>From:    David P. Adams (Water Division) <[log in to unmask]>
>
>I don't want to defend all radio stations, I just think they have to do what
>their advertisers say.  And whether you like it or not, money talks.  When
>you start looking at major radio stations, you also have to look at the
>demographics of the area.  While there may be college students in the are,
>there are many more non-college students there too.  Advertisers are going
>to go for the biggest bang for their buck.  Radio stations want the same
>thing.  Unfortunately, we are a minority-  Most people have bad taste in
>music ;')
 
I want to respond to this, because it goes back to something I said earlier
and I may not have said it coherently enough.
 
It is true that conventional corporate wisdom dictates that you stay with
what's tried and true. Advertisers and radio sales managers agree with this,
because the business of making money is basically a conservative enterprise
(I use the word "conservative" here in its dictionary sense, without any
political connotations of any kind). My point is that the idea that money
cannot be made from things that are new and experimental is FALSE. It has
been proven otherwise time and time again.
 
The pain (for us) comes from the fact that radio is being controlled by these
same static business mentalities. Radio is not the oil industry, it is not
steel, or electronics, or banking, or defense, or financial services, or any
other kind of industry where not only is profit maximization the ultimate
goal, but the fact that it is does not bother us or anyone else. Radio is
different -- it is an entertainment industry. Entertainment, by its very
nature, should always seek to broaden its horizons, to try the new and
experimental.
 
In fact, with the exception of radio, this has long been the rule in most
entertainment media -- look at the movies, at TV. Conventional
wisdom would have dictated that the execs at United Artists quickly slam
the lid on Paul Verhoeven when he proposed making not only an NC-17 movie
like *Showgirls*, but spend a LOT of money doing it. Everybody knows that
NC-17 movies do not make money. But they took a chance. And regardless of
how you personally feel about NC-17 movies, exploitation, sexual
explicitness, etc., I think you have to admit this is a bold move. And I
think it will pay off big for UA, because they got behind it and supported
it. I will be very surprised if *Showgirls* bombs.
 
My point is that the entertainment industry exists to try the new and
unknown. And it works, it is profitable. As for radio -- sales managers cannot
say with any degree of certainty whether playing a group like the Connells
will lose the station money. We all know the Connells are excellent. The
general public may think so, too, if given the chance. Radio shapes the
tastes of the public, it does not respond to it -- that is the important
thing to remember. When the Great God of Radio decides a band will be
popular, it generally will be.
 
And just because an area's demographic is 55% country and western lovers and
45% "modern rock" listeners does not mean that every radio station in town
should be country and western. That kind of "biggest bang for the buck"
mentality will only wind up losing money for everyone.
 
Flame on,
 
Steve
("The Human Torch")