I appreciate the contributions being made to this thread. Even the nay-sayers are expressing legitimate points - certainly sincere.
Allow me to address some of what I think are the more pertinent ones in order of their appearance.
how long since you've been working for a broadcast radio station as an employee.
I pulled out in '95 out of pure frustration with formatics, incompetent, sociopathic, alcoholic and erratic management. I continued to write and produce commercial content and voicing - still do.
When one visualizes a radio audience one must think of tearing the roofs off all the houses and visualizing all that is going on for all those who would be listening.
This is an outstanding explanation of the situation in which broadcasters find themselves. Likewise, "Your at-work station" becomes insulting and inaccurate to a very large portion of the audience at any given time. This, on two levels. 1.) this is not applicable, obviously, to those not listening on the job and, 2.) the statement implies ownership. (The listener response to that can be: "I'll tell you what I own. You don't tell me.")
Also, the rest of the post strikes me as pure Gold. Very astute.
Could you please elaborate on said "strong history," or would that require you coming out of witness protection?
I'm not allowed to confirm or deny anything about The Program. An' I ain't no Snitch, neither.
I posted my resume earlier in the thread. But even if I was a baker who was a fan of Radio, I would still urge readers to consider the messages and disregard the messenger (moi).
I don't think anything he's saying here is going to have any particular impact on the air to be brutally honest. It's perhaps a subtle thing that could be argued either way, but it ain't a real "difference maker".Sorry.
No apology required, but appreciated anyway.
I'm satisfied this is an extremely valid point. Indeed, this material, when presented on-the-air is
so subtle that nobody notices. Not PD's, managers or members of the audience. At least, not so much that they have commented.
Audiences, however, do
respond as if they're holding all Aces - with greater cumes, hours-tuned and quarter-hours. Dozens and dozens of rating-period results might be acceptable as ample evidence. The application of these points - most of which I have not even mentioned - are also effective strategies for commercial production - although somewhat more difficult to provide empirical evidence on that given all the vagaries of advertising.
Personality. I think audiences like a Monty, a Jake, a Frosty, a Roy, a Fred, a Hault, a Bob - because they had spent years
developing a style, a character, a voice, a jive that attracted listeners.
I agree. Unique Personalities are rare gems indeed. However, that hundreds of others wandered in and out of the Control Rooms without distinction is still the working reality.... and Radio's challenge.
That's all - I don't think you can define it and cut it apart into pieces.
On this point, of course, I'm going to disagree and I wouldn't expect anyone to accept that at face value. Not only can communication skills be taught - so can confidence, ability to risk and creative strategies. I will agree, though, that so far and traditionally, these are aspects of individual personalities that were likely in place before hitting the Radio.
Meanwhile and for many, the very idea that there is more to this than the surface structure we have all come to accept as being the total... is scary enough. This would be a reasonable and legitimate response, as well. When I started realising how little I did know about the skills of my own profession, I was grateful to be sitting down and having access to the cure for hyperventilation.
And yet, we soldier on.
Did you do it under the name of Pave? Why must we 
