Greg Gillispie is a frequent Programming To Win guest columnist for eQB and FMQB. Greg has contributed several inspiring articles to our content menu and has always stimulated our readership. Valuing his opinion and ideas, eQB turns to the veteran programmer/consultant/author/speaker, and his take on the state of the radio industry today.

The biggest news of 2006 was Clear Channel going private. What long-term effects will the Clear Channel decision have on the radio industry in general?
It is currently difficult to determine what short-term effects privatization will have let alone long-term.  There are so many ifs, ands, and buts. We are our own best competition is the best way to operate.  Rather than focusing on what anyone else is doing, why not look inside and do the best you can do.

How is the industry (and what shapes it) different than it was ten years ago?
Ten years ago society was just discovering or beginning usage of a new technological world – Internet, email, cell phones, etc. Today society is consumed with complex technologies; yet desires simplicity.  Robbie Blinkoff, managing partner of Context-Based Research Group has coined the term, “simplexity.”  Faith Popcorn says, “Personalized media technologies are spawning a ‘networked self,’ which will shape society at large.”  The industry must know society is regaining control of its life.  People know what they want, when they want it, and how they want it.  Rather than being consumed with consuming properties, the industry needs to be consumed with its consumers.

Do you think the Clear Channel decision will motivate other public radio companies to follow suit?
This isn’t the first attempt, but it may be the first to make privatization a reality. Certainly others in the industry will carefully watch, but they should have spent (or should spend time) looking at the successful companies that are not public.  Those may actually be the litmus test.

With a stronger concentration on large and medium size markets, do you feel Clear Channel (going forward) will realign its product priorities as well?
Perhaps restructure is a more appropriate term than realign. Recently there was a great deal of restructuring in preparation for privatization.  Unfortunately, many people, including a substantial number of air talents, were restructured out of work or given increased multi-tasking responsibilities making it even more difficult to sound unique and move quickly. Currently the attempted priorities are unique content via online and HD, and revenue generation via online. But these really are not affected by market size. Without knowing if restructuring is done it is difficult to know how on-air products will be prioritized.  Homogenization is a quick and easy fix in the restructured environment.  Fortunately for those homogenizers, consumers in different markets won’t be aware of product replication unless streaming or traveling.

Where do you see cross ownership momentum picking up with the available Clear Channel markets?
Approaching ownership from a small business perspective creates a stronger bond with and allows more free movement in serving the community. The hope is owners, be they new, revitalized, or existing, take this approach in many markets that have been neglected or operated as a small piece of a monstrous puzzle. The good news is smaller companies are widening the performance gap with bigger companies in small to mid-size markets.  Analysts indicate increased Wall St. attention. The bad news is the cost of acquiring platforms in these markets could have the same effect as restructuring.    

We heard more than our share of discussion of new media platforms for terrestrial radio in 2006. What do you see as the most effective emerging tech initiative for radio?
Online!  Little has been maximized.  Tremendous revenue exists. Streaming is part of the priority and needs immediate attention, as there are a surprising number of stations that do not stream! Those that do, outside of a small group, have nothing of value or even annoying content during the station break.  Sorry, repeating promos, extra songs that end up being cut off, “We are taking a break and will be back soon,” and other “content” doesn’t cut it.
     How is online content made effective?  Some stations have online-exclusive client marketing that fills the same break length as on-air and that means revenue. Beyond that, what about newly created morning show content in addition to on-air clips; newly created Firesign Theater-type content; listener-interactive elements in-sync with the format – perhaps with prizes via email or online-based answers?  The list and creativity is limitless…if an attempt is made.

How do you assess the dichotomy these new platforms present…product enhancement/cross branding opportunities vs. the cost/benefit dilemma?
Make each new platform priority great and then move on.  Trying to do all at once is like fighting a battle on many fronts.  Unless you have battalions of trained people, heavy weaponry, and massive funding, each battle will be ineffective. Here are a few thoughts on the most targeted initiatives…

• Stations with HD 2 basically have a jukebox without talent, creativity, different, or unique product and design.  Additionally, a huge number of people do not have HD radios and do not see the value vs. the expense of acquiring them as replacements for their existing radios.
• Podcasts are beneficial if properly produced and the value marketed.  Talk show content is worthwhile as people may not be able to hear all of the show.  But remember, each person’s day is already over-filled so there must be great value and marketing of the benefit of downloading and listening.
• MySpace, You Tube etc. offer value, although the concepts should be integrated into the station’s web site, as once arriving outside, visitors may very well not come back.

Should any of these and all others that become the absolute priority (and that’s way more than just an attempt) not be cross-promoted or marketed outside the various platforms the station offers, creation does not allow for maximization of the most promoted and possibly used.

How vital is it for radio to increase its efforts for on-line revenue?
EXTREMELY VITAL!  With the amount of marketing dollars moving to or exclusively online, radio must develop effective and integrated customer programs that spread its message to consumers via a number of platforms – online and beyond.  You might be very surprised where some of the beyond opportunities exist. Unfortunately there are so many station web sites with ads of various sizes and, in some cases, sounds splattered across pages, oftentimes as value-added for buying on-air campaigns. The 2007 priority for all stations is learning how to design and properly implement cross-platform marketing campaigns for clients.  Stations need also be aware that a number of marketing campaigns will be sought or should be sold in platforms exclusive of on-air.

In order for radio to grow and move forward, is there a need for an infusion of outside thinkers, strategists and pragmatists, to help guide the medium into the uncharted waters it needs to go to insure its future?
Moving forward requires one foot on familiar ground and one in the unknown. Although the Atlanta Hawks agreed with the value of having a person with a non-sports marketing background become the new VP/Marketing, the team did not step outside the arena for fear of more failure. Radio should not be afraid to look outside its box.  Fear will only create failure in an ever-changing environment.

How important is it for radio to get back into the younger demo game?
Perhaps the better question would be to replace is with was. Ever since 25-54s became the only listeners that mattered, radio forgot about the rest.  And when deregulation came about radio promised to make good on its forgetfulness…except once per quarter when Wall St. knocks and the reminder is, the only way to make the number is with more 25-54s. There are more people under 25 than over.  Their voice is loud and getting louder.  Their purse seems bottomless. They are the consumers that lead the way in getting what they want when and how they want it.  Oh…they’re not 25-54?  They must be too young…NOT!

Does radio have the motivation to attract younger demos and early media adopters?
When a 15 year-old girl likes Hannah Montana, the self-discovered 40s on 4 XM channel music, and stole The Beatles Love CD from dad; when a 16 year-old girl raided dad’s library and now has three complete Pink Floyd and both Eagles Greatest Hits albums along with Justin Timberlake’s newest on her iPod; when a 17 year-old boy says “today’s music sucks” and his favorites are John Mellencamp, Eagles, and Journey and he listens to a Classic Rock station; when an 18 year-old boy loves and has a Slipknot sticker on his car, but Led Zeppelin IV and Dark Side of the Moon in the CD player…
     The challenge is cultivating these and more diverse music and lifestyle tastes into a revenue-generating consortium.  Once again revenue is driving the product.  Product must be driving if the motivation is to come to life! Should radio have the motivation, attracting those under 25 is a greater challenge.  Clearly the younger demo is the early media adapter; however, finding them is not easy and intrusiveness will instantly kill your product and you via WOM.  As writer Bob Lefsetz says, “It’s all about respect!  If you’re not concerned with the experience of your customers, you’re doomed to death.  Rip them off with shit and they’ll tell everybody they know and will decimate your enterprise.” Perhaps doing something different, like actually talking to people, will satisfy the challenge and attract people via WOM.

Has radio leadership neglected the lifestyle component of the younger demo?
This happened a long time ago.  And soon the younger demo will reach critical mass and may very well give the lifestyle component of the older demo now in control a taste of its own medicine.  Edison Media Research’s search for 30 under 30 is a great start to acquiring people that understand the lifestyle of the younger demo.  It also is part of the answer to the question regarding bringing in people from the outside.

What are the consequences if radio doesn’t react to the next generation of radio consumers?
Should radio have to react it is probably too late.  While the next generation will continue to use radio, it will do so on its own terms.  That means radio must act.  The next generation may briefly get tired of what’s on its myriad of high-tech options turning on the radio as a respite. Oh…that means being local, not homogenized.  

Among the many emerging tech options radio is integrating into its model, is there anything missing?
As this interview concludes, the new Apple do-everything-in-your-hand “phone” is announced and becomes available in a couple of months. Undoubtedly, it will be the talk of the industry as it attempts to find ways to integrate this into its platform. Giving it away may be the first step by many…the first step of giving consumers another option that reduces radio usage. Tech options possibly not being addressed – absolutely. But as indicated in the above dichotomy question, it may be better than addressing it without being able to win the battle.

What is your forecast for terrestrial radio in 2007?
2007 is the pivotal year.  It would be wise to take all bets off.  Explore a number of potential options or devise new strategies.  Prepare to move quickly and effectively.  And most importantly - realize this is the listener or consumer advocate business! 

Greg Gillispie’s 33+ year career includes consulting media and artist management companies, programming radio stations in Omaha, Pittsburgh, and Washington, DC, developing revenue-generating marketing and promotion campaigns for a variety of entertainment companies, moderating and speaking at multi-media conferences, on-air work, and training the Playmate Radio Team.  Greg is author of a number of published articles and co-author of the textbook Process and Practice of Radio Programming.  Contact Greg at 703-678-9460 or via email at ggillispie@aol.com 

** QB Content by Fred Deane**