What's It Going To Take...?

[pave]

Alert: Old Dude Blithering

The older I get – and I am getting older – I find I am less concerned about the state in which radio finds itself, often without any awareness it is in a nasty or injurious state at all. While this is a frustrating situation for me, it is a tragic one for radio.

Over the last decades I have been a witness to the abject failure of radio to become aware of its own gradual but definitive demise, and the reticence of audiences and advertisers to participate with the medium are ongoing.

An irony is that radio continues to be a valid advertising choice, but the numbers of those who are accepting the premise are ever dwindling. Radio is no longer being touted as an exciting and cost-effective medium to reach consumers.

Radio has yet to acknowledge it is an emotionally-based medium that be made even more effective by engaging the emotional capacities of audiences – as opposed to straight content advertising that make questionable appeals to the rational components of consumers.

Meanwhile, I have a suspicion, that being: Radio does not have a history or propensity to pay much attention to other electronic media. Although pervasive and continuous in their own experience, owners and managers seem to be under the assumption the other media are having little impact on markets that are not simple made up of a flavours-of-the-day phenomena, so to speak.

That these alternate media have been permeating the landscape for over 30 years down not seem to have much impact. These media are hardly flash-in-the-pan or passing fad components. They are, indeed, here to stay and they are sucking the life’s blood out of radio. Radio has taken no steps to ascertain the relative impact of these other electronic media and it has certainly taken no steps to counteract the influence of them, either.

The morose reality of this circumstance is that there exists a number of modifications radio can make to generate a stout response to the effects of all the other media. Radio cannot claim they have been made prisoners and are doing the best it can to counteract the debilitating results of the influx of the other media.

The manacles with which radio finds itself to be struggling are only those that are self-made. Radio has been doing itself in for decades. Whether these exercises are being conducted within an environment of glee and satisfaction is unknown to me.

Further, and since I have a substantial amount of radio history in my experience, I have always had a great deal of difficulty in understanding how contemporary owners and management can have any hope of positively impacting their audiences and advertisers-bases with any of the milquetoast strategies thet have been applied for some decades now.

They have painted themselves into a corner by applying so many of the already disproven techniques and programming strategies – all of them having failed utterly. These folks are prime representations of the old adage that: People find out what doesn’t work – and then do it harder. Were it not tragic, it would be comic.

But again, this could all be no more than an old dude’s gibberish. I just noticed I got a little drool on my shirt.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Beware: The Ides

If only we can get through March 15th, we might still have a future. The story goes that making it past the Ides of March is a good omen, particularly for those caught up in superstitious nonsense or more spectacular conspiracy theories. (By the way, how is that chem-trails thing working out?)

I only mention this as radio seems to continuously be running on superstitions and institutionalized traditions that came about as the result of some serious, but erratic in-breeding. Radio’s ownership and management seem to be curiously populated by a number of cross-eyed, toothless banjo players. And all they know is that one tune.

Regular readers are, however, encouraged to take heart. The 15th of March was the day that Julius Caesar got whacked by the Pastavazoola Mob. Beyond that, there wasn’t much else going on.

What is more significant to aficionados of radio are those strategies that have wormed their way into the medium and have become traditions – unchallenged and unassailable. And the coming or going of the Ides of March have nothing to do with our predicament.

While radio does seems to be clawing its way back to a least a portion of its pre-Covid revenues, it has taken no steps to increase income beyond those tawdry sums.

The last few years have taught me there is more than enough delusion, disinformation, disinterest and doltage to last anybody a lifetime of drudgery and disappointment. Yes, Mildred, there be dummies out here. What tricks us is: These dumbos are sincere! Gets us almost every time. These are folks who will look at us and say, “I am not here.” We will consider that for a moment and may come to the conclusion: “By golly, they might have something there.”

Although they have become universally accepted truisms, it is still hard to come up with those individuals that will go on record to state: “Interminable spot clusters are good. Suppressed and restrained presenters are better for everybody. Content-heavy commercials are better than spots cut along an emotional bias.

That all these and other strategies make for anemic and boring listening experiences does not seem to factor in – if they get any consideration at all.

But then, I have to remind myself we are, to a large degree, dealing with the same folks, many of whom claim that masks and vaccines are part of a greater seditious, leftist manipulation perpetrated on people in order to steal their freedoms. That these same people have rescinded their capacity for critical thought hardly enters into the conversation.

Indeed, there was a time when I thought how a reasoned discussion of the art and science of broadcast communication – with completely new elements - would have been welcomed and cherished with some excitement and vigour.

The plotters, though, are still lurking among us and are lurching from one studio to the next, brandishing the lash and threatening ugly and painful fates to transgressors. Challenges are still being met with uncontrolled rage. If only we can get past the 15th.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Unassimilated News Is Still News

I openly admit and confess, I have been terribly lax in my duties. My milquetoast explanation/rationalization for my laxity was that I was patiently waiting for radio to move on at least some of my suggestions and begin to publicly revel in the stupendous improvements made to audience and advertiser participation as a direct result of the applications of the tenets.

From my perch, revamping the total linguistic approach to radio seems like a natural adjustment allowing for much more convenient access to unsuspecting prey for the benefit of any self-respecting eagle with his wits about him. It’s just a matter of slightly adjusting his flight lines and swooping in for easy pickin’s.

Right now, radio seems more like the bird that got zapped and brain-fried on an open electrical line and is now dive-bombing on clumps of dirt – nosing into the ground and flopping around amongst the bushes, Bunnies are murmuring amongst themselves that, perhaps, the formerly pervasive eagle threat is, pretty much, over.

Since my patience has been neither noted or rewarded, it is incumbent on me to, once again, raise the freak flag and continue yammering away. Plus, as stations are no longer singing the Covid Blues to the same extent as before, the revelations and gratitude for returning revenues are being offered up as so many hosannahs to the highest. (God blesses the FM band and praise Jesus in the interim my fellow brethrens and cisterns.)

While I am required to acknowledge these outfits do have some influence, I also confess to monitoring a couple of “praise” stations and, given the combination of horrible linguistic practices, the flaunting of toxic psychologies and philosophies – hawked as truth claims - bracketed by maudlin and whiny music selections – even with excellent production values – I do find myself wailing and gnashing my dentures to a alarming degree.

It is true, meanwhile, that my tortured lamentations and the ongoing encouragement of a complete overhaul of radio’s linguistic approach has fallen on deaf ears and thicker skulls. Station ownership and management have taken the position of: “If it ain’t broken – don’t fix it.”

Upon further examination, this seems like a practical, reasonable and safe position to hold. What they don’t realise is: It is broken, and is only being held together by a combination of spit, chewing gum, baling wire, duct tape and the evidence that none of their peers seem to be too worried either.

It also needs to be pointed out that radio station owners are made up of herd and/or pack animals. Wherever an alpha male or female leads, there go all the rest – even if it’s off a cliff. Trying to get a claw or hoof-hold on empty space as they are hurtling into the abyss with exclamations from the herds or packs of “Whose bright idea was this, anyway!?” doesn’t seem to make a whit of a difference.

I am unaware of any evidence from anyone or anywhere that suggests a few managers are considering – at even a base level -the need to address the whole communicative aspects of what many of us do for a living.

Radio practitioners would be expected to acknowledge that what they do is: talk on the radio. However, were they also asked to explain how, specifically, would they deliver these talking behaviours, they would be utterly stymied to produce any cogent responses. This hardly bodes well for the short or long-term health and prosperity of the business.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Radio’s Full-Stop Halt

Since I have gradually by-passed dirt on the scale of older elements, I find there are fewer broadcasters around to whom I can relate. I also realized I was running for many fewer busses. Plus, in terms of peer credibility, I have run into the codger category.

I am compelled to appreciate that, at some mysterious point, wisdom and general, overall smarts are jettisoned into the “babbling of drooling old fogies” category. My acquired skills and the multiple nuances as a performer and radio writer seems to have been discounted and discarded into the trash heaps of broadcast lore.

Contemporary broadcasters have had decades of plying their porridge-based fare on unsuspecting audiences and advertisers to the degree where such maudlin attempts at communications have become utterly and comfortably normalized – extremely so.

It has, after all, been more that 30 years since radio started eating its own muscle, fat and tissue to the extent that even younger broadcasters no longer have enough energy available to run for their own busses or skateboards.

This has been the case for so long that ownership and management have, if they ever did, stopped considering alternatives to their combined and generalized modus operandi of conducting themselves on the air.

My sojurn into providing, demonstrating, testing and promoting the alternatives to radio’s communications models began 40 years ago. Even as I was demonstrating extraordinary ratings results after I started applying the principles, the overall acceptance from peers and management was pretty much nil. I took my own best counsel and was running the techniques without the knowledge of my ownership and management as I wanted to avoid any major clashes with what, even then, were standard-issues principles of “talkin’ good on the radio".

As much as I wanted to trumpet my results to the heavens, I still had that little voice inside me that was continuously urging me to “keep thine own trap shut elst thout shall verily be slayed and thy carcass shalt be picked over by carion beasts.”

As it turned out, this was wise advice and, although blocking me from making any meaningful inroads, I was able to maintain my position on the air.

I actually made the grave error of sharing one of the concepts with my PD over a Friday bowl of spaghetti and meatballs. By late Monday morning I had lost my gig, my income and my parking space. By way of an explanation, all I got was the over-used humdrum response of, “Well Ronald T, the organization has decided to go in another direction….”

Later that afternoon The Book was released, and afternoon drive had gone from #8-women and #12-men to Number 1 – both men and women. This was all accomplished in just under 90 days. Nothing more was said.

Meanwhile, I have been promoting the principles in this and other periodicals and forums for the lasty ten years. Rarely are serious enquiries made. It may very well be that what we are hearing on the radio now will continue to be what we will be getting for years to come

Too bad, too – as none of it is necessary.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Radio’s Tipping Point – Come and Gone?

The list of radio’s innovators is a short one indeed, and, anyway, may be populated by mostly pretenders to the mantle. With neither my ears to the ground or my eyes to the skies, I may have missed any number of innovations that have taken root – even in radio’s spectacularly arid and chemically toxic soil.

Radio has been on the same circular pony ride for so long that multiple generations of ponies have been saddled up and doomed, released only by rotting hooves and geriatric eventualities interfering with their tedious chores. The mind-numbing repetitive nature of the work can also be crippling.

Meanwhile, one can wonder as to what form any innovations applied to commercial radio would take. Would they address the music mix? Would they have to do with the announcer mix including the number and length of the announcers’ participation? Would innovations also include the content of the announcers’ contributions?

Radio formats, in general, have taken on the importance of holy texts and this has been the case for more than sixty years – even as, with other holy scripture, they been radically revised and re-written multiple times. But it has always been the most recent formats that have been sanctioned from on high. (So it is written – so shall it be done.”)

None of these machinations have done anything to enhance the hours tuned, cumes, quarter hours or most importantly, the influence of radio’s communications – today and over the years.

My position as designated codger allows me to harken back to the days when there were more of us on the air at any given station; we were speaking more often during the hour and were saying more during those breaks. Since then. radio has become, rather than a rolling river of communication, a mere trickling creek that could be erased during one hot week of a dry spell.

Those that are somewhat familiar with my rantings will not be surprised by my insistence that radio’s salvation lies in the radical upgrading of announcer skills – so much so as to render themselves as becoming unrecognizable compared to the stock fare of modern practitioners, There exists an overwhelming amount of basics and even more nuances of the spoken language as it applies to broadcasting that would be enough to stymie even the most eager of students of communication.

The argument could be made, although not by me, that radio has already gone past its point of no return and that what we are being offered on-the-air is as good as it’s ever going to get.

Were this to be the case, however, and even if radio will just fade away as a viable communicative platform, it will be all so unnecessary and tragic nevertheless.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Bludgeoned By Banalities

I have figuratively placed my fingers on the wrist of the radio listening public and found, not surprisingly, that a pulse is missing. I also checked for conformational brain activity and found that to be flatlined, as well. Those that haven’t already passed on to their great rewards have, nevertheless, dropped into comas. It doesn’t matter that much as all these individuals are definitely in the lowest of low-maintenance modes. Life support and tube feeding does the trick quite nicely.

One might wonder what it was, specifically, that ushered all these people into a group catatonia. Surely, contemporary radio couldn’t be held responsible. That probably would turn out to be the case as there are very few left around that would even bother to levy the indictment.

Still, there is, at least, some corroborating evidence that suggest where radio used to serve up a varied menu of meat, taters, veggies and fabulous sides of egg foo yung, the radio fare that is being plated up now is more akin to a reluctant, tasteless form of pablum – revolting in aroma and texture, and devoid of any nutrients.

Radio has been assaulting us with so many inanities, and for so long, that anything that doesn’t fall into the necessarily bland category is considered with grave suspicions and not a little fear – “tune-out factors”, to be certain. These are, of course, to be ferreted out and, frankly, destroyed without prejudice. The more sinister and sad part of all this is that programmers and audiences alike stopped making any distinctions on these (alleged) matters of consequence. And it has been thus for decades. But, like the bare nekkid, hairy geek haunting the front foyer, people just choose to ignore, uh, everything.

The tragic irony of all this is that a system of communication for radio – and other electronic media – has existed for over 40 years. While this system transfers quite well to other applications like business, education, sport and therapy the radio industry has refused to pick up on any of it. And yet, applying the principles of this communication strategy would revolutionize the industry through merely applying the techniques and strategies.

We assume, generally, that as time trundles on, improvements in this or that endeavour are naturally-occurring and are ongoing. That is not necessarily true. Radio’s experience has been one in which the opposite is taking place as we are marching to the rear in lock-step and fine order.

Meanwhile, those that are neither brain-dead or in a coma have recognized the toxicity of the medium and are staying well away from it.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

They’re Only Words

It has been said that of all the aspects of human experience, words have the greatest impact. Some series of words, as those included in great speeches or comments have more of a chance of sticking in our minds and influencing us long after they have been spoken. To wit: Bugs Bunny in the Warner Brothers cartoon from the World War II era. “Hey, Mac. Let me take a wack at it!” That’s a line that has been seared into my memory and influenced me forever. And look how I turned out.

It really is somewhat of a shame that people, generally, take the words we speak so much for granted and often with derision. We tend not to pay much attention to what is being said by others as much as what we ourselves are speaking. We are as likely to turn out minds off well before we start running our mouths. It’s so easy and besides, everybody’s doing it. And it does come so easily.

Radio pronouncers are not afforded any hall passes on these matters. It is they, after all, who get paid to talk on the radio. It is they, either by intuition or design that are barraging their audiences with outright, inconsequential drivel.

It’s not their fault, necessarily. They have been saddled with a mandate from management to deliver those inconsequential mewlings on the air since the first time they threw a mic switch open. It is all they have ever known. Now it just comes naturally and is considered as a normal occurrence.

Almost all on-air folk are consistently missing golden opportunities to be, not only interesting, but influential communicators, as well. As an aside: I have to wonder why anyone would find themselves gravitating to an on-air career unless they considered such a move as a step up from scrambling around at a neighbourhood Mickey Dee’s. Come to think of it, that might serve as a perfect job prescription for someone who is determined to make the transition but doesn’t have the imagination or the gumption to deal with anything of more substance.

There is an implied irony in all this. That would be in the fact that there no professional communicators in the management group that are qualified to re-train the available talent to move past the mundane into a realm of stellar radio communications.

Contained in the world of verbal communications are the basics and a multiplicity of nuances including, tonalities, speeds, volumes, pauses, specific and more useful verb tenses, mic distancing while strict attention is being paid to audience identification. This latter point is extremely important as there is not an announcer on the planet who knows to whom, specifically, they are communicating. Not a rat’s ass clue. Yet they insist on delivering to their own ”personal listener” by addressing them as “You”. This is a strategy that will guarantee failure as a communicator. The prognosis for the improvement of on-air communicators, therefore, is grim indeed.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

What Are The Chances?

“Why,” some radio poo-bahs might wonder. “would we suffer the time and expense to improve the sophistication of our communicators when our audiences are, essentially, brain-dead cloth heads.” Given the disrespect that so many managers lay on audiences – the great unwashed – that could be a difficult premise to undermine.

Sophisticated communications applied to commercial radio has, over the decades, become an incompatible idea, and in fact for most, an unknown concept altogether. Practically, radio communication has been devolving into an inarticulate and unintelligible series of grunts, groans, snorts, clicks and whistles. While these noises might be useful in engaging a pod of whales, they do little to contact, entertain or influence a listener.

Now, to be a little more succinct: There are two major issues at play in this shoddy scenario.

1.) When radio stations started eliminating their overnight talent, a communicative gap was inadvertently being introduced. Audiences were being seduced into accepting voice-tracks as a viable substitute for “live” performers and radio was cutting itself off from the training spaces that overnighters supplied. As voice-tracking continued its creeping attack on other day-parts, even fewer opportunities for Talent to develop were averted. Other more skilled performers were being driven out as being too much a part of the overhead, and only the ones that were less talented but still willing to work cheap were retained. (This is not a condemnation of remaining or current talent, but, rather, a comment about the generalization.)

2.) The need for talent to become even more proficient as communicators was, if not ignored, then was missed completely. There was no way that management was going to re-invest to re-train and hire more people to be superior communicators, especially since financial advantages were being realized by taking a “scorched earth” approach. Plus, since management has absolutely no clue what enhanced, more efficient and influential communications actually entails – what the element of these communications would be – there is not even a rat’s ass chance that the idea would be entertained by the aforementioned poo-bahs and pundits.

And yet, professional linguistic-types have already demonstrated - and often - that people (listeners) can understand and respond to language that is far more complex and sophisticated than that which they can replicate themselves. On that the "dummy down" argument falls.

The other very real situation lies in the fact that any middle manager that might support the concept of developing enhanced communication immediately has to deal with the likelihood that they will be summoned to the inner sanctums and unceremoniously be shown their walking papers.

In other words: Radio suffers from a dearth of champions that might be able to usher this train wreck to a clearer track – not unless they are also martyrs, because they will be impaled and they will be mounted on tall stakes, their last thoughts being, “Well, that was pretty dumb.”

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

“Communicating” Becomes A Non-Priority

“Why,” I recently caught myself whining internally, ”do my peers and colleagues refuse to address the necessities of learning to communicate more powerfully, more effectively with more nuance and in more compelling and entertaining fashions?”

The more terse response is: Learning to be a superior communicator sounds like it would be too hard and time consuming. The benefits to learning the communicative process would be negligible. Such a training may not even exist, and besides – it could be bad for me.

And yet, on-air presenters continue to babble and ramble their way through interminable shifts with no process or content distinctions for months and years; stagger out of their control rooms at the end of the day and wonder, “What was that all about?” They would come away from the experience without the aplomb or skills to serve customers at the local Shirt and Trouser Emporium. They will, however, be qualified to intone, “You want gravy on them fries?” They may also be able to deliver the line in sweet and dulcet tones – unless they have the spectacularly annoying tonality of a dentist’s drill – unfit for broadcast dissemination. But considering many are more than willing to work cheap…

As in most tragedies of this nature, the victims have had a hand in their own demise. Like those tortured souls from an Edgar Allan Poe novel, they have supplied the bricks and mortar to be walled up in silence and darkness with no food, water or feedback. They will suffer and die in terror - and be forgotten.

I prefer the Poe analogy as it is far scarier than the “painting ourselves into a corner” bit that doesn’t have the bile-raising angst that the matter actually deserves.

Failure to acquire communicative skills for on-air presentations is akin to heading out on a jolly picnic with some old, tainted ham and half a loaf of dry, moldy bread. With those as the basic supplies there would be little point in bringing along the butter, mayo, onions, hard-boiled eggs, lettuce, radishes and beverages. The meal is destined to be horked out in due course, anyway. There are few worse ways to spoil a lovely outing than by projectile puking beside a babbling stream.

When audiences-turned-diners order out a sandwich, it comes with as many condiments as can be stuffed between two slices of bread or a sesame-seed bun. Indeed, customers will insist on them. But since radio continues to offer a fare of basic bread and water, it should come as no surprise that audiences and advertisers are not lining up to get in or get on.

Still, it is extremely important to remind one’s self that a whole package of communicative techniques and strategies are not actually in existence. And besides, they are bad for us.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

AI, AI – OH!

I have recently signed a contract with a voice agency in the UK where they promise they will not be cloning my voice through sampling or by means of the application of artificial intelligence (AI).

I admit to being taken aback by that development as I really have no idea how far along the capacities have come of AI to completely and acceptably-to-an-audience replicate a human’s voice, particularly one emanating from a local radio station.

While touting the idea that language, both spoken and written, has been one of the most intricate and complex technologies ever generated by human societies, I still submit that stellar examples of that are hardly likely to be emanating from most radio stations most of the time, and to be slightly more terse – hardly at all.

Now because I really don’t know how far AI has come in replicating the human voice and more importantly, in generating speech from a core level, I am obliged to speculate or more specifically, spitball the rest of this piece.

Even with many radio pronouncers, not being especially adroit at delivering complex and nuanced communications under any circumstances, there may be opportunities for even a mild or basic form of AI to be convincing to a radio audience. Even as language is a complex technology, the chances of hearing that on the radio are slim. More likely we are favored with the droning mutterings, cliché-ridden guttural groans and grumps from the uneducated and, essentially, illiterate and inarticulate members of the broadcast community

Another discouraging aspect of this scenario is that management, ever wary of ways of cutting costs, might be thrilled with the idea that the whole station could be cloned up without even a “Murphy” Robocop on standby – just in case the AI has a novel idea and starts calling in air strikes on competing radio stations – while introducing more half-hour rock blocks in a hysterical presentation of very sincere excitement.

Of course, I would love to believe that erudite humans could produce language that would put an AI unit in the shade. But I don’t know that. Nor do I even suspect it. What is more likely is that I will be influenced to “Come on down and make your best deal at Wooly Bully’s used car and organic foods emporium” by an AI voice that came right out of the AI box.

I shiver and moan while experiencing an abject fear.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

AI, AI – OOPS!

What I know about AI could be shoved up a gnat’s butt and have enough room left over to insert hard copies of the last 40 years of The National Geographic - many decades before they were taken over by a rabid pack of Jesus-freaks.

Still, it seems to me that commercial radio will be one of the first of the media to be sucked into the voracious maw of AI - without even generating an unapologetic burp.

Radio, as it has been performed for the last many years, will be easy pickin’s for AI. Radio’s propensity to dummy down so far as the vocal communications aspects of the medium are concerned will hardly account as a warmup exercise for the available complexities that AI can already demonstrate.

So maudlin, mundane and unsophisticated are the mutant wandering ramblings of most radio presenters that replicating those blatherings will amount to child’s play for a newly-minted and frisky AI machine.

Should there be a “more sophisticated” knob on AI, turning it up just a notch will be rendering the former analogue, organically-produced materials as a quickly forgotten and disregarded phenomena of times gone by. Nor will they be sorely missed.

Indeed, it won’t take much for radio presenters, generally, to be entirely overwhelmed by the newest technologies. And if it’s any good at all, audiences will be so easily duped into thinking they are still listening to the real deal.

Management is still encouraged, however, to use some care and restraint. How easy would it be, I wonder, to turn the machine into a search and destroy mode to the degree that complex English phrases and even whole sentences would be streaming out of the box on a unlimited basis – so much so that audiences could be overwhelmed and complain about having to think too much and concentrate too hard on what used to be a dull and easily-avoided piece of listening behaviour.

This wouldn’t be a long-term issue though, as all that would be required is to turn the AI complexity-knob right back down a notch or two.

Soon enough, management will be able to jettison all the efforts put into searches for on-air talent along with patronizing the voice-trackers and instead, put a blankie over the AI machine at night, change the water and stick a couple of fresh carrots into the cage.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Do Radio Spots Really Suck?

A few weeks ago, the vaunted and esteemed trade mag, RadioInk, ran a series of articles based on the presumption that 90% of radio commercials suck. Half a dozen radio pundits who had made their bones a long time ago were gathered together to chew the fat and discuss the matter.

In a gleeful manner they slapped on their bibs, spread the sauces about, chowed down and waxed poetic on the subject. There was instant agreement that fully 90% of all radio commercials deserved the label.

I am fully on board with that conclusion. I also say unto thee: Verily, not only do radio commercials sucketh, they sucketh – large. To find the worst cases of shoddy professional communications being foisted on unsuspecting audiences, one need go no further than their available, nearby radio stations. Displayed in all their shameless glory, example after example of the most shoddy of broadcast communications are continuously, shamelessly and without remorse being presented like so many pearls before so many swine.

Writers, producers and talent have been deluded into believing that the toxins they are producing on a daily basis actually have some value and qualify as professional work.

The pundits, meanwhile, agreed that culpabilities lay in, essentially, poor performances on the part of talent that is being asked to “act” in a spot or respond to requests to be more flexible in their presentations.

These are valid complaints so long as the basic premises and the quality of the scripts are not also put up for adjudication.

One of our favourites is the casual conversation held by regular people. To wit:
(Fem) Hi George. I notice you admiring our new windows.
(Male) Yes indeed, Judith. Actually I was just snooping, but yes, your new windows are very attractive.
(Fem) While you are creeping me out, George, I must tell you that our windows are from The Pork Hocks and Window Emporium conveniently located at 1157 152nd street. Plus, 20% savings with no money down OAC are still available. There’s still time for you to hurry over and get in on the deals.
(Male) That’s great news, Judith.
(Fem) There’s also plenty of free parking at The Pork Hock and Window Emporium, as well as convenient store hours for your shopping convenience. So get oy of my garden and go there.

(It is to bitch, whine and barf violently.)

Meanwhile, and not that I would expect any
differently, none of the pundits addressed what,
for me, are the two basic principles of radio:

1,) Radio is an Indirect medium, not a Direct medium. Like a hot ‘tater, we can drop any illusions of attempting to make radio a one-to-one medium by losing the “You”.

2.) Radio may enjoy some credibility from time to time but it is certainly not authoritative. We must curtail telling people in the audience what to do. These manipulations are usually referred to as “Calls to Action”. They are not. They are, instead, “Demands for Behaviour”.

And although audience members would be unlikely to notice the distinction or comment on their disdain for being ordered around, I submit they do unconsciously recoil from the practice and, as a result, become belligerent, mean-spirited and less likely to stick around, never mind buy something.

These experiences only add to the premise that radio commercials truly do suck.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[pave]

Can AI Be That Smart?

The past while I have been contemplating the possible influence that AI could have on the generation of vocal content for radio. As a result, I have painful headaches and I am experiencing bouts of nausea. My imagination runneth wild. I start producing terror tremors. And it ain’t priddy.

Given what I know about AI generally and the AI production of voicing specifically – squat – I still can’t avoid the feeling of a great foreboding.

Semi-regular readers will appreciate that, for years, I have been promoting, among other elements, the inclusion of the principles of Psycho Linguistics, Neuro Linguistics as well as the linguistic patterns of Dr. Milton H. Ericson, a renowned psychiatrist and clinical hypnotist into the body of what are the most common iterations of announcer and writer-produced forms of radio communications.

That I have been failing to have any of these principles taken up by broadcasters either as a group or as pockets of singular communicators may be stark evidence of my own communication skills, or the lack of desire on the part of the on-air crowd to consider anything beyond the norm.

Still, I have little doubt that AI will be replicating hundreds of different tonalities, speeds, emphasis, volumes, strengths (yelling to whispering) and attitudinal aspects of the spoken word.

What is disturbing from my perspective is that AI also entails the insertion of the linguistic principle I have mentioned earlier. Doing so would create such extraordinary elements of communication as to be overwhelming to an unsuspecting, gullible, credulous and defenseless audience. In other words: Big Brother will have arrived – and we will welcome it and adore it. Such an eventuality should be terrifying. We would be screwed, blued, tattooed and, essentially, phu-kucked. But then, it won’t matter all that much since none of us will even notice.

Please note: I am inviting reader comments to be sent to my email address (below).
Ronald T. Robinson
[email protected]

[LG73]

Can AI Be That Smart?

The past while I have been contemplating the possible influence that AI could have on the generation of vocal content for radio. As a result, I have painful headaches and I am experiencing bouts of nausea. My imagination runneth wild. I start producing terror tremors. And it ain’t priddy.

Given what I know about AI generally and the AI production of voicing specifically – squat – I still can’t avoid the feeling of a great foreboding.

Hi Ronald,

I'm an IT guy and radio presenter. AI is only as good as what's fed to it. The most likely scenario involving AI in the creation and production of radio commercials is replication of the 90% rubbish status quo. Here is an ad AI might spew out:

(Female) Hey Joe. I see you looking at my windows.

(Male) Yes, Gertrude. I'm really looking through the windows watching you undress.

(Female) Normally that would creep me out, but when I purchased these windows from The Pork Hocks and Window Emporium they included a free lobotomy so now nothing bugs me.

(Male) That's great, Gertrude. Please give me a bunch of information about that place including their inconvenient location, credit terms, if they have free parking and if it's urgent I get there as soon as possible. Deliver the details in a way people hearing it will know this is nothing like a real conversation.

(Female) Sure, I can do that. I'm AI and my owners trained me well with the typical drivel heard on radio!

(Male) Thank you, Gertrude. I want to hear our ad in the midst of a nice, long, 10 minute stop set so let's make sure the contract with iFartRadio has been signed and delivered.

[pave]

I do hope you're right, Phil.
My fear, however, lies in that the progenitors of AI for radio won't be radio guys. They'll be AI geek-meisters.
They might go full-boar linguistic as well as concentrating on modeling a myriad of announcer voices.
If such is the case, we'll all be put out of work.
So, I am cheering for your side.