PMSimon.com

More of why some of the folks running terrestrial radio in America do not understand what is happening to them, in the big Jack-FM article in the New York Times today:

But program directors and analysts say the voice-over identities are better than D.J.'s at making stations memorable to listeners when they fill out quarterly audience surveys.

And though the Jack figures may not be real people, they do have personalities - sort of. "If we do our jobs well," said Rob Barnett, the president of programming for Infinity Broadcasting, which has nine Jack stations, "then Jack is a persona that is dedicated to having fun, both at the sometimes uptight nature of radio programming, and having fun with popular culture."

At WCBS, Jack is a voice of sarcasm and ennui, mostly untouched by current events; he does not identify songs, read news or give traffic or weather reports. In a self-deprecating shrug of a tone, he plugs the station constantly ("It's like an iPod, only the batteries never run out") and now and then spouts a politically incorrect remark ("Maybe if you stopped saying 'I don't speak English,' you'd understand me").

Canned "personality," playing music and plugging the station. That's it. Nothing local, nothing different, the same, pretty much, in every city. (We get two here, 93.1 from L.A. and 100.7 from San Diego, with different ownership but the same everything else, and they are indistinguishable)

When a new Jack or Bob or Mike station enters a market, there tends to be a spike in ratings. But according to a new study by the ratings service Arbitron and Edison Media Research, Jack and Bob face two problematic trends. At many such stations the audience size has diminished as the novelty of the format wears off, and the time each person spends listening to the station - an important statistic for advertisers - is fairly low, suggesting that people tune in for the fun of the songs but tune out in a short time for what other stations offer: on-air personalities and local news, perhaps.

"What you end up with is a lifeless station," said Robert Unmacht, a consultant at iN3 Partners in Nashville.

Yeah, and a jukebox at that. Later in the article, quoting "Jack"'s shot back at criticism from New York's Mayor Bloomberg, there's the phrase "It's just music." Exactly, and that's the problem. If I want music, I have hundreds of choices, and, frankly, many are better than terrestrial radio. There's my iPod, with everything from the Futureheads to the O'Jays, from the Buzzcocks to Major Lance. There's satellite radio, with a channel for everyone, but commercial-free. There's Internet streaming, through which I can find countless unique formats and stations from overseas, many sans commercials. And there are dozens of other choices on the terrestrial FM dial. It's all "just music," and "Jack-FM" is just another version of same, only one designed to play a song I won't like at least every third song (as I've pointed out before, that's usually a Phil Collins song).

How is that a wise long-term business decision?

Again, here's some learnin' for the radio people out there: the only thing you have as a strategic advantage over iPods and streaming and satellite is your ability to sign up and develop local personalities. The only way that happens is if you let them talk. That can be talk radio of the political variety, or the "FM Talk" guy-talk I helped invent, or talk for women or talk about pop culture or sports talk. It can also be music radio with hosts who talk about the music and what's going on in town and whatever else they see fit to discuss- morning shows all day, or just strong hosts. Whatever you do, it makes more sense to provide what your competition can't provide, and the only unduplicatable thing you have is personality. A detached voice done by Howard Cogan in a Toronto studio reading liner cards is duplicatable- anyone can crank out self-deprecating liners and have a guy with a flat delivery read them. You can't duplicate a strong local personality. Yet I go to some markets like Tampa and damned if I can find any really local talent. It's all syndication or jukeboxes.

I hate repeating myself, but this shouldn't be difficult. You can do better than imitating an iPod. You have to do better.

 Share

Plenty to say, no time to say it. Sorry. Tomorrow.

 Share

You get the feeling when hearing the reaction to John Roberts' nomination that the people with the most negative response wouldn't have been happy with anyone Bush would have appointed. Here's Norman Lear's group:

People for the American Way issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction with Bush's recommendation.

"We're extremely disappointed that the president did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor," the advocacy group's statement read. "Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe."

First of all, this guy doesn't have enough of a record to really know WHAT he'll do on "upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections," other than to assume he's not pro-trial-lawyer like, say, the People for the American Way. And second, "consensus" means "someone with whom we agree." Surely they didn't expect THAT. Can't be disappointed if you don't get what you know you're not getting.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, questioned Roberts' judicial philosophy.

"Given the administration's track record of selecting ideologically driven, divisive candidates for the bench, it would be unsurprising if Judge Roberts embraces a judicial philosophy that is insensitive to the rights and protections that ... have brought us closer to realizing the twin ideals of freedom and equality," she said in a statement from the national association of advocacy groups.

Translation: we don't know anything about this guy, but we don't like him. Anybody this administration would nominate, we don't like. Bush bad, Bush nominee bad, bad, bad.

Bush's nomination came as a disappointment to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

"We are saddened that President Bush chose the politics of conflict and division over bipartisan consensus,"

There's that word again!

the civil rights coalition said in a statement. "At first blush, John Roberts may not appear to be an ultra right judicial activist, but his approach to issues of protecting the rights and freedoms of individual Americans are, at best, unclear and, in some instances, deeply troubling."

Again, we don't know anything about this guy ("unclear"), but we don't like him ("deeply troubling").

Personally, I'd like a judge who stands for keeping government out of as much as possible. I'd like a judge committed to absolute freedom of speech (including what's deemed "indecent"), freedom of religion, freedom of choice in all areas. I'd like a judge who believes in the free market and takes a jaundiced view of overreaching regulation. I'd like all of that, but I'm not gonna get it, because the folks who have the power to make that choice wouldn't pick someone like that. And I get that and I'm not surprised or disappointed in what we got, because the administration has the power to choose and the same party has the votes to confirm. They won, they get to pick. If the Democrats won the election, I wouldn't expect a small-government, low-tolerance-for-regulation nominee, nor would I complain about what we'd get; the winner gets to make the choice. That's the way it works. You don't like it, there's an election next year, so get out the vote. Until then, cut the consensus crap, because you know that you wouldn't bother asking the Republicans what they want if you had the White House and the Hill.

Actually, the guy seems okay so far. I'm sure he'll get beaten up in the hearings (especially with questions he can't/won't answer: "Will you vote to overturn Roe?"), but if there are no skeletons in the closet, it'll all be for show. And a show is what we'll get, a noisy, ultimately pointless show. Like "Rock Star: INXS," only with Ted Kennedy instead of Special Guest Judge Dave Navarro.

 Share

It came after an hour talking about crystal meth, of all things, but the hosts of a show on an east coast FM talk station suddenly decided they needed to address the news. Bush had picked John Roberts for the Supreme Court, and the hosts- a couple of guys who were producers at another station before being given a show there- suddenly dumped out of their usual sex-drugs-sex talk to deal with it. This is horrible, said one, because it's the end of abortion. Not only is it the end of abortion, he said, but it's the end of choice, any choice. He was absolute and authoritative on this point. You want to be able to choose anything, it's over, because this guy, er, hey, he's bad news. The two spent a few minutes on this theme, eschewing detail and obviously having read nothing about Roberts at all, then moved on to having their board op tied up in bondage gear by some bimbos from a fetish nightclub.

You always want to get your political opinions from a couple of guys who clearly have little idea what they're talking about.

I heard similar stuff on some other shows, too, and it reminded me of other comments at other times about things Bush has done. It also reminded me of stuff some on the right would say about Clinton back in the day. There's a hard core of political junkies who know what they're talking about, but comedians and wacky FM talkers aren't generally among them. Some- the most well-known FM talk guy is one- just read off talking points someone else provided for them, but can't argue their way through any conversation. Most just follow this line of reasoning: Bush is a stupidhead. If they're REALLY sophisticated, they'll say Karl Rove is evil. Beyond that, forget it.

And that's what these guys were doing, and I wondered if they even HAVE a program director. This would be a good time for someone to sit them down and tell them that they're not on AM, they're not politically astute enough to carry it off, and, frankly, they ought to stick to sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, movies, video games, sports... and that's not saying that they're stupid. It's not necessarily stupid not to know much about politics. It IS stupid to try and sound like you do when you don't, and even more stupid to spout opinions when you haven't done the homework, which, by the way, should include reading more than just web sites that tell you what you want to hear. If you read Kos and Atrios for your political information, you ought to be mixing in Instapundit and LGF and the Northern Alliance guys, too. And vice versa. Otherwise, you sound like the Hollywood folks who dabble in political commentary, and you know what THAT sounds like. You don't want to be Maggie Gyllenhaal.

The moral is for radio people, and it's this: know what your strengths are. There are FM talk and morning shows with hosts that can carry off political talk- some are known for it- and there are the guys who really shouldn't go there. It's not a matter of which side you're on, it's a matter of having more to say than "Bush is bad" or "Clinton is a sex maniac" AND having a forum in which your listeners expect and want to hear it. Got a morning show and fans who love to hate your political rants? Go for it. Got a late night frat boy sex 'n' beer fest? Don't embarrass yourself, and don't make your fans go looking for someone who isn't on a soapbox. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even an ill-considered or undereducated one. But you gotta pick your spots before you send them through a microphone.

 Share

Too damn hot, too little time.

Is there anyplace in America that ISN'T freakishly hot and humid right now?

One thing I know, I won't be getting any relief this weekend. I'll tell you why shortly. And then I'll go get my head examined.

 Share

Spent most of the day in transit, so I'm lost. It's hard to go from immersed in the news to a near-total blackout. (TV on airplanes is a good thing IF IT WORKS) So I'm in a daze at the moment, dealing with astronomically high heat and humidity. More when I figure out what time it is here.

 Share

Today? Pictures, saving me from spending time actual writing.

First, America's Number 1 Beach, really:

Apparently, the area was designated. Designated what, I don't know:

Much later, we went to a ball game. It was played at a large circular public works project, possibly a sewage treatment plant or a gas tank:

Inside, the corridors were disturbingly cinder-blocky and unfinished. We saw large unpainted sections, stacks of old ads for the Florida Lotto laying in plain view at the bottom of an escalator, and the effect was dingy and rather un-major-league. And what kind of major league park has no monitors or even audio of the game when you go down to hit the men's room or the concession stands?

In the seating bowl, the place was OK, a little threadbare- the banners covering the facades of the upper decks and the press box looked cheesy and cheap, the gaps and rips in the fabric dome were noticeable, the promotions weren't even as fun as a minor league game, and the crowd needed to be prodded by sound effects and some helpful rhythmic noises (OK, so do Dodger fans, but that's no excuse). The fans were cheerful but apparently not all that knowledgable (well, of course- they bought tickets to see the Devil Rays, after all). And the game felt like when I was, like, 9 and playing "baseball" in the living room with some wadded-up socks and a stuffed paper-towel tube; indoor baseball's still just weird.

Before the game, they honored Wade Boggs with a visit from a Viagra salesman named Palmiero and an oversized check made out to a charity. He was suitably grateful:

The game was uneventful- Sidney Ponson started despite practically being traded to San Diego hours before (the trade was held up while Phil Nevin decided if he'd accept the deal), Gonzalez hit one, Tejada hit one but it was too late, the home team won, everyone went home with a little Wade Boggs figurine and a DVD of his greatest hits.

And we went back and saw this adorable kid:

Not even a year old and he already takes after his uncle.

 Share