Are We Sick Or Something? I do admit, from time to time, that I wonder how it is that I, apparently, am the only radio guy that is out here in the hinterlands squawking bile and gibberish about radio’s utter lack of communications acumen.
That I hardly ever get any stalwart or lettered rebuffs of the principles, techniques and methodologies I have been promoting for so many years suggests that I am working under some delusions, and that radio people would rather not engage me in any meaningful discourse.
Either that or radio’s participants, particularly ownership and management, are completely
indifferent to the processes I have been putting forward. I have a suspicion the latter is more in play.
Our failures to address the communicative aspects of our business, although subtle, are actually quite apparent and obvious. Plus, there is a colossal arrogance being bandied about in that the abject banality of our presentations is generating no particular audience or advertiser enthusiasms. The situation is hardly raising any hackles, either.
To listen to any typical commercial music-radio broadcast is to be regaled with the most maudlin, banal and insulting forms of communication being foisted on an, otherwise, unsuspecting audience. These are, quite frankly, examples of inanities being produced
by dullards
for dullards – hardly a position to take for anyone wishing to improve their appeal or increase their affects.
At the risk of attempting to seem not so terribly harsh to the performers, they are to be forgiven for participating in a system of communicating about which they have no knowledge and therefore, no reason to question or challenge. Maintaining the status quo, however, has no benefits – not for the performers, the audiences or the advertisers.
So benign and anemic is radio that other media, electronic or otherwise, hardly even bother to come after the medium with counter opportunities. (Why bother to bash radio when radio is doing a stellar job of anyway.) Radio, to the competition, is a sleeping dog that is best left alone – snoozing away its future.
I also wonder about the irony contained in the behaviours of radio’s cutting, chopping and gouging of its talent-base. Besides all the internal angst and squabbling, hardly anybody else seems to notice – or care.
A further irony is that there have been alternate forms of communicating available that would drastically improve the lot of radio. Plus, it’s not as if other alternatives are being prepared on the back burner – ready to be sprung on the markets when it is time to break the glass.
This hardly bodes well for the future of radio as the internally generated collapse of the products and services rendered by radio have got to the point where there may not be much available or worthy of saving.
Perhaps renovations of existing radio organisations are highly unlikely. Rather, it may be up to new or possibly miraculously redeemed outfits to start all over – from scratch. That would be the more time-consuming and expensive strategy, But, it also may be the only remaining approach – a dangerous leap-of-faith - a “Geronimo” event.
Although, like the lack of awareness of a slowly metastasizing tumour, radio may remain ignorant of its malady and simply carry on with the same-ol’-same-ol’ until the prognosis becomes critical and, possibly, fatal. Is it possible we really are
that sick?
Now, I do appreciate that most of radio’s participants carry on as if there were no threats to its broadcasting and business models – just glitches brought on by the Covid-thingy. However, radio has been experiencing the gradual demise of its productivity and appeal to audiences and advertisers well before any virus abetted any strike downs of much of the industry.
As a reminder, I reiterate again: Every time a presenter, in attempting to contact a listener personally, specifically and applies the word “you”, listeners are forced to realize it is not they who are being reached. They (unconsciously) become frustrated - and an Australian budgie dies.
This admonition is the toughest one with which performers have the most trouble with comprehending, digesting and assimilating. It goes against everything we were ever taught as on-air presenters. Further, it is also counter-intuitive. It just doesn’t seem to fit. However, when the second person (you) is replaced with the third person (anything else) - everything gets to be just Jake.
Again, I repeat: None of these troubles and tribulations were necessary.
Please note: I am inviting reader comments be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
info@voicetalentguy.com