What’s one of the biggest complaints about broadcast radio and television? Too many commercials, right? The interminable wait before getting back to whatever you really want to hear? The stop sets so long that you can’t imagine the client whose spot runs in the middle of the break is getting any kind of value from it?
Then why are some podcast networks doing the exact same thing?
Take iHeartRadio. I listen to some of that company’s podcasts, and they open with several pre-roll spots and promos, insert several more in the body of the show (mostly pre-recorded, not host-read), and close out with the ultimate in useless, several post-roll spots and promos– the show’s over, the goodbyes and see-you-next-weeks are done, and… more spots and promos? The thing podcast listeners are escaping broadcast radio to avoid? The saving grace is that listeners can fast-forward or skip ahead, but that’s not good for business, either.
Which brings me to the NAB Show. I missed this year’s show for the first time in decades, mostly because nobody was gonna cover my travel expenses, and so I missed this year’s Next Big Thing, which, of course, was artificial intelligence. From what I gather through others’ reporting, AI was everywhere at the LVCC, and everything had some kind of AI component involved. New-ish technology! Revolutionary! This changes everything!
Sigh. This isn’t going to change the things that need to be changed. The problems facing the media are more about humans than they are about technology. As podcasts are repeating the mistakes made by radio, AI-driven operations will only be as good as the people programming, feeding, and operating the platforms.
Radio people, handed podcasting as a new medium, applied their radio way of thinking to it, and so we have a half-hour podcast starting with a thick morass of ads and promos. Give them AI and what are they going to do? They’ll use it to crank out the same tired, personality-free, liner-card-reading content they’ve been doing on broadcast stations, just with fewer (or no) humans involved. They’ll use it to do back-office stuff with fewer (or no) humans involved. Will they do something creative, revolutionary, or different?
What do you think?
Here’s what I’d do: I’d assemble a team of the most creative people I could find, regardless of the medium in which they work. I’d present them with the technology and explain the capabilities. And I’d let them imagine what they could do with it, encouraging them to ignore what’s been done in the past.
Anyone who suggests doing a standard radio show but with an AI-generated “host” would be fired into the sun. Okay, maybe not that, but it would be unacceptable. If the cream of creatives can’t develop new, different, and compelling uses for AI, what’s AI worth to the programming side of broadcast media?
Right, reducing payroll to nothing might buy some companies a couple more years. I get that. But it’s like inventing the airplane and using it as a paperweight. You’re being presented with something a convention hall full of people are touting as revolutionary. If you can’t find a way to use it to lead a revolution, perhaps it isn’t the game changer everyone says it is.
Or maybe you’re not the game changer.
Perry Michael Simon is a weekly news media columnist for Barrett Media. He previously served as VP and Editor/News-Talk-Sports/Podcast for AllAccess.com. Prior to joining the industry trade publication, Perry spent years in radio working as a Program Director and Operations Manager for KLSX and KLYY in Los Angeles and New Jersey 101.5 in Trenton. He can be found on X (formerly Twitter) @PMSimon.
