In the July 30 Ross On Radio, Radio-Info’s Sean Ross wrote:

Only the magnitude of Monday’s findings by radio consultant Alan Burns that less than 10% of the average radio station’s content is “listener-focused” will come as a surprise to anybody who has listened closely in recent years. Burns analyzed an hour of twenty CHR, Hot AC, and AC radio stations in markets 10-100 in middays and afternoon drive and found that a radio station’s positioning – whether produced or delivered live by jocks – comprised 72% of its own content. Listener-focused content was only around seven percent.

The “relatable” break – where a jock talks about something of interest to the listener that isn’t somehow tied to the station – has been an endangered species for a while now. The presentational austerity of many Clear Channel stations in recent years might seem to be one cause. So might the recent “cut all presentational elements to the bone” mentality that accompanied the arrival of PPM ratings measurement. But Burns says that Clear Channel’s percentage of time given to positioning is less than that of CBS, for instance. And that large markets, including those already measured by PPM, had more relatables in general, although Burns does think that PPM could exacerbate the issue.

So why isn’t station content more listener focused? There are a lot of stumbling blocks: For starters, relatables require writing ability, which is something that we haven’t taught or prized in our announcers for a long time. The decline in on-air writing skills also coincides with that of the personality who had “over the intros” content —– the ability to tell stories in 17 seconds, whether about a song, a station contest, or something goofy a city councilman did. Anybody with a lot of content wanted to go to mornings and talk for more than 17 seconds, even though that didn’t suit many of our talents.

Relatables were also heavily prone to abuse. Nothing was more painful than hearing the afternoon jock read the same story from the daily paper that the morning team had already used twice, while the traffic person tried to gamely pretend they hadn’t heard the payoff at every other station in town. As Burns points out, it’s easier to clamp down than to coach better content. And I don’t miss having the paper read to me, although these days you can’t count on listeners having read the newspaper for themselves.

And even without reading a printed newspaper, listeners have become pretty good at circulating their own relatables to each other. Got a great “news of the weird” story for afternoon drive? It may have already been shared extensively. (That’s one more reason for radio station Websites to concentrate on creating their own viral content.) To this you can add that the majority of program directors of CHR, Hot AC and AC stations are still men, negotiating the interests of their female target audience with varying degrees of acuity. It’s no accident that one of the best breaks heard lately was WKSE (Kiss 98.5) Buffalo, N.Y.’s night jock talking about how men and women would relate differently to the lyrics of the song he just played. WKSE PD Sue O’Neil has long tried to run everything through that lifestyle filter.

Then there’s celebrity gossip, which has somehow been designated the one topic that is still acceptable for relatables. And that isn’t just the case on the radio. You could be saddened by the death of Michael Jackson and still stunned by the extent to which that story consumed the news hole in every medium that month, even at the expense of home, health, hearth and world events.

Finally, station business is what pays the bills. Programmers have mostly cleaned up those hard-to-hear stretches where a jock takes 75 seconds to read what was meant to be a 30-second liner about a remote, right before playing a produced promo for the same thing. But if there’s a sponsored station promotion, it’s going to have first dibs on any available on-air real estate. At times, it’s hard not to feel cynical and think that there wouldn’t be any local talent if stations didn’t need somebody to talk about the remotes.

Programmers are often of two minds about what content they want to offer in a PPM world. Even in mornings, there’s no longer a guarantee that any half-decent content is better than just playing the same record that four other stations are playing as well. But there seems to be some acknowledgement that user-focused content is good, if it’s coming from John Tesh, just as it’s okay to stop the music for celebrity gossip if you’re Ryan Seacrest. And even Seacrest is allegedly being told to tighten up these days.

There’s no attempt here to dismiss out-of-hand the value of the other things that stations talk about. Even a bare-bones “that was/this is” back-and-frontsell is something that listeners have told us they want. Good air talent will find the “you” aspect in almost anything they do, even when it’s just selling another five great songs in a row. But you need to have good air talent, and you need a program director who recognizes the power of bonding with the listener at a time like this. And here’s what readers had to say: (Some discussion of this topic went directly to the Radio-Info boards here: )

COMMENTS

Tim Slats, WJRR Orlando, Fla., [formerly of WMMS Cleveland and a Rock radio veteran]

I wanted to respond to your excellent “I Wanna Talk About Me” article.

Since we both know why this has occurred and the consequences which have followed by not allowing air talent to relate to listeners. I wish to share some good news on this subject relating to the Alan Burns poll.

Since I'm basically semi-retired in radio … WJRR/Orlando PD- Rick Everett has given me such a wonderful and exciting responsibility: “Leave the liner book in the studio and just entertain me on Sundays [from] 3-7 p.m.“ I've been fortunate to do this shift for over 3 years.

Yeah, I'm tracking but what a joy it is to jump on a computer at 9 a.m., prep, then hit the studio and execute. It is a responsibilty that I do not disrespect. From brain to hard drive it takes me 2-½ to three hours depending [on the day]. I'm very lucky.

Steve Poley, CELLit Media Services, Houston

Nice work moving the discussion along from original research on “Listener Content” to some initial conclusions.

If CHR/AC radio doesn’t hire, train, or reward the jocks for “relatable” content and your conclusion is “this is good stuff” … then what happens now? Comments on the site seem to support your conclusion.

When will someone speak up and make a difference? Is everyone afraid to suggest changes?

Will you step up and lead the change?

Ed Osborne

“Amazing, isn’t it? Fifty years of Top 40/CHR radio and they’re still debating the basics.

Remember when music radio was the go-to media for community and trend-setting? Sometime after passive research and around MTV, radio hunkered down into a safe spot and became a follower. Terrified to risk offending even one listener, programmers gave up their position of prominence in the community. They spent countless hours noodling over minutiae such as the nuances of record rotation while ignoring their listeners' pleas for something as simple as back-announcing song titles.

And don’t get me started on the constant celebrity gossip breaks! That’s the indutry’s best shot at relating? Gimme a break.

Quite simply, radio is about me, me, me: the listener is often a mere afterthought.

Mark Elliott, WIKY Evansville, Ind.

Enjoy your new newsletter. I’d like to vent, however, on the latest Alan Burns study and your recent story. Specifically:

Quote: “The “relatable” break – where a jock talks about something of interest to the listener that isn’t somehow tied to the station.” I strongly disagree with this definition. A break that defines an upcoming station promotion by how it benefits the listener can and should be relatable. (“Is your child’s safety seat connected correctly? Stop by our remote this weekend and have a deputy check it out”) It does not have to be “not tied to the station” to be relatable.

Quote: “Relatable require writing ability” : No, being relatable does not require writing skills. It requires conversational skills. One of the reasons for two or more persons on a morning show is to have them “converse with” each other, instead of “talking at” the listener. This conversation is now one the listener might be able to feel that they are a part of. One person alone can converse with listeners—it is a skill that demands a lot of off air practice and direction.

Quote: “Good air talent will find the “you” aspect in almost anything they do, even when it’s just selling another five great songs in a row. But you need to have good air talent, and you need a program director who recognizes the power of bonding with the listener at a time like this.” Agreed. But one of the missing links is the time and effort for jocks to learn. I had the distinct advantage of spending over two years on the all night show at [WKRQ] Q102 in Cincinnati, where I could make mistakes and learn how to talk “to” and not “at” listeners. When you talked to them, even at 2:30 a.m., they called and talked back. With all-night voicetracking and staff reductions, where does talent have the chance to learn?

Thanks for letting me vent.

Ed Scarborough, San Antonio, Texas

I don’t know that I've ever written feedback to your articles. Too damn busy to take a moment, most likely. But today’s post on Radio-Info was just spot on.

Call it content, presentation, localization or relatables; we just don’t teach our teams how to get it said quickly and effectively. As a result, we just wire ‘em down; push the Website, plug the station event and hit the spots. In the PPM world we called it “Mike Flight,” the fear of losing your listener when you’re setting up the break. Of course, if the break is relevant, well-constructed and well-delivered we would most likely have the opposite effect.

In today’s economy, there are hundreds of available “old school” PDs who remember how to entertain, bring out the best in their talent and provide “stationality” to their product. We can only hope there are still some employers who can appreciate those skills!

Larry Thomas, Max-FM, Bakersfield, Calif.

I would have posted on the boards, but much like Radio DJs today, there is too much crap with their discussions. (They do know it all, yah know.)

Celebrity news and gossip, news anybody with a pc can obtain, newspapers (are they still around), stupid phoners, et al. Who cares? “Relevant” can mean anything these days, but to who?

Is it entertaining (because you think everybody wants to hear about Octomom)? Then there is the stupid daily blather of innuendo and clichés: boring, ho hum.

After reading the first page, nowhere did I notice the word “emotional” as in “emotionally connecting” with the listener—-one on one. How some people in radio remain employed in radio really amazes me.

Unfortunately 99% of ad copy is written the same way: blah blah blah

Consumers always buy emotionally and justify the purchase (after) with logic.

It’s simple: does what you are about say mean anything emotionally to you? If not, don’t say it.

Alan Burns

Thanks for the coverage. I hope this topic has some legs. Maybe it will make a difference if enough people keep talking about it. It would be nice to think we collectively could start turning the industry.