Once one looks over the latest ratings in British Columbia, you will note who is on top, or near the top.  
The stations near the top provide Information.  Information is what radio is all about.  Talk to any former owners, or former broadcasters, and they say radio was meant to supply information.  If there's a storm, tune in the radio for more information.  Not so today.
The big company's are programming a jukebox, some with voices, taped of course.
No wonder CBC, CKNW, CHED and the like are near/or at the top in all markets.  They are providing Information.
Local radio stations provide some in the morning, but miss out on anything that resembles local content from then on.
And no wonder the young today tune out radio.  Those playing the music are battling iPods and the like.
Once a radio station gets back into the community, provides local news, has local presence, they will improve their numbers.
Until then, CBC is the winner.

You've heard that all that matters in real estate is location, location, location.

Well in today's radio world what matters most is local, local, local.  

Any box can play any music.  Not any box can provide local "information" when it matters most.

This isn't rock science, but rather advice to play to your strength.  So why then don't more radio companies do this?     Answer:  Dollars and cents.    

Back in the 70's and 80's, the most listened to radio station in Alberta was 6-30 CHED!  It was a top 40 format, yet the news was a critical component of its' programming.  News and programming were one.  No division line.   The news had to be entertaining, yet informative.  A major news package on CHED consisted of 5 to 7 mins of news, sports, an editorial and accu-weather.    Imagine a radio station presenting news now within a music focused format.  Doesn't happen.  Just another juke box!

I also lament the weak talent base of radio stations in general.  No more all nite shows to practise the trade and get better.  Nope, in todays' radio - a medium market station is quite willing to have a  total rookie read the morning news.  A jock or newsie can graduate to the majors with just a couple years experience if that.  Happens all the time.   Why?   Same answer as the question above.

Sad, but true.  The radio industry it seems has become its' own worst enemy as a result of ownership which more times than not has a profit hungry share holder base to answer to.   Screw the industry..but cover thine ass.  It is no longer okay to just report a profit.  Now the expectations are much high for the powers and share holders in the ivory towers.   Short term gain maybe.  Long term pain likely I fear!

"Back in the 70's and 80's...."

STOP FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.   Take a look at the calendar, or your watch.  ::)

Quoted from McWages

"Back in the 70's and 80's...."

STOP FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.   Take a look at the calendar, or your watch.  ::)

Time has moved on, but at the heart of it, this IS what radio is missing these days! There has been a noticeable difference even within the last 10 years. Radio no longer has personality, and offers little useful information. Listening to a lot of the music stations in Vancouver, djs, who much of the time are voicetracked (CRAP!!!), just intro the songs and call it a day. Where's all the cheesy one liners and fun that on air staff used to have. Radio should be about entertainment. We have iPods for the continuous jukebox sound. We listen to radio for the personality!

Where is the fun?  I think part of the problem is in a lot of small-to-medium markets, you've got PDs afraid of getting sued/getting phone calls from angry listeners, so they pull in the reigns of their talent.  I've heard way too many stories of talented jocks that get fed up because they want to have fun but aren't allowed.

As for the comments about people making it to larger centres faster I think that's something that's bound to happen when you've got major markets that have increased in the number of stations.  The talent pool is bound to be diluted.  It's not that the talent is bad (because let's not generalize, there is some great potential in a lot of people), but they are being rushed up to the majors to fill the voids left by the CRTC granting so many licences.  In a way this mirrors the NHL, in that its not that the talent isn't there, its just spread out amongst a lot more teams.  Unfortunately, there's a lot of filler.

I personally tend to side with Mark Ramsey... it's not about local... it's about talent.  The days of local are done.

"....do you even know how radio ratings work?"
Back to the topic at hand - - I still laugh at that oxymoron and how many people actually believe in that archaeic system.  Local? Honestly? You have to be kidding. With gas expected to go up to let's conservatively say 1.40 to 1.45, give or take. Just that simple price increase will raise prices everywhere else. For crying out loud water is now our most precious resource and people in the oil industry are just figuring that out. So, PEOPLE have lives. Many have two and three jobs to handle JUST to make ends meet. Being in radio, I've watched. I've asked. I've witnessed. For the most part, and there are exceptions to every rule, but...for the most part, people live in a community for work. It's accessible. Doesn't cost 'em alot to drive the vehicle to work (which is gonna be nice come summer time). There are some people who like to live close to family.  The very last thing on their mind is "Wow, I love living here cuz every day I get to hear that radio station talk about the flea market over on _____Road this Saturday."   Or  "You know, I love living here cuz this station has a case of verbal weather diarhea every half hour with a nice jingle behind it. Now I know what my forecast is gonna look like when it's 3:30 in the afternoon."
Talk. Use adjectives. Be honest. Not verbally diurhetic, but attention grabbing.  Make up your own definition for attention grabbing, just make it work. Who cares if you drive contraversy? The GM/Sales Manager? So what - - you're the talent, right? Big deal. Let them worry about it. Do you think they care that you're goin' home with just above minimum wage for your dedication and sacrifice? Nope.
Next time you're in line at your local shopping mart, just step back and watch how many 'locals' are grabbing the two page 'Community Bulletin', and weigh that number against the 'locals' who are literally engaged in everything Hollywood, Scandalous, and Attention grabbing in the newstand. Figure it Out. Local means 'a bed to sleep in, close to work or close to grandma and grandpa.'  Local means ' a short distance to work'.
  Again, there are exceptions to every rule and Politicians and Community Leaders fall into that area, however, you already have them on the radio believing they have just 'invested' in the biggest asset radio has to offer "These Days" - - LOCAL. "Our last book shows at least 1800 people in this community of 360,000 have taken the time to return their 'diaries' and 63% of that 1800 are adults 25-54 loving our station especially in AAA time. See, LOCAL is king.".

OK, I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed but McWages, I can't figure out what your point is... people don't like "local"? Or people do like local? What does honesty have to do with it? "Be honest in your show?" Are you saying that jocks generally AREN'T honest in their shows? Are you more honest than other jocks on your station? "Who cares if you drive controversy?" Do you drive controversy in your show? If so, enlighten the rest of us on how you accomplish these wonderful things that they don't teach at broadcasting school.

It may sound like I'm ripping you but seriously, if you are setting the bar in your market for how radio "should" be done, there's a lot of young up and coming jocks on this board who would love some tips!! What success has this approach brought you - have you increased share in your target demo? Knocked your competitors down a position or two? Do tell!!

Let's not even get into a comparison between XM/Sirius and radio... because **XM isn't radio**.  It's just a delivery system for music - Napster with a satellite.  And I hesitate to call the Stern channel 'radio' either - it's a comedy show that's produced and delivered daily, like playing a new comedy album every day.  What makes radio RADIO is the personalities, and the content - I want my radio to tell me something I want to hear.  Howard Stern is interesting, but I wouldn't cross the street to hear what he has to say in person - and I certainly wouldn't pay a monthly fee to hear him.  The music shows on XM are just tunes back to back - an iPod with a bigger library.  Some of the other content has some merit, but none of it is local.  In my car I want to hear the weather, I want to hear what city council is doing, what stupid thing the premier said today... XM gives me none of that.  So (I'm in Edmonton) when I want the weather or the news I hit CHED, I flip to CBC for the national story, and if I want music I go to Capital FM or maybe toss in a CD.  And I'm pretty sure most people do the same thing.

I think McWages is missing the point.  The original post doesn't point towards radio stations that talk about flea markets and bake sales.  News-talkers tend to talk about local issues.  Something that music stations don't seem to touch on anymore.  People are turning to satellite for music.  They turn to terrestrial for music and info.  Where else are they going to go for weather?  Traffic?  Tax increases?

This is why I think a good station should avoid listening to all the crap fed to them by consultants.  If you can find the right mix of local content along with solid personalities and good music...then you're golden.  Rock music listeners don't necessarily need 6-minute newscasts...but no news can be bad as well...

Quoted from Old Unreliable

.  People are turning to satellite for music.  

Sorry, I agree with the general point here, but this part is untrue. In fact, the most listened to stations on satellite are the talk and sports stations, and even that is a tiny fraction of all media use.

It's not exclusively the entertainment or the information or the music.

It is the capacity of a human being to communicate effectively. So well, in fact, that other human beings find those communications compelling.

This is the very point, of course, missed by most broadcasters and corporations.

We will listen to someone reading the phone book - if it's compelling. This, given the content is acknowledged to be, shall we say... weak...?

Quoted Text

Well in today's radio world what matters most is local, local, local.

Have to disagree.  There are stations all over the US driving impressive numbers airing syndicated talk shows exclusively.  No local there.

A station could feature "local" all day... and still suck.

Again, it's not the content as much as the process of a station that will attract and hold listeners. Syndicated and V/T'ed programming is, simply, the line of least resistance and expense.

Certainly, some stations continue to do well at the bottom line, but this does not represent nor do much for the potential of the other stations that have as much (maybe less) personality as a cab-stand.

here's a question, Whats your definition of "local?"
i'd say points made about talent driving the programs have a ton a merritt..a true communicator can be local anywhere they may be heard. true talent can communicate in a relateable way..and i personally think that is key. every town has a giant pot hole somewhere. everyone has seen a pretty girl...bla bla bla.. you can be general and loacal at the same time...dosnt have to be PSA's

Quoted from Aaron

Sorry, I agree with the general point here, but this part is untrue. In fact, the most listened to stations on satellite are the talk and sports stations, and even that is a tiny fraction of all media use.

You're right, I didn't think before I typed that one hehe.  I wrote that because of the people I know with satellite, they are just sick of the options terrestrial radio give music-wise.  Why listen to the same 200 songs over and over and over again.  They flip back to the ol' AM or FM dial when they want to know why they're held up in traffic or to hear why their taxes went up.  But maybe they're in the minority.

After the recent negative posts about local radio, I felt that I should put in my two cents.

This is what radio is and should be about. Local doesn't mean talking about the bake sale downtown but rather communicating with your listener about what it is that they care about. Relating to your demo. The stations that are struggling could benefit from finding creative ways to inform their audience about the things they may be interested in. In this day in age when celebrity gossip and music news is easily accessible, we need to give listeners something more. I have always believed that each and every break needs to leave your listener with something to hold onto. Something to that will cause them to remember you / your station.

The other posts on here regarding the lack of real creative talent in the industry is also a real concern. We are in the business to entertain and inform. Music certainly plays a role in attracting listeners, but creative talent that understands and relates to the demo will certainly attract and retain an audience. Radio needs to take a grass roots approach and go back to focusing on our listeners and their needs / desires. I believe a strong LOCAL station with live creative talent, dedicated news gatherers, and more public appearances will make gains in a market where they may be struggling. Establish a relationship with your listener...make the emotional connection and you will win.

here is a nifty look at the ratings and an interesting case study outta New York City.

***

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2008/05/for_some_radio.php

For Some, Radio Is Still The Best Way To Hear Music
Entry by Sean Ross
When WCBS-FM New York dropped Oldies in 2005, it had a 3.0 share 12-plus.

When WCBS-FM came back last summer, it returned with a 3.7 share and has held there through the recently released winter 2008 book.

In that time, WCBS-FM's many disenfranchised listeners had no shortage of choices that could have taken them away from terrestrial radio. They were directly targeted by Sirius Satellite Radio and its hiring of Cousin Brucie. They had their iPods. They could have found no shortage of customizable Internet-only Oldies channels.

They had plenty of options - many of which would have been seen by some industry people as far superior to the old WCBS-FM during its problematic last year. But when WCBS-FM came back, the listeners came back, too.

That's significant, because as the debate about radio's future continues, one of the continuing themes heard from some quarters is that there will be no interest in a music service that features personalities, and chooses the music for listeners (and compounds those apparent offenses by playing commercials as well).

That being the case, the theory holds, even streaming your signal is missing the point. What you're offering now will not be what listeners want on other platforms.

And inherent in that belief is that the contention that the classic radio model was never a very good way to hear music to begin with. Listeners put up with jocks yakking over the music that somebody else chose because there weren't as many other options. Or perhaps out of Stockholm Syndrome, but not because they enjoyed the entire package.

The notion that "radio is a terrible delivery system for music" has been, not surprisingly, bandied about pretty freely among new media people since the inception of alternate delivery systems, but it's popping up more often among radio people now, who perhaps have some Stockholm Syndrome of their own.

So it's worth reminding ourselves how many disenfranchised listeners - only some of whom had terrestrial radio access to Oldies on a suburban signal -- were forced to find alternatives to WCBS-FM for two years and still chose to come back. Those listeners, at least, did not come to the realization that they never really liked radio to start with.

WCBS-FM has evolved, even over the last nine months. It has added the brief stagers that have become ubiquitous in a PPM world, and you can hear cold segues as well. But there is still enough front-and-center personality that if what you wanted from the station was merely music, unencumbered by companionship (or commercials) WCBS-FM would not be your choice. And if you were not willing to trust somebody else to choose the music occasionally, you would probably have little use for the station that spiked in the early '70s nugget, "Rings" by Cymarron, this morning.

So is it only because WCBS-FM appeals to an older audience that its listeners didn't seek out other new media choices for hearing Oldies and stay there? Theoretically, the 13% of the 45-54 audience that listened to Internet radio last week, or the 53% that have ever listened (according to the Arbitron/Edison Internet & Multimedia 2008 Study) would have found another choice between 2005 and 2007, thus at least keeping CBS-FM's listening from growing. Besides, if the WCBS-FM model was never a good choice, why would even an older listener go back?

If the equation of "music + brief personality + we pick for you + having to sit through commercials" still works best for listeners above age 30, it may be because they were the ones who were most likely to hear that type of radio done right. And because the programmers who are still inclined to offer it to them are the ones who grew up hearing radio well executed. It has been in the last 10 years that our relationship with listeners has been repeatedly breached by stations too many commercials, too much repetition, and either obtrusive companionship or none at all. And while you can't be sure that the generation that would rather text than talk will respond to that formula, you can say that it has rarely been offered to them, and that the WCBS-FM experience shows it is not inherently inferior.

This doesn't mean in any way that broadcasters should not seek to offer listeners the content they want in the package and on the platform of their choice. The recent CBS announcement about the customizable Play.It that will be offered on the same player that now brings you their terrestrial streams and HD-2/Internet stations is the right idea. It doesn't mean that broadcasters shouldn't offer pure content/personality to those listeners who choose it. As in the U.K., broadcasters here should expand their reach by expanding their offerings.

But if the combination of pre-programmed music presented by personalities is not among radio's viable offerings in the future, it will be because broadcasters destroyed it, not because the audience rejected it outright. And perhaps because broadcasters allowed a few of radio's critics to become proxy for a segment of the audience whose needs and attitudes they should have studied more directly. There is a difference between self-improvement and self-loathing that broadcasters would do well to keep in mind now.