Hear 2.0

How to be a better Jock

Although this advice is aimed at presenters, it applies to any talent behind any mic on any radio station.

Quotes & Lessons from "Comedian"

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: comedy reynolds)

From the great blog Presentation Zen.

Should Radio's Future look to its Past?

From the Washington Post....

...Yet the more I listened to the likes of Pandora.com, Last.fm, Slacker.com and all manner of music blogs and Web radio, the more I heard the sound of automation -- sleek, efficient recommendation engines scientifically selecting the music I am most likely to like, yet missing out almost on what radio once offered: a glimpse into the hearts and passions of personalities who knew what music was new and cool, voices that offered a guided tour of unknown worlds, and sometimes even a frontal assault of the unexpected.

Anyone who appreciates radio's history or its future should read this article.

The piece isn't all as rosy as this quotation, of course. But every beautiful complexion has its zits.

What "MySpace Celebrity" means to you

Just launched: A home base for celebrities on MySpace.

It's an obvious magnet for MySpace and for the stars who participate in it. And it elevates the relevance of MySpace in an era when social networks are landing by the boat-load.

It is here we learn, for example, that Matthew McConaughey is both a "philanthropist" and an actor, although some would argue I've placed the wrong label in quotes.

So what, you ask?

My first book, Fresh Air, argued strongly for the importance of "star" talent in radio's future. "Stars" are the equivalent of human "hits." Except they are much more scarce and precious. They can be owned by one station in one market exclusively and they have their own natural audience magnetism.

And you can't create a thousand splintered versions of them on the Internet the way you can with a music radio station.

You don't need to train a talent to be a "star" because stars are, for our purposes, already made, not born. Of course, they need to create a good show; that goes without saying. But celebrity opens the door and invites the audience inside. Only then does the good show keep them there.

What you need to do, however, is open the checkbook.

For example, please tell me why we don't find one of radio's biggest stars, Ryan Seacrest, on more radio stations, but we can find plenty of lesser personalities syndicated all over the country?

Truly, we can be our own worst enemy.

Stars shine on Radio

More evidence that stars are radio's salvation.

Yes, I know this is essentially a satellite radio PR piece. But don't underestimate the value of a star - especially on the free and easy radio in every home, work, and car.

Stars attract attention. Attention - even cult attention - attracts listeners. Listeners attract advertisers. And so on.

Especially when you can hear the star's show without having to subscribe to something you haven't heard yet.

By the way, if you've never heard Mojo Nixon's political talk show on Sirius you're missing one of my radio favorites.

Yee-haw, Mojo.

Score one for big vocabularies

Dennis Miller's new show is another smart step the radio industry is making.

Not every star-studded show will succeed, of course, but celebrity carries with it the kind of instant familiarity that new shows will need in a cluttered audioverse. Being known will be a critical advantage in getting listeners fast.

Although whether a star keeps listeners or not is dependent on the quality of the show, as it should be.

More than a year ago I predicted we'd go down this path. And I suspect the best is yet to come.

And by that I don't necessarily mean the best "schadenfreude" or "zeitgeist."

Will "local" radio roll back the clock?

From Forbes:

The recent announcement by Clear Channel Communications...which will look to sell off 448...stations, could push the pendulum back again, to a time when DJs exuded a local flavor and educated their audience on the artists whose tunes they played.

Maybe it will, maybe not. It really depends on who buys those stations. And what financial rationale they buy them with. And what models of success they intend to follow.

I suspect that some will see the light while most will not. But isn't that the nature of all things?

The article also includes the following quotation from yours truly:

"The stuff between the records is what's key, it's what separates radio from iPods," says Mark Ramsey, president of Hear 2.0, a media research firm in San Diego. He acknowledges that a lot of the syndicated programming out there sounds better than what most local stations could produce, given their managements' current reluctance to invest in new talent.

So the tension will be between three things:

1. Quality local talent with local connection and high entertainment value
2. Quality syndicated talent with high entertainment value
3. Low cost or no talent - regardless of its source (i.e., nothing matters but the music)

Of those, which do you think is the toughest to achieve? And which is the cheapest?

Rush to Judgment

If I were advising Rush Limbaugh - and, of course, I'm not - I would tell him to offend more liberal celebrities more often.

As long as that offense sits well with his constituency and generates ink in the process, it's a win for Rush. It will remind his fans, current and lapsed, that there's something going on worth listening to, and it will spike his ratings for sure.

Whether or not he apologizes or "clarifies."

Note that this has nothing to do with what's right and what's ethical. Rush's statements about Michael J. Fox are neither, and they're pretty clearly crazy.

But Rush, as usual, is crazy like a fox.

If you're going to Hell, go with high ratings.