Listener's Perspective on the Growing Affiliate List of EMF

[The Fat Man]

The more I look at radio news, the more I see EMF buying stations around the country. I have no complaints from a corporate perspective. It's virtually complaintless. They're well within their all regulations to do so. My question is what are listener's take on the loss of local stations to a single satellite feed from California.

I lost one of my local favorites to them, earlier this year. I even got in a heated exchange on another forum, because my take was that listeners were well within their right to vocalize their complaints, to which a business insider called it childish. But the list of local stations going to the national K-Love or Air1 feeds is growing. Be it WPLJ, WCCC, The Loop, Mix 107.3 , WAAF, or countless others, the list continues to grow. What's everyone else's take?

The format of EMF is irrelevant. Please don't draw this into Pit territory.

 

[the mack]

The more I look at radio news, the more I see EMF buying stations around the country. I have no complaints from a corporate perspective. It's virtually complaintless. They're well within their all regulations to do so. My question is what are listener's take on the loss of local stations to a single satellite feed from California.

I lost one of my local favorites to them, earlier this year. I even got in a heated exchange on another forum, because my take was that listeners were well within their right to vocalize their complaints, to which a business insider called it childish. But the list of local stations going to the national K-Love or Air1 feeds is growing. Be it WPLJ, WCCC, The Loop, Mix 107.3 , WAAF, or countless others, the list continues to grow. What's everyone else's take?

The format of EMF is irrelevant. Please don't draw this into Pit territory.

Have not listened to broadcast radio regularly for years. Mostly commercials and nothing but lame top 40 bs from whaterver era the format is . Streaming services much better.

 

[The Fat Man]

Have not listened to broadcast radio regularly for years. Mostly commercials and nothing but lame top 40 bs from whaterver era the format is . Streaming services much better.

Where I share yoi sentiment on the state of FM radio, the stations being bought by EMF are usually the ones that are different, yet draw in lower ratings and ad revenue.

 

[the mack]

Did not notice the "news radio" in your post

 

[The Fat Man]

No.

 

[jegrant]

On one hand, there is some concern for the loss of "local" radio, but that went out the door when "Main Studio Waivers" started being handed out (to everyone in radio) like confetti at a parade. Certainly, many listeners seem to like the EMF programming, and they send in money. I would be curious, in this day and age, since EMF's formats don't provide live news or sports, what real advantage they have over accessing the same programming live or on demand with an app. Arguably, EMF isn't doing anything that iHeartRadio and others are also doing - there are seemingly hundreds of canned formats of all types available.
At least, EMF does seem to have stations that are good on the technical side of things. In my area, we have a much smaller regional operator that seems to connect its satellite stations to the main studio using a tin can and string. They might as well be using one of the Traffic & Weather channels on XM for as bad as the audio is, and yet, listeners apparently donate and support the advertisers of these satellites, at least enough to pay the bills to keep them on air.

 

[radio]

There's a definite line being drawn and, in my opinion, terms being re-defined in the radio industry. "Local" should be more and more defined by whether ownership has a stake in the community, as in, announcers spending paychecks, or at least living locally; and...does the station have a local studio that generates programming (not just relaying it) and...is the programming adjusted as needed to fit the community. If a station can't meet those terms and definitions, then it goes under the definition of "corporate" be it commercial, non-commercial, or religious. YES, "religious" radio can be corporate, too and just as guilty of being not in touch with their listeners as their commercial counterparts. It bothered me from day one that religious stations could cry, "we cant support a local studio" and were then allowed to have a satellite dish, transmitter hut, EAS box, and still keep their licenses. Owning a "signal" to me is much different than owning a "station"...and in many big corporate examples, the companies don't own stations, they own "signals." A "Station" is defined as follows: "a place or building where a specified activity or service is based" BASED. Not relayed, not retransmitted, BASED. Perhaps a new definition in radio needs to emerge. STATIONS are locally owned, operated, and programmed. "SIGNALS" are anything else, with the programming based anywhere else outside of a particular signal's listening-area. By the way for purposes of this writing, I use "corporate" to refer to large ownership, not the structure of a small radio company which can also be a corporation yet, operate LOCALLY.

 

[The Fat Man]

There's a definite line being drawn and, in my opinion, terms being re-defined in the radio industry. "Local" should be more and more defined by whether ownership has a stake in the community, as in, announcers spending paychecks, or at least living locally; and...does the station have a local studio that generates programming (not just relaying it) and...is the programming adjusted as needed to fit the community. If a station can't meet those terms and definitions, then it goes under the definition of "corporate" be it commercial, non-commercial, or religious. YES, "religious" radio can be corporate, too and just as guilty of being not in touch with their listeners as their commercial counterparts. It bothered me from day one that religious stations could cry, "we cant support a local studio" and were then allowed to have a satellite dish, transmitter hut, EAS box, and still keep their licenses. Owning a "signal" to me is much different than owning a "station"...and in many big corporate examples, the companies don't own stations, they own "signals." A "Station" is defined as follows: "a place or building where a specified activity or service is based" BASED. Not relayed, not retransmitted, BASED. Perhaps a new definition in radio needs to emerge. STATIONS are locally owned, operated, and programmed. "SIGNALS" are anything else, with the programming based anywhere else outside of a particular signal's listening-area. By the way for purposes of this writing, I use "corporate" to refer to large ownership, not the structure of a small radio company which can also be a corporation yet, operate LOCALLY.

My idea of local is more having an entertaining show, unless it's a news station that I'm listening to. I prefer news broadcasts over political talk, although I'm a regular in The Pit. When I'm driving, I'd rather hear general entertainment and music. I can't stand sports talk stations outside a game broadcast. I rather listen to a game on the radio while I do something else, over watch a game.

My issue with national companies buying everything up is that (as The Mack said) we now have the forced cookie cutter formats. All originality is gone to ensuring maximizing profits. I can't blame them for tending to billing, but a smaller independent company will take more chances, where a national broadcaster will solely focus "safe" music. By that I mean what has been analyzed through surveying and approved. For rock stations, that's nothing beyond 2005ish, unless it's from an established band. I have to go to satellite for anything new.