low-income consumers. But what’s news here is that the company now considers the level of social entitlements given to low-income working and unemployed Americans important enough to underscore it in its cautionary statement.”

Linking this Wal-Mart surprise with the comments of hedge fund managers who sound mysteriously like developing world oligarchs to me, may seem like a bit of a stretch. What the billionaires do not seem to realize is that if Americans earn even less, who will continue to buy the products that made them their billions? A vibrant American middle class is good for business and good for democracy.

Part of this situation has its roots in free trade. As tariffs have been removed and markets have opened up across the globe, companies move their facilities to lands where wages are lower but quality of output is not diminished. I have no argument with that. For the past 200 years, free trade has always caused dislocations in labor but the consumer and participating countries generally benefited. What I cannot understand is why some of the people who have benefited the most from opening markets behave as insensitive louts and attack those who are being hurt in the transition.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com