If, as you have contended in the past, local management is allowed to make local decisions on programming, then WHLD may have wanted ESPN content - particularly play-by-play - to compete better with WGR. Entercom found itself with shrinking options for lib-talk content on WWKB, and a chance to provide a flanker for WGR, which is a big investment for them.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
KB 1520 to ESPN
- Thread starter JimH
- Start date
If, as you have contended in the past, local management is allowed to make local decisions on programming, then WHLD may have wanted ESPN content - particularly play-by-play - to compete better with WGR. Entercom found itself with shrinking options for lib-talk content on WWKB, and a chance to provide a flanker for WGR, which is a big investment for them.
Fair use allows them to use play by play with credit. In fact, Rich Gaenzler is retweeting ESPN tweets today:
Via @EliasSports & @HensleyESPN - This is 1st time that all the AFC North teams lost in Week 1 since 2002 (the first year division existed)
Retweeted by Rich Gaenzler
The ESPN Radio Network is mainly long form national talk programming, and WHLD is already covered in that department. As I said there is no chance that anyone is concerned about losing ESPN to KB. Especially if what some in this thread are saying about KB is true.
Last edited:
How many?? definitely fewer than what now exist
Bad examples. You're mixing items generally relegated to distinct economic strata. The more accurate comparison bares out my assertion: When two similarly priced items are in the market, the better quality item wins. Competition causes that. When you are competing for customers within the same income range, quality counts.
The primary competition is not based on spot price, but on the size and demo of the audience delivered, which in turn dictates where spot prices can be set. Winning audience is the foundation for all of it.
Last edited:
A station's heritage sadly means nothing. WABC, WKBW (and CHUM, CKOC, CFTR and CKLW here in Canada) were all legendary Top 40s. Out of those, 680 News (CFTR) is the only one doing very well. All of the rest are former shadows of themselves. I think the only way to break even on an AMer is run it on the cheap (unless you have an established stronghold on some audience like 680 News does)
Which prompts me to ask: how well did WWKB perform when they brought back oldies in 2003? It must have been much cheaper to run. Could that not have worked for Entercom?
My third example is similarly priced items: Amateur YouTube videos vs documentaries on PBS. If "winning audience" is the foundation, you don't win with quality. Justin Bieber proves that every day.
A radio station is similar to music. Listeners are attracted to what they like, regardless of the amount of money being spent by the owners. (if you equate money spent with quality) It's all subjective. WBEN and WGR are successful because they have heritage in their formats. Listeners are creatures of habit.
Last edited:
WBEN has no competition in their realm. Do you really believe they'd sound the same or do as well with another station, say WGR, programming talk? History says "NO", not even close.
As others have pointed out, there's WBFO.
But what makes you think if someone else owned KB that they'd attempt to compete with WBEN or WGR? The cost would be prohibitive, and they would have second tier syndicated hosts. How many stations do you need doing the same thing, reporting the same stories, telling the same weather? That's not really competition.
The only way to do radio today, given the content costs, is in a cluster. Before consolidation, companies were already finding ways to share engineering costs. Had ownership rules not changed, stations would have found other ways to cut costs and share resources.
Not entirely true. CKLW is the most listened to station in Windsor, it's target market. It's doing just fine with a share sometimes hitting 20.
Another specious example. You're comparing a short-form YouTube video with a long-form PBS documentary. Overall, across the country, viewing numbers may be a lot more comparable than you believe. And Justin Bieber ain't doin' any business 25+.
In most markets, the leading stations are the ones who invest the most in making their programming relatable to local audiences. Heritage helps because those heritage stations established themselves as serving the local audiences, not just repeating canned programming. There's a reason that Jack is an also-ran in Buffalo. Station loyalty has diminished as the amount of local content has flagged. That's why stations that were once considered invulnerable now have significant competition, and why corporate groups used weaker signals as "flankers".
I'm sure that you won't take my word for it, so let me refer you to some others who think that radio has shifted focus since the coming of corporate conglomerates:
http://www.ericksonmedia.com/blog/r...4244222_98184_1426776870881521#f381f6d519adc4
You're focusing on my examples and not the general point, which is that quality is not the primary motivating factor for the public when it comes to media. It's all subjective, based on personal taste, which is typically far lower-brow than most would be willing to admit. What does it say when Duck Dynasty is the #1 TV show on cable? People certainly have far better alternatives, but the CHOOSE Duck Dynasty.
"Station loyalty" depends on specific stations, and not restricted to local content. I'd suggest WYRK's station loyalty is pretty good, because it's fan base tends to be loyal, regardless of what the specific station does. As long as they play the hits, they'll get lots of loyal listeners.
Last edited:
WYRK's station loyalty hasn't really been tested. There was a time when I'd agree that they'd withstand a challenge from a decent FM signal handily. Now, I believe that the cuts they've suffered over the last few years under Townsquare have made them more vulnerable. The reason it hasn't happened is that Entercom and Cumulus don't really have an underperforming full-market FM. Townsquare surely isn't going to challenge itself. If Cumulus was to go country with one of their FMs, they'd have to abandon a heritage rock position and invest in talent and promotion to really challenge WYRK. That's simply not going to happen under a Cumulus regime.
If any other station in Buffalo went country, you'd have what exists in most other markets where there are two country stations, which is two stations playing the same songs, sharing the exact same audience. The game becomes who can run with the tightest playlist and the shortest stopset. Do you call that competition? How does that improve quality?
That shows how little you understand the modern country format. Look at markets with multiple country stations that are doing well. There's considerable diversification. You have several flavors of country now - just as you have multiple approaches to rock. WYRK can play a wider variety of country because they're alone in the market. A challenger could pick from "real country", "modern country", "outlaw country", "hot country", and more. You can skew most of those formats toward male or female demographics just as you can with various genres of rock music.
From what I have seen when there is an established Country station in the market the new station tries to make them look like the old guard, while they position themselves as "NEW!" The two country stations where I live both do very well but it took the challenger a long time to catch up to the established Country station.
I understand the format extremely well, with dozens of specific examples. The ONLY part of the format that attracts ratings is the hot country format. And if you look at markets where there are competing country stations, such as Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, St. Louis, Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa, Minneapolis, OK City, etc, you have two stations playing the same songs, competing for the same audience. That's how country stations compete. They don't play sub-genres like Outlaw country or "Real country." Sure, you have some smaller stations playing classic country, some using the marketing of "Real Country." But they aren't competitive, and don't get the numbers of a hot country station. Targeting the fringes doesn't work. If WYRK was faced with a challenger, they would tighten their playlist, tighten their personalities, and tighten their budgets. Any new station would come in and call WYRK "Old," and play more new music with no DJs. That's what stations have done in dozens of markets across the country. It happens over and over, in market after market, with no interest in quality.
Last edited:
That may be what Cumulus and Clear Channel would do because it's CHEAP, but that's not what effective competitors would do. Country music has evolved to the point where two stations can play music from the same era, but skew it male or female just as you do with Rock music. You're concept is simply not the way it is anymore in the modern Country era.
If you did research and looked at the country radio marketplace, you'd see that it's not just Clear Channel and Cumulus. It's every radio owner including CBS, Bonneville, Hubbard, Beasley, Wilks, Cox, Entercom (they did it in Seattle and Portland and beat CBS in both markets), and a small local owner in Oklahoma City named Tyler Media. So you're wrong. My concept IS how it is in the modern era, and if you'd just do some simple research, you'd find out.
In Buffalo, since all the dominant signals are owned by major owners, they'd do the exact same thing. But if you study Tyler Media, you'll see that they don't do it because it's cheap, but because it works. And when you're serious about competing, you do what works. That's how I know that it wouldn't matter how many owners there are, or how many stations they're allowed to own. If the goal is to win, then they tighten the playlist, tighten the personalities, and tighten the budget. That's what RKO did with Boss Radio in the 60s. It worked then, and it works now.
- Status