Why Do You Keep Asking That Question?

"Is radio ready for a digital future?"

It's a question that has had high visibility over the last six weeks.

"Is radio ready for a digital future?"

It's been the title of a Bridge Ratings Study that was released on June 30, 2010.

And the title of a webinar I presented in July.

So, why did I give the title to this blog and why should you care?

Because after six weeks of disseminating this data across the web and in person, I'm finally ready to answer the question for you.

This was the most important graphic from the study and my webinar:

[click image to go to study]

This chart represents just how well terrestrial radio is satisfying radio listeners' Internet needs.

Not too good. (Pardon my grammar, mom)

The answer to the question is....

No. Radio is not ready.

Why?

Though its perception among radio listeners is poor, radio has all it needs to make it right.

Radio is having a good year. That's what I read and that is what market managers tell me.

Why not reinvest some of that new profit into the cost of setting up a qualified digital department?

Remember the story of the squirrel storing his nuts for a cold winter?

That's what radio's owners and operators are doing. Very few are taking the new found (and temporary) flushness and sinking it back into the product where it needs it.

Radio is gathering its profit nuts after a dismal 2009.

Who can blame them?

But still, the industry has the money to make some effort to build out a respectable digital division.

It can hire the right people.

It probably has the right equipment.

If it doesn't have the know-how, it can hire that, too.

So, if all of this is true, why does radio management avoid making the commitment?
Because it takes courage!

Yet, COURAGE is precipitated by a perceived threat. That's what Daniel Webster tells me.

So, "this must be it", I think to myself. This is why the industry as a whole is not moving itself forward fast enough.

No courage.

Because there is NO PERCEIVED THREAT.

And despite the fact that the threat is clear from digital entertainment options, by the time terrestrial radio perceives the threat and act, it will be too late.

The industry does have its handful of owner/operators who are investing as they are able.

And, for that, I am grateful.

But, it's the industry that is the concern.

Time is running out and the radio industry's place may well be marginalized by this time next year.

So, there. Asked. And answered.

What's Really Next?

What's really next for media companies?

Smaller - leaner - more outsourcing.

The chart to the right reflects a related growth curve between staffing and corporate efficiency, or productivity.

The way this applies to radio is at the core of its frustration with attracting more loyal listeners.

There just has not been any investment in the product in over a year at a time when radio is competing with media that understand the importance of creative content.

Radio has its own set of rules and at this point, generally, most radio companies can ill afford to invest in the one thing that will help their business grow: personnel and content creation.

Economies such as the one we're experiencing in late 2009 no longer lend themselves to the operations models which allowed companies to staff more robustly.

The benefit to that kind of structure is that if companies staff responsibly, employees reach their maximum potential to deliver for the company by reaching their own competency levels.

What has led to this redesign of culture is the reduction in staffing and a reduction in quality output. Once highly-competent employees have found themselves delegated more and more work often outside their area of specialty or comfort.

This tends to result in staff that are not competent at the new tasks and somewhat less competent at their old tasks. This amounts to a severe reduction in efficiencies and production which further drives down business cash flow.

This cannot be sustained.

Something's got to change. And this is what we're experiencing.

Change can be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, change is for the best.

Therefore, the best option is to reduce workload to a more comfortable level where talented employees can do their jobs at levels that will again produce positively for companies. Operating in this culture will allow companies to regain traction and begin to rebuild.

This means a shrinking of the business as a whole in every aspect.

It may be "circle-the-wagons" time for the media industry - certainly it is for terrestrial radio - and concentrate on core competencies until things return to a less volitile marketplace.

Yet, despite this reduction in services, companies must also understand they cannot grow by cutting. Business development can continue to be a part of the mix.

For radio, an industry that still experiences respectable profit margins, this will mean figuring out a way to reinvest some of that profit margin back into their businesses.

I'll reveal how to do that, in my next blog.

An Open Letter to Investors in the Radio Business

Dear investor-person:

I have tremendously good news to share with you.

Our great national nightmare is over.

After 12 years of consolidation that is the universal field theory of why the radio industry is in its current state of woe, the business that for decades was not only delivering better cash flow than just about any business you could find, but was also growing, is set for a renaissance.

I haven't been hitting the tequila; I'm referring to the sudden flood of radio properties - generally excellent properties - that are on the market. With Clear Channel setting free 60 stations and Dan Mason & CBS putting up their 50, immediate reaction from some might be "the radio business must really suck, look at these major players bailing!"

Not so fast.

Finally, the radio industry is experiencing the first phase of its rebirth and that is the return to the transition phase of its business cycle to what amounts to 'circling the wagons and concentrating on the segment of the business that is delivering the best financial results.' Clear Channel and CBS should be proud of the fact that they actually have significant numbers of stations they can operate that are throwing off cash flow. By trimming the fat, these two companies can concentrate on running a number of stations that may be more comfortable for them.

These 110 radio stations up for sale now offer an opportunity for two things to begin occurring: 1) the return of more intelligent operators who one way or another were no longer needed by those companies that were so greedy in 1996-2000 that they grabbed up as many radio properties as they could without a consideration as to whether they could operate them all effectively. They THOUGHT they could...but time has proven them wrong.

And 2) many of the profoundly intelligent general managers, program directors and owners who got out of the radio business because they were forced or just gave up, will now start re-entering a business they have loved for years and who had become sickened by what we all have witnessed - the gutting of a business that lost its way.

Yes, I am giving all you investors out there a BIG early tip now so you can start realigning your portfolios or - even better - if you've got money to lend and you've given up on the industry, now is the time for you to feel inspired.

I can count on all my fingers and toes a partial list of highly qualified radio managers who at this moment could take a cluster of any of these soon-to-be-sold groups and make them profitable, compelling to listen to and maybe most importantly, return the fun to working in the radio business that got skewered by operators who saw an opportunity in the late 90's and 2000's but never had a clue as to the 'secret sauce'.

Me and my compatriots who have been in this business since the good times (pre-1996), completely get what made the business such a great investment then and why it attracted some of our country's most creative minds through the years. The time may be coming when you see the return by these individuals to the business as operators. Smart operators.

Expect those who have been on the sidelines in recent years to begin pulling money together and buying some of these stations. I know because I've spoken with them!

Expect those Clear Channel and CBS stations that will be sold to out-perform under these new owners.

Expect this to be the watershed we've been waiting for. 2009 will be the year of the turnaround.

2009 will prove to be a great year for investment in the radio business.

These new independent owners know more about the terrestrial side of the business than most of their peers who seem to have no clue what to do with this vast new frontier.

They have been cooking up digital solutions that will expand the radio business.

If they haven't been scared away for good; if they haven't given it up through disgust, this infusion of lifeblood into station ownership will be the beginning of a return to pre-consolidation days when men were men and radio ROCKED!

Open Letter to Radio CEO's

Are you working for or running a financially oriented organization? If so, you may be headed for trouble. Finance provides the capital to fund business development and tracks the results of operations, but it doesn't have that much to do with what comes in between. The bottom line is on the bottom for the simple reason that it is the result of operations, not the cause. Yet many managers focus on bottom-line financial results and thereby fail to manage the things that drive those results.

How do you know if you or your organization is overly financial in orientation? The most obvious clue is that everybody is held to "the numbers". That's how managers are evaluated, that's what the boss always wants to talk about, and that's what everybody manages for. If you find that you or your people are obsessed with "making their numbers", then you know you have a financial orientation. And while financial management needs to be a core activity in the organization, it cannot be permitted to displace other forms of management.

People and organizations that manage by the bottom line never perform as well in the long run as those that focus on the causes of bottom-line performance. An orientation toward your employees, customers, technologies, and business processes is much more likely to produce good bottom-line results.

Let's look at a real-life example. Radio group "X" hires a new GM for its major market cluster of 5 stations. This person is tough. That's why he was hired. This person insists that his sales managers make their numbers, even though the sales goals they were given were unrealistic. And so, these sales managers - constantly pressured to make their numbers did so - by "loading the trade" or unrealistically overselling the commercial unit limits, under pricing, throwing in "value-added" promotions that the programming department could not live up to and using other aggressive sales methods. The numbers that were seen by this new market manager looked great and subsequently they were passed on up the food chain to corporate. Confidence was high. Then it hit the fan.

Commercial inventory was so oversold and there were not enough cancellations 30% of the projected revenue evaporated. The lower priced spots that were sold and did get on in high-revenue day parts like morning drive did not enable the station to achieve budgets. So much for rubbing people's noses in the bottom line. It just doesn't produce long-term results.

Financial statements offer one of many possible views into the inner workings and end results of a highly complex business process that is itself a small part of a complex economic and social system. If you focus only on the bottom line results in your financial statements, you will be managing in the dark because you won't seek out and understand the variables that drive your systems.