Wilmington Ratings

[MikefromDelaware]

#1 WSTW increased even more over #2 WJBR which continued to lose ground , about a 2 1/2 point gap. #3 Delmarva's country station WXCY lost a small amount of ground and Clear Channel's country rival #4 WDSD gained and is closing the gap on WXCY with 0.4 gap, so if that continues maybe in the fall book, WDSD will be #3 and WXCY will be #4. WJKS lost some ground but still #5 [sadly their big competitor WDAS-FM isn't showing due to they not buying the Wilmington book. This brings us to the AM's of which only two show both tied for #6 WDEL and WILM. WWTX doesn't show.

Of course these ratings don't really mean much as the only station's showing are the station's that buy the book. So all those Philly stations that many of us enjoy like WHYY-FM, WIP-FM, WPEN-FM, WOGL, WMMR, WIOQ, WMGK, WDAS-FM, WPHT, and KYW all pulled in solid ratings in Wilmington when there numbers were shown, so there's nothing now to suggest that we Wilmingtonians have stopped listening to Philly radio, thus making these ratings not very valuable, but simply a horse race between literally the local stations, while ignoring their real competition from Philly.

 

[FredLeonard]

This was discussed on RadioInsight three weeks ago while this board was "on hiatus."

Seismic Shifts in Wilmington
http://radioinsight.com/community/topic/seismic-shifts-in-wilmington/

Perhaps the most significant observation (among others) ...
"The audience for right-wing talk is disappearing:
Delmarva WDEL: Down 50%
Clear Channel (Beck-Rush-Hannity) WILM: Down 46.15%
We know the audience is 65 plus but they can’t be dying off that fast – losing almost half its audience share."

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I listen to WDEL, I'd not classify them as a right wing station as they air both right wing Rick Jensen and left wing Al Missetti as their live and local talk shows. I sometimes tune in to the left leaning Al Missetti in the morning, do not like Jensen's on air persona so rarely if ever tune in for his show. Most often I catch a part of the AM morning newsblock [Peter McArthur and Melanie Armstrong], the Midday newsblock [Allan Loudell], and the PM afternoon newsblock [Allan Loudell] during the workday. I also listen to WDEL's coverage of Phillies, Eagles, and some of their national Westwood One Baseball and Football games. Also the live press conferences by whomever the President is via CBS Radio, etc. By the way, I'm 62, so at least one of their listeners is younger than 65.

I don't tune in to WILM at all, other than once in a blue moon will stop to hear what Rush is saying, but usually 5-10 minutes is more than enough so I then move on to something else.

Part of the WDEL/WILM listener decline is probably due to many more talk formats now available in the Wilmington/Philly market. Those ratings don't show Philly stations at all, and as we both know a large chunk of Wilmington listeners are tuned into Philly stations, same with the talk format. When I'm not listening to WDEL I'm listening to WHYY-FM [NPR], and the various Sports/Talk stations such as 1290 WWTX Wilmington [Fox Sports Radio], 97.5 WPEN [Phillycentric Sports], 94.1 WIP-FM [Phillycentric Sports], 610 WIP-AM [CBS Sports Radio], and 97.3 WENJ [ESPN Radio]. There are two other talkers I don't listen to but probably also take listeners away from WDEL and WILM, they are WPHT1210 and 990 WNTP.

I agree though that if I were running WDEL [I'm sure the leadership at WDEL has already thought of this] I'd want to try to get an FM signal to help build their younger demo as younger listeners tend to stay away from AM radio. My guess is, the problem for WDEL is, finding an FM station to buy. But that would be, to me, a logical step for WDEL to do, somehow become WDEL-AM/FM simulcasting the 1150 programming. In fact I could even further see that after doing this, eventually after building up the WDEL-FM brand and as happened in Philly with WIP-FM taking over the AM's listener base, then splitting the AM off as a Sport/Talk station maybe as an NBC Sports Radio affiliate with some local sports talk programming and of course the Phillies and Eagles, etc, that WDEL now does. But that's what I'd do, if I were running WDEL.

 

[FredLeonard]

Jensen and Missetti: I'd classify them as extreme right and right light (to borrow a phrase from Goat Radio Cowboy).

Unfortunately, there is no FM station Delmarva (or anybody else) could buy close to Wilmington. But FM alone would not solve the problem of any political talk station. True enough, AM is off the mental radar of people under 50. But putting the same old, same old talkers on FM will still get the same old, same old listeners. Putting right-wing talk on FM has been tried (including in Philly) with very disappointing results. Even before sports talk in this region moved to FM, the format on AM was able to draw younger males to the two AM stations carrying it; but right-wing talk has never drawn younger listeners.

The only talk format that's done at well with money demo listeners has been NJ 101.5.

The AM talk stations in Philly are not much of a threat to either WDEL or WILM; reception in most of the market is too poor.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Even before sports talk in this region moved to FM, the format on AM was able to draw younger males to the two AM stations carrying it; but right-wing talk has never drawn younger listeners.

Has any kind of talk ever had a strong "younger listener" component in their audience? I have no expertise on that question because I have been absent from the industry since talk gained a reasonable foothold in programming so I don't see the audience studies.

There are some things in life that seem to be reserved for 'people of maturity'. I'm talking beyond broadcasting... looking at life as a whole. Genealogy is not a passion of the young. The deeper study of history seems to come into many lives after they have reached a mature stage. I don't think of news broadcasts as being a 'youth magnet'. Are the young attracted to traffic reports on the radio... or do they just plow through the traffic while listening to their favorite music. Questions that make you say: Hmmmmmm...!

So the question for broadcasters, and for those of us with a passion for observing and discussing broadcasting, is this: Even in ideal conditions with all the right voices in place, will Talk Radio (as we know it) ever do well in the younger listening bracket? I guess some of the 'bad boy morning radio' and shock-jocks have done well in some markets because they discuss things that DO draw younger people such as current music and the lives of stars from movies and music. But do they gather YOUNG FEMALE audiences? I don't know. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just staring out into space and saying: "I can't picture very many youthful listeners for Talk Radio."

Oh, while I have the floor: Hi to Mike From Delaware. Mike and I have traded posts, both public and private, for a number of years now. It's always great to bump into someone you know when you are picking your way along a crowded street.

 

[FredLeonard]

Has any kind of talk ever had a strong "younger listener" component in their audience?

Depends on how broadly you define "talk." Sports talk has. The water cooler talk of NJ 101.5 also has done well in the money demos. Howard Stern and some other practitioners of "hot talk" also did well with "younger listeners." The issue is not so much talk about talking about things the listener wants to hear talked about.

The Sunday morning political talk shows are the only true political talk around (albeit on TV) and ol' Bob Schieffer seems to be doing OK with the money demos. Go figure.

But the appeal of right-wing ideological talk (a la Rush) seems limited to angry, old people. Radio people can listen to while they make sure no kids get on their lawns.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Hi Goat Rodeo Cowboy, always good to hear from you. I enjoy your analysis as you have a unique way of looking at any given issue.

I agree with both of you. Generally speaking Talk Radio [that includes Political, Topical, Financial, and Religious] seem to skew older even when on FM. The former WWIQ 106.9 aired Rush/Beck/Hannity in Philly and didn't set the world on fire, today it's K-Love Radio.

I'm assuming that NPR listeners are generally older too. I wonder about Kim Kommando's computer talk show. I'd guess, middle aged folks as older folks aren't that interested in discussing computers and the young don't need Kim Kommando's advice, so she might pull in a "younger" audience than Rush/Beck/Hannity/Clark Howard, Bloomberg, etc.

Yet Sports/Talk and "Bad Boy Talk" seems to skew younger male money demos. I believe this is why the Sports/Talk stations are popping up like weeds. Just in the Philly/Wilmington radio markets we have 610 WIP [CBS Sports Radio], 1290 WWTX [Fox Sports Radio], 94.1 WIP Philly-Centric Sports/Talk, 97.3 WENJ [ESPN Radio], and 97.5 WPEN [Philly-Centric Sports/Talk]. 94.1 and 97.5 get the lion's share of that audience.

 

[FredLeonard]

I'm assuming that NPR listeners are generally older too.

It does. NPR doesn't like it any more than commercial broadcasters. Maybe you've noted the dumbing down of NPR programs to attract younger listeners. The dumb part is actually that all such attempts ever do is drive away current listeners (while failing to attract new ones).

When NPR started in 1971 it actually did well with younger listeners - baby boomers, counter-culture, anti-war, anti-establishment, pro civil rights for Blacks and women, impeach Nixon types. But back then a larger portion of the youth cohort was motivated to be involved in political issues. And dissatisfied with the kind of coverage they were getting from the corporate media back on the AM band.

Now, NPR (and its corporate sponsors) aren't interested in baby boomers (all over 50 now, and some over 65).

Funny thing about sports talk stations: Advertisers buy them if they don't have much of an audience. A station like 1290 can on the cheap just run with a computer and a satellite dish and still do OK. Meanwhile 1290 (or 950 for that matter) couldn't sell time with a respectable size audience for standards.

Now, before you say that advertisers are prejudiced against old people, remember all those oldies TV stations that have popped up lately (including Wilmington's own channel 2). They clearly are having no trouble selling time for old TV shows. Seems like advertisers have turned off radio, not baby boomers.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Hey, look. Another thread hijacked by Fred and his obsession with slandering conservative talk hosts. Are you going to double down again and still claim John Watson got his job due to affirmative action, you racist?

 

[Small Market Guy]

I guess some of the 'bad boy morning radio' and shock-jocks have done well in some markets because they discuss things that DO draw younger people such as current music and the lives of stars from movies and music. But do they gather YOUNG FEMALE audiences? I don't know. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just staring out into space and saying: "I can't picture very many youthful listeners for Talk Radio."

Young men who listened to talk radio moved on to sports talk once political correctness got its hands on Hot Talk. Young women tend to listen to pop music stations of various flavors. There is absolutely nothing political talk of any stripe can do to attract younger listeners, because for the most part men don't get interested in that kind of stuff until they get older. Women don't ever seem to get interested in it in any great numbers.

If talk programmers want to get young listeners back, they need to go back to the shock jock stuff and ignore the special interest groups that will try to shut them down. They also need to be patient, since it will take time to change habits back to that kind of radio. Since ignoring the PC police and patience are the two things management types will never do, we're stuck with the talk radio we have.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Women don't ever seem to get interested in it in any great numbers.

Women have a propensity for a more liberal mindset than the males of the species. Since we have little or no liberal versions of talk radio, how can we prove or disprove that "Women don't ever seem to get interested in it (talk radio?) in any great numbers.

If you were able to strip all the women supporters of liberal politics out of the process, there would be no Democratic Party today.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Women have a propensity for a more liberal mindset than the males of the species. Since we have little or no liberal versions of talk radio, how can we prove or disprove that "Women don't ever seem to get interested in it (talk radio?) in any great numbers.

If you were able to strip all the women supporters of liberal politics out of the process, there would be no Democratic Party today.

In the places where liberal talk radio has been tried, I'm pretty sure women didn't listen there, either. No one did, but women especially didn't.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

In the places where liberal talk radio has been tried, I'm pretty sure women didn't listen there, either. No one did, but women especially didn't.

I'm curious to know how we would document that.

Did the efforts at liberal radio ever actually get studied and documented when it comes to audience, audience size, audience make-up?

How can you be "pretty sure women didn't, ....... ESPECIALLY women didn't listen?" Are you speaking from an intellectual process... or just wishful thinking. In another thread the word 'propaganda' is being examined like an autopsy. You wouldn't be laying a little propaganda on would you?

You ever spent any time going to meetings of the Democratic Party at the local level? You ever been in the room that is filled with women who have the common connection of being there because it is a meeting of Democrats? Have you ever been to a meeting of the Democratic Party at the state level? Such gatherings might give you a whole new attitude on women and liberal talk.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I'm curious to know how we would document that.

Did the efforts at liberal radio ever actually get studied and documented when it comes to audience, audience size, audience make-up?

How can you be "pretty sure women didn't, ....... ESPECIALLY women didn't listen?" Are you speaking from an intellectual process... or just wishful thinking. In another thread the word 'propaganda' is being examined like an autopsy. You wouldn't be laying a little propaganda on would you?

You ever spent any time going to meetings of the Democratic Party at the local level? You ever been in the room that is filled with women who have the common connection of being there because it is a meeting of Democrats? Have you ever been to a meeting of the Democratic Party at the state level? Such gatherings might give you a whole new attitude on women and liberal talk.

I'm friendly with the House minority leader in my state, which is a red state. She's a frequent guest. My mother is a Democrat. So yes, I know Democrats.

It's quite easy to find out who listens to what. That's what ratings are for. What we know is that almost no one listens to liberal talk on commercial stations. I'd be willing to bet the numbers for liberal talk are similar to conservative talk. Older, white and very much male. So yes, until someone provides numbers to the contrary, I'd be willing to bet that "especially women" don't listen to liberal talk.

There is a reason the pop music formats talk about bad reality shows and other stuff soccer moms like. Because that's where the soccer moms' radios are tuned.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

A little factoid I heard somewhere yesterday: We have now entered an era where over half the potential female voters are SINGLE. That was followed by some discussion of what percentage of single women tend Democratic when they vote, and what percentage of married women vote Republican when they vote.

Do SOCCER MOMS listen to music because the really like it, or because when they are toting around their brood of soccer players, the passengers insist on music?

The upshot of the discussion yesterday was: If Democrats can get the single women to vote this year, they will win some interesting elections. If they fail to get them go to the polls, Republicans will win some interesting elections.

So... if you're going to impress me with your knowledge of humans and their listening habits, you may need to separate out the single women (no kids), single women WITH kids (used to be married) and married women (with kids) and married women, without kids.

 

[Small Market Guy]

A little factoid I heard somewhere yesterday: We have now entered an era where over half the potential female voters are SINGLE. That was followed by some discussion of what percentage of single women tend Democratic when they vote, and what percentage of married women vote Republican when they vote.

Married women tend to lean more right. Not as much so as men, but more so. Obama didn't win married women last time around.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/put-ring-obama-wins-women-married-types/story?id=16057761

Do SOCCER MOMS listen to music because the really like it, or because when they are toting around their brood of soccer players, the passengers insist on music?

Probably a little of both.

The upshot of the discussion yesterday was: If Democrats can get the single women to vote this year, they will win some interesting elections. If they fail to get them go to the polls, Republicans will win some interesting elections.

This is almost always the case. Hence the phony manufactured "war on women" nonsense.

So... if you're going to impress me with your knowledge of humans and their listening habits, you may need to separate out the single women (no kids), single women WITH kids (used to be married) and married women (with kids) and married women, without kids.

I thought you worked in radio. Didn't you know who was listening? And did you talk down to your listeners like you do people here?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I thought you worked in radio. Didn't you know who was listening?

My 'working days' in radio were 1956 to 1971. You call yourself 'Small Market Guy' but I suspect I would think of your market or markets as possibly sizable. Mine tended to be county seat towns of 3,000 to 13,000 in population. There were basically no credible surveys in markets like that in that era. I did work in Louisville and Indianapolis where we had audience studies, but the detail in that era was a bunch of crap compared to what you are working with today.

I don't think even David Eduardo's archives can come up with an audience survey for Brinkley, AR, 1960.

And did you talk down to your listeners like you do people here?

With one exception, no.

First- the background: I did talk for three years in Indianapolis on a station that was a prototype of what you see today in the Salem 'teach and preach' mixed with talk operations. Indy in that era was the wild, wild west of political and religious thinking. We were the birthplace of the John Birch Society. We were the birthplace of ACLU. We had a Jerry Fallwell wanna-be in town who was my largest local religion customer. Back then they didn't consider Fundamentalist an insult, but a Badge of Honor. We had Christian Theological Seminary (Disciples of Christ) which held the fort as a Liberal institution. It was the location of the national HQ for The American Legion.

I guided the program down-the-middle the best I could. It was the major crest of the Civil Rights protest era. When I chose to have the state president of the NAACP as an in-studio guest, I held firm that he would be treated with dignity. On "Open Days".... no guest, no topic of the day, just phone calls I guided the program down-the-middle. When smart mouth callers insisted on insulting other callers (or guests from previous days) you might say that I 'talked down' to the bearers of insults.

I was routinely patted-on-the-back by prominent politicians, prominent religious leaders and guests on the program for the way I handled "the trouble makers" who tried to steer the broadcast into the weeds. And sometimes that included some pretty colorful "talking down" to the obvious trouble makers. Unfortunately is impossible or close to impossible for you to go back and review my serveral years and several thousand posts here. If you could you would find I still play the game: If you find me talking down to you, you may want to take a time out and review just what was written that brought out my "talking down" streak. Seldom do I talk down to anyone that didn't actually deserve harsh treatment.

Your Mileage May Vary.... as the calculators of gas mileage say.

 

[Small Market Guy]

My 'working days' in radio were 1956 to 1971. You call yourself 'Small Market Guy' but I suspect I would think of your market or markets as possibly sizable. Mine tended to be county seat towns of 3,000 to 13,000 in population. There were basically no credible surveys in markets like that in that era. I did work in Louisville and Indianapolis where we had audience studies, but the detail in that era was a bunch of crap compared to what you are working with today.

That's fair enough, but you didn't have any contact with the listeners? My market is a good bit larger than what you describe, city of 30,000 or so, and we don't even subscribe to Arbitron. I still know that my listeners tend to be men in their 40s and up. A bit younger than most AM talk audiences, not because of anything I've done, but because it's a very young community. Lots of oil field and coal mine workers.

I bet you knew more about your listeners than you think you do.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I still know that my listeners tend to be men in their 40s and up. A bit younger than most AM talk audiences, not because of anything I've done, but because it's a very young community. Lots of oil field and coal mine workers.

I bet you knew more about your listeners than you think you do.

You and I have now set the stage for a discussion that get's at the heart of some of the back-and-forth that goes on in these forums. The major-market people who are "on the firing line" today live in a world where they have (or think they have) very tangible scientifically gathered data about audiences. What I had in my era was anecdotal information. I was aware even then that such information tended to be skewed by the 'social habitat' of each staff member of the station. If you were a classic "Southern Insider" you digested information you picked up at church, at the chamber of commerce, from community leaders who reported to you what they heard at the country club and the Rotary Club. You ended up with one picture of the audience (and potential audience.) If you had a co-worker who was single and had much of his social life in taverns that the"Southern Insider" would NEVER frequent, you had another picture of the audience. But we knew of these differences and we attempted to blend our observations.

Life today is so much more complex and varied. More genres of music. More genres of political thinking and involvement that is so volatile. Many more socially acceptable variations in religious thinking. Looking back, though times were simple, we know we didn't fully understand our communities but we gave it our best shot. I remember getting stuck on a muddy Missouri farm road one day as I took a couple of hours to just go door to door, introducing myself, and asking farm-folks to tell me what they listened to on the radio, and what they liked and what they didn't like.

I do it today, but not for radio. If you and I are standing in line at the fast-food counter, I will extract everything from you I can. Native or move in? Own your own business or work for someone? You involved in religious thinking and faith? What's your political temperature? You have children in our school system? Been in our new hospital? Never do I cover all those items with any one person while standing in line, but I gather whatever they signal they are willing to share. And of course, such conversations turn up people's political thinking in many cases. It's been a lifelong skill or annoyance... depending on the other persons willingness to get into conversational sharing.

Yeah! I was as confident during my broadcasting years that I knew my audience as you are today.

Then I come to these forum conversations and play that same routine. And a lot of the posting here contains information that my "BS detector" cannot digest without getting heartburn. So I enter into conversations where I think asking certain questions my be like lancing the boil on the calf of your leg. Let's drain out the poison in the conversation. Let's see if a little sunlight can improve the integrity of the conversation.

For some reason there is a handful of "fellow conversationalists" participating right now that seem to have little or no patience with each other. We have some folks who seem more interested in 'winning the shouting match" than learning something new. It's unfortunate and I see last night "The Representative" began tweaking a few tail-feathers in at least one topic.

I think I was listening to you yesterday. Did you have a Lieutenant from the Salvation Army on your show? You do good stuff, my friend. And as I listened I tried to picture the political climate of your community. What would your audience expect? What would your audience tolerate? And if "The role of the older brother" is part of your life... what does my audience NEED to hear?

Isn't this Wild! A hijacked topic that started out talking about Ratings in Wilmington has morphed into a salon-type discussion that is having a hard time progressing because each of us has social and political overtones peculiar to our own habitat!

(No, the word was salon, not a mis-spelling of saloon! )

 

[Small Market Guy]

I've always held the belief that a host is the best judge of who is listening. I can tell who is going to call before I even start a topic. I guess in large markets they need to do surveys, but it's pretty safe to assume that what has always held true for listening habits still holds true. Old white men aren't listening to Hot AC stations. Young minorities aren't listening to conservative talk. There's nothing wrong with any of that. It allows each of us to serve our audiences better.