Many years ago, before KUHF even had a website, one day I was visiting with Deb and I basically stated to her that I was very sorry (and hoped I was wrong), but sadly radio is dead. This was when Compuserve was still around, Netscape was a new "browser", and I'm not even sure Google had done its first search. I'm not good with predictions and this still hasn't exactly come to pass, but rather than excoriate Lisa further, or be confused by the gloss of Stephanie (we're talking S B? Heck I don't even know who your boss IS!), let's look at the bigger picture.
First of all, a media channel (radio, tv, website) that doesn't deliver content unavailable elsewhere, is redundant. It's simple market economics. The fact is, as online as the world is, any compelling content the station has that can be accessed more quickly and more efficiently will be accessed elsewhere. Further, any content that doesn't appeal to a consumer (viewer, listener, etc), is going to be disregarded. At one time, KUHF was an aggregation point for a local, regional, national, and international news of a particular variety and slant. Paul said it best once in his hatred of the sort of soundbite news broadcasting that had cropped up. He said that what KUHF offered was in depth information delivered on a radio. However, that same information is now available online from a plethora of voices, many in as much depth, and aggregated elsewhere. Fact is, most of it was created elsewhere. Boiled down, I can listen to, or read NPR copy from a huge number of sources. It is almost a totally linear collection of Stuff Found Elsewhere. Dumbing down the system by demoralizing or axing the reporting staff, or making everyone shoot their own videos probably only makes it worse. The future is online content, and hiring a lot of administrative people from another dinosaur industry (as in the crowd from the Chronicle), isn't going to save it. And I don't even care who the manager is.
As such, membership, fundraising, and underwriting, can
only wither away as fewer listeners means fewer corporations are going
to cough up the real bucks to pay for the expanded staff which reaches
less ears and eyes. Membership largely meant a local community of people
on a two way street of getting and giving back. That transaction is
spoiled when the station feels less community oriented because of the
piped in programming and disregard for the unique voice those announcers
offered. As spending mounts, and funding falls, it's even more of a
disjoint between the inside of that building and the outside world, and
even the best administration spin artists eventually won't be
believable.
If I were a media person today with unlimited resources, I would start looking at what the folks who have opted out of traditional broadcast media have done. Folks like Bob Edwards, or Howard Stern. Guys like Jerry Seinfeld even. All of these people have a significant following and provide unique content that consumers want and can easily bookmark. A company created that valued those unique offerings would be able to find funding for this. And while no one in management there seems to say that Elaine's voice and choice of materials is an art form, or what Deb did either in material or editorial choice is an artistic statement, I think it is. Eliminating the bureaucracy of what exists where you are today would free up an organization to do not only what it was intended, but to do it where this was the only place you could find that artistry.
I happen to like Jonathan Schwartz. He is a octogenarian who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the American songbook. He's also probably the most well versed man on Sinatra there is. He held sway at a mainstream NYC private station for decades (I remember being able to tune that in when growing up in PA). As you might expect, at some point that station switched formats and he was dumped. I believe there was a period where he was silent. WNYC, the flagship public station in New York took him on because of his former popularity. He does his shows for them twice a week. On the other hand, he has an online channel, which is the only way I would hear him. It will play 24 hours a day, and at certain times, play his most recently created shows. Now, there's any number of ways I could probably find those songs he plays (forgive if it's not your style), but his is a very unique voice attached to a very unique brain which not only enlightens me to the what and why of pieces I am listening to, but knows insightfully how to arrange that playlist in a more meaningful way. Perhaps it's too cliched to call him a brand, but I believe he is, and I think Elaine is, and I think Deb is as well as the others. I mean this in the most soulful and respectful way. Eliminating a brand is boarding up a room in your house (with a family member still in it).
I am sorry that you and I happened to be present when the world changed. In fact, in another era, I don't think the regents would have hired an on air personality to run one of the largest public broadcasting enterprises in the country. But this happened and we can't really go back. The fool's money is on thinking that things haven't changed, or that we can spin it to make consumers not notice this. Biting the local hand that feeds might just hasten the process. Not considering the enterprise as a collection of artists in their own right, is a senseless squander
No comments:
Post a Comment