WFAN to 101.9

[ty_kleinle]

As I am sitting back and reading all of the bashful hate, we ALL knew WFAN was going to FM, no question about it.  Would the tone be the same let's say if WFAN was going to 92.3?  Everyone would be all for it.  But since it's going to 101.9, everyone is now against it? 

This may come across meaner than it should be, but alternative (and to a greater extent, AAA) fans are very vocal and reactionary to changes to their format, in my limited experience.  Couple that with the fact that the majority of listeners have been alienated for, what — the third time? — and it's a bit of a minor mælstrom.  In other parts of the country, the demise of beloved indie-leaning stations has been met with Facebook protest pages and Twitter campaigns that bring out far more "fans" of saving whatever station than ever actually seemed to listen in the first place. 

You're completely right about Alternative fans. I remember back in 2009 when WHTG went to Top-40. The alternative fans created a facebook page which blew up to thousands of fans within days. They also protested Press Communications (the owner) and boycotted the advertisers of WHTZ. That was in New Jersey, I can only imagine what NY fans, a much larger market, would do.

[luperm]

You're completely right about Alternative fans. I remember back in 2009 when WHTG went to Top-40. The alternative fans created a facebook page which blew up to thousands of fans within days. They also protested Press Communications (the owner) and boycotted the advertisers of WHTZ. That was in New Jersey, I can only imagine what NY fans, a much larger market, would do.

They'll make a Facebook page, vent, call people who don't see things their way "haters"...then go on with their lives.

[islanddxer]

Wright,

I'd think they'd do most local stuff in mono with games in stereo.

WEPN-FM doesn't broadcast Jets games in stereo, but the Jets' affiliate in Ocean County, WCHR (105.7 FM) does.  WCHR is a classic rock station.

Which brings up a good point, CBS can keep the alternative rock on 101.9 and air the major games there (or on NOW). They already do this with WCBS 101.1. But they are too vain for that.

You're fighting progress, and it's a losing battle.  Frankly, I think it's the best of both worlds.  The music options generally available through Pandora, Spotify, and streaming apps are infinitely customizable, and I can find exactly what I want to entertain me musically.  At the same time, I think radio's pushing forward and making sure that it's financially viable long-term.

Ask newspapers how burying its head in the sand and staying the course worked out.

When they make a device that is about the size of my Sangean DT-110 that can recieve streaming radio that doesn't drop out under trees and on the train without paying a monthly fee maybe I'll give up radio, but until then I'll use my radio and have one less preset station on 101.9. Fortunately I dont live in the heart of the city and can recieve rock music on 107.1, 102.3, 94.3, and of course 104.3. 

[Lee Anderson]

When they make a device that is about the size of my Sangean DT-110 that can recieve streaming radio that doesn't drop out under trees and on the train without paying a monthly fee maybe I'll give up radio, but until then I'll use my radio and have one less preset station on 101.9. Fortunately I dont live in the heart of the city and can recieve rock music on 107.1, 102.3, 94.3, and of course 104.3. 

This is the thing corperate radio types don't get. The technology just isn't quite up to scratch with their lofty ambitions.

[Giacomo Siffredi]

When they make a device that is about the size of my Sangean DT-110 that can recieve streaming radio that doesn't drop out under trees and on the train without paying a monthly fee maybe I'll give up radio, but until then I'll use my radio and have one less preset station on 101.9. Fortunately I dont live in the heart of the city and can recieve rock music on 107.1, 102.3, 94.3, and of course 104.3.

This is the thing corperate radio types don't get. The technology just isn't quite up to scratch with their lofty ambitions.

That's the other element to the "All AM will eventually migrate to FM" argument that isn't frequently discussed. At present, many cellular providers implement data caps on their subscribers. Surpassing that cap can result in higher bills for customers. Streaming content can utilize a lot of data in a short time. Subscribers who begin seeing exorbitant bills may elect to suspend the service for that reason.

So the one part of the argument which maintains there are now numerous 21st century content-delivering vehicles on the information highways superserving nearly every conceivable niche appetite that will compete with the 20th century terrestrial radio's one-to-many broadcast model is quite accurate.

But the other part involves subscriber fees for some of these services. Howard Stern leveraged his phenomenally high Arbitron ratings, generated over free-to-air terrestrial radio stations, when he signed the contracts with Sirius Satellite Radio, a subscription satellite radio service. When his audience dwindled following the move, how did that work out for his advertisers? His terrestrial radio audience was loyal, supported the sponsors who in turn supported Stern immensely, and did almost everything for him... except follow him to satellite radio and pay the subscription fees.

The answer for broadcast radio licensees is not to simply bury their heads in the sand and wait. Obviously, standing pat is not a logical decision, especially in commerce and most particularly in a competitive industry such as this one. However, rushing to an end when the marketplace and the industry is in such a period of flux is the opposite extreme which could reap similarly devastating results, particularly at the all-important bottom line. Alienating the audience by yielding to trends is not a logical or viable long-term business strategy.

The future is becoming a lot clearer, but the skies are still very overcast.

[d21ofnj]

As I am sitting back and reading all of the bashful hate, we ALL knew WFAN was going to FM, no question about it.  Would the tone be the same let's say if WFAN was going to 92.3?  Everyone would be all for it.  But since it's going to 101.9, everyone is now against it? 

There would've been unhappy campers if WFAN has gone to 92.3, no doubt about it.  Whoever lost their music station to WFAN-FM would've felt betrayed.  It's a business decision, plain and simple.

 The only difference is if NOW went away, there are other terestrial outlets for listeners to go too. With RXP v2 going away, there is no (fulltime) terestrial option out there. I know that everyone says that with wireless devices and internet, these bases are basically covered. However, it all costs money too maintain that connection. Last I heard, phone companies are tightening the screws on data usage. So, people still lose.

IIRC, this was similar to what was said to the dance music fans.  When Pulse and Party went, most of the people would tell us to go find it on the Internet.  Now that 101.9 is going to WFAN, it's a problem to find rock alternative on the Internet?  I'm not starting a riot here, but I find a little "hypocrisy" on here.  As for the data rates with phone companies, yes they are tightening up the usage, but if you have cable (not fios) you can create a free account to get access to use their wifi hotspots.

[mrbrightside]

The only difference is if NOW went away, there are other terestrial outlets for listeners to go too. With RXP v2 going away, there is no (fulltime) terestrial option out there. I know that everyone says that with wireless devices and internet, these bases are basically covered. However, it all costs money too maintain that connection. Last I heard, phone companies are tightening the screws on data usage. So, people still lose.

It's true that streaming costs money and it's not an option for everyone.  There are also iPods, and while the devices cost money (radios do, too) and the music should be purchased (but we all know it isn't being purchased) it provides an option between traditional broadcast and streaming.

It all comes back to maximizing revenue options in an exponentially more competitive entertainment environment.  Someone will always lose, and that's too bad.  That's life.

This is the 4th time new rock has been removed from the radio.  Again, I say if they knew they were going to sell, they should have put FM New format back on, the AC format predecessor to FM News.  No one would miss that if it were pulled, since there are THREE other outlets for that. Instead, it's almost like they teased rock music listeners.  The day will come, when CBS FM's music becomes too old to play on the radio.  When that day comes, and is replaced by music from my generation, I will say, sorry, that's life, get an ipod.