I'm not the one who used that word. I was responding to another post. I don't think the " best programming" attracts the most audience. I believe the most popular programming attracts the most people. If you want to create the "best programming" and take a lot of chances, it's very likely it won't attract the most people. And the non-commercial stations are all proof of that. Those are stations that are doing exactly what "wadio" is saying, taking chances with what their programming, and not interrupting that programming with commercials, and none of them are attracting large audiences. Or at least the size of audience that would allow you to charge more for your spots than WCBS or Z100.
-
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
enough ads!
- Thread starter Shredder
- Start date
I'm not the one who used that word. I was responding to another post. I don't think the " best programming" attracts the most audience. I believe the most popular programming attracts the most people. If you want to create the "best programming" and take a lot of chances, it's very likely it won't attract the most people. And the non-commercial stations are all proof of that. Those are stations that are doing exactly what "wadio" is saying, taking chances with what their programming, and not interrupting that programming with commercials, and none of them are attracting large audiences. Or at least the size of audience that would allow you to charge more for your spots than WCBS or Z100.
I have developed a tune-out method so good that should someone ask me what the last commercial was I never know - and that is if I listen to it. It comes from a lifetime of commercial bombardment. The only type of lead-in I ever thought effective was the old Paul Harvey where he began as if it were another story then it turned into a commercial. Alas, poor Harv is gone and I don't hear anyone else picking up that method.
Interestingly, I do remember a commercial from back in the KOOL-FM days in the 80's for Blue Nun wine. It was from the comedy duo of Stiller and Meara. I was never tempted to buy the wine but did enjoy listening to their very brief comedy.
One of the TV ads I enjoy are those by "Flo" of Progressive Insurance. But when it came time to buy new car insurance guess who I went to? That's right, Allstate, the company that offered the best rates for my area, car and drivers.
Sometimes ads are just wasted.
Not for the people who benefit from the free programming. Or the people who get paid thanks to those ads.
Ads are always wasted on some people but if they are good ads, they're not wasted on other people.
Good point; I find the Flo ads repulsive and will either skip them or switch channels when any of them come on... but landtuna finds them appealing. So there is certainly a degree of polarization even in ads.
the progressive insurance flo theme tune has become an audio earworm...but still doesn't mean I would buy from them because of a funny ad
.the progressive insurance flo theme tune has become an audio earworm...but still doesn't mean I would buy from them because of a funny ad
Which once again is why a lot of advertisers target younger people. Those who are more impressionable. Those who are looking for their first insurance company. The one they'll stay with their whole life. You're confirming exactly what advertisers believe about radio audiences.
That's a shame. It's one thing to argue with the sales team about selling things maybe you don't want them to sell. But to sell it to the advertiser and not deliver... that's pretty bad.
Perhaps I should have said "ads are always wasted on me".
My radio listening these days is via the 'net to an online stream from Cincy. It's an Oldies station with nothing but local ads (about a dozen regular ones). Since I don't live anywhere near there I couldn't support their advertisers if I wanted to. But I really appreciate their music. The ads, however, are wasted. The revenue isn't.
Advertisers who believe anyone, young or old, will stay with one company's product their whole life is kidding themselves - especially with the younger set. And any consumer who lives this way is a fool. Product quality comes and goes and when it goes it's time to switch. Staying with one company, such as insurance, is one way to guarantee you will get screwed on premium costs - and the companies admit it. The only way to keep companies honest is to invite competition into their lives - by switching from time to time.
I generally love the Budweiser ads but I never drink their beer.
Likewise the old VW ads. Best in the business but their cars suck.
You don't count for revenue for them, and they can see from your isp address that you're not local. So they know you're a cost, not a revenue provider. If it becomes too costly, they might block out of state streams.
Statistically you'd be surprised how many do. Consumers are lazy, even when it costs them money.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Enough Ads
Unfortunately better programming will not win with advertisers. They just buy numbers. To get numbers you have to lose dollars to get that 'better programming' meaning less of a commercial load. The note payment and all other costs have to be paid in the meantime and something you might not have considered, the lender watches how you run the business. If you're turning away dollars they might call the note. Don't expect your competitors to jump on the bandwagon but rather point and laugh as they run with your dollars and exclaim you haven't a brain in a certain part of your anatomy.
Commercials, whether we zone out or not get in your head anyway. Ever heard a song you weren't listening to but it got stuck in your head?
If someone was to try the 'plan' spoken about on this thread, it would mean refusing income and intentionally taking a loss. The rebel usually makes a point but never wins, if you think about it. To be in the game, you have to play the game. The formula is bigger than 1 station or 100 stations or 500 stations. Simply put it means changing the way the advertising world works.
The biggest thing to consider is radio stations typically are not in a situation where they're making so much money they have to hire somebody to laugh for them all the way to the bank. Most stations are never far from not having enough income and the fight is hard fought for those dollars. Not much is off the table to win the buy. If they are making money there's usually thousands of stockholders ready to scream if you perform poorly.
We could say if the commercial was better we might be okay with that but this isn't too easy to pull off either because the buyer gets to dictate not the recipient of the buy. In direct to business sales you'd be amazed how many think they know everything about advertising and how many think they have the perfect voice to do their commercial. When the sales person has to eat and might lose their job by saying no, contracts are signed while biting your tongue. Anyway the station really needs that income. That is more the norm than you'd think.
Pretty much the advertiser, the programmer, the manager and even the investors are in a situation that was about like it was when we played records in radio and your program director told you that you follow the music rotation without fail and always play the top record in the stack. You're told if you won't do it, they'll hire someone who will. The investor knows how much to expect in income. The programming has been proven to be the right choice for the market and the people hired are to achieve "X" without excuses while having your hands tied behind your back. This is very much a reality in radio. That box you can play around in doesn't have much elbow room and looks at something unproven as pure evil.
Unfortunately better programming will not win with advertisers. They just buy numbers. To get numbers you have to lose dollars to get that 'better programming' meaning less of a commercial load. The note payment and all other costs have to be paid in the meantime and something you might not have considered, the lender watches how you run the business. If you're turning away dollars they might call the note. Don't expect your competitors to jump on the bandwagon but rather point and laugh as they run with your dollars and exclaim you haven't a brain in a certain part of your anatomy.
Commercials, whether we zone out or not get in your head anyway. Ever heard a song you weren't listening to but it got stuck in your head?
If someone was to try the 'plan' spoken about on this thread, it would mean refusing income and intentionally taking a loss. The rebel usually makes a point but never wins, if you think about it. To be in the game, you have to play the game. The formula is bigger than 1 station or 100 stations or 500 stations. Simply put it means changing the way the advertising world works.
The biggest thing to consider is radio stations typically are not in a situation where they're making so much money they have to hire somebody to laugh for them all the way to the bank. Most stations are never far from not having enough income and the fight is hard fought for those dollars. Not much is off the table to win the buy. If they are making money there's usually thousands of stockholders ready to scream if you perform poorly.
We could say if the commercial was better we might be okay with that but this isn't too easy to pull off either because the buyer gets to dictate not the recipient of the buy. In direct to business sales you'd be amazed how many think they know everything about advertising and how many think they have the perfect voice to do their commercial. When the sales person has to eat and might lose their job by saying no, contracts are signed while biting your tongue. Anyway the station really needs that income. That is more the norm than you'd think.
Pretty much the advertiser, the programmer, the manager and even the investors are in a situation that was about like it was when we played records in radio and your program director told you that you follow the music rotation without fail and always play the top record in the stack. You're told if you won't do it, they'll hire someone who will. The investor knows how much to expect in income. The programming has been proven to be the right choice for the market and the people hired are to achieve "X" without excuses while having your hands tied behind your back. This is very much a reality in radio. That box you can play around in doesn't have much elbow room and looks at something unproven as pure evil.
How many people stay with one product for life? What study? What percentage?
If the number is significant the roads should be full of Pontiacs and Plymouths. Even companies with extreme brand loyalty like Anheuser Busch have to keep adding new flavors of Bud and updating the packaging to keep customers engaged.
Huh?
You're missing the point. I never said they'd pay a higher rate for fewer ads. I don't even know what that means -- the rate is one thing, frequency is another. I said they would pay a higher rate for more impressions. Fewer ads (and better programming) should result in a bigger audience and therefore more impressions per spot.
I'm not saying the tradeoff would necessarily result in more revenue. If you read my posts you'll notice that the only claim I make is that there is an inverse relationship between spot rates and program quality.
Read your post. You say advertisers buy Imus or Gambling. I doubt very much advertisers are buying Rick Kaminski.
As I said, there's no connection between "better programming" and audience size. People listen to what they like, regardless of perceived quality or amount of advertising. Impressions are not strictly a function of people listening to one airing of a spot, but by multiple plays in different dayparts, reaching different people. Any advertiser will tell you that buying one spot on a station, regardless of the audience size, is a waste of time. You need to tell them over and over and over again for your message to make an impression.
Do you have an example where what you say is being done? I gave examples where quality programming is being done with no commercials, and it doesn't result in more listeners.
They're not doing that to keep their existing customers. They're doing that to attract NEW customers.
Last edited:
U
Unregistered
Guest
Enough Ads
AA few things I will point out that have not been stated.
I believe Wadio is trying to say better programming may mean a larger audience and thus a higher spot rate in regard to the cost per point ratio. I doubt that would lower the number of commercials per hour since if you are doing that well, more want to be on your station and any business owner tends to not turn away business and money when they are trying to be successful.
The Big A makes a great point in that non-commercial radio is listener based versus advertising based in focus and has not produced market leaders in regard to the size of the audience they attract. It might be me, but I see public radio and commercial radio as apples and oranges. I tend to think of public radio looking to serve a specific part of the market that will feel strongly enough about their preferred style of radio being available to them locally that they will pay to keep it viable. Commercial radio seems to say we have X number in this demographic formula and we want every one of them if we can get them, so we will be the top station or one of the top stations that is always on the advertising agency's buy sheet. In other words, I see public radio as not striving to be a market leader but commercial radio tends to want to own that segment of the market.
Now, what if somebody tried to do what Wadio suggests? The question is if it can be done and more importantly, if it can be done, what is the debt load going to be. For example, I manage an AM station in a top 10 market. I had to find the best way to make the station financially viable. Simply put, how can I get enough revenue as quickly as possible to reach a point of making a profit. The least time it takes the closer you are to profit. Time will kill your chances because you keep building that loss day after day until you reach that point and there is a very real point where investors say it is a lost cause or a very real point where the debt can never be recovered with your plan.
I had folks trying to get me to change format to oldies. Truth is I'd love to. I explained my current operation and what oldies would cost. When you look at the expense in the monthly budget versus the income potential and the time it will take to reach breakeven, you could easily run things up into the millions. But your potential in income would barely pay the interest on the initial outlay of cash and if you did better, then another station, whether it be a better AM signal or an FM that is hungry would steal your format because you are making money. Now your income pie is split and your chances to recover all that start up cost will likely never happen. That leaves you hopping to another format and the investment dollars keep increasing as you take shots in the dark trying for format and income success. Simply put, the fastest and easiest way with the least expense means there is a better profit potential. And, that's the route you take.
But before you complain put this scenario to play with your home, your car, etc. Would you spend $5,000 on a $2,000 car or put $100,000 in improvements on a home worth $70,000 in a neighborhood of $70,000 homes? And if you bought a house for $50,000 in that $70,000 home neighborhood, how much money would you invest? You'd need to spend as little as you can and the time it takes to sell directly affects your profit after you deduct those monthly house payments. You can see, radio is much like this. You have to get out what you put in and then some. When you can't that means foreclosure if you can't pay for the home.
People hate that last statement and spout "You're licensed to serve the community". The reality is I am. I'm just not serving your segment of the community. In a major market no one station can serve all the people, so you carve out your slice of the pie. But here is the most important fact: if you don't make enough to keep the bills paid, you are silent, dark, and your service to the community is how many can hear you when you yell at the tower site.
Success in business, which applies to radio and public radio too, is determined not so much on how well you are programmed but whether you can pay the bills and have some overage in the bank to pay for those emergencies that seem to happen all too frequently. I know that is harsh but it is very real world.
AA few things I will point out that have not been stated.
I believe Wadio is trying to say better programming may mean a larger audience and thus a higher spot rate in regard to the cost per point ratio. I doubt that would lower the number of commercials per hour since if you are doing that well, more want to be on your station and any business owner tends to not turn away business and money when they are trying to be successful.
The Big A makes a great point in that non-commercial radio is listener based versus advertising based in focus and has not produced market leaders in regard to the size of the audience they attract. It might be me, but I see public radio and commercial radio as apples and oranges. I tend to think of public radio looking to serve a specific part of the market that will feel strongly enough about their preferred style of radio being available to them locally that they will pay to keep it viable. Commercial radio seems to say we have X number in this demographic formula and we want every one of them if we can get them, so we will be the top station or one of the top stations that is always on the advertising agency's buy sheet. In other words, I see public radio as not striving to be a market leader but commercial radio tends to want to own that segment of the market.
Now, what if somebody tried to do what Wadio suggests? The question is if it can be done and more importantly, if it can be done, what is the debt load going to be. For example, I manage an AM station in a top 10 market. I had to find the best way to make the station financially viable. Simply put, how can I get enough revenue as quickly as possible to reach a point of making a profit. The least time it takes the closer you are to profit. Time will kill your chances because you keep building that loss day after day until you reach that point and there is a very real point where investors say it is a lost cause or a very real point where the debt can never be recovered with your plan.
I had folks trying to get me to change format to oldies. Truth is I'd love to. I explained my current operation and what oldies would cost. When you look at the expense in the monthly budget versus the income potential and the time it will take to reach breakeven, you could easily run things up into the millions. But your potential in income would barely pay the interest on the initial outlay of cash and if you did better, then another station, whether it be a better AM signal or an FM that is hungry would steal your format because you are making money. Now your income pie is split and your chances to recover all that start up cost will likely never happen. That leaves you hopping to another format and the investment dollars keep increasing as you take shots in the dark trying for format and income success. Simply put, the fastest and easiest way with the least expense means there is a better profit potential. And, that's the route you take.
But before you complain put this scenario to play with your home, your car, etc. Would you spend $5,000 on a $2,000 car or put $100,000 in improvements on a home worth $70,000 in a neighborhood of $70,000 homes? And if you bought a house for $50,000 in that $70,000 home neighborhood, how much money would you invest? You'd need to spend as little as you can and the time it takes to sell directly affects your profit after you deduct those monthly house payments. You can see, radio is much like this. You have to get out what you put in and then some. When you can't that means foreclosure if you can't pay for the home.
People hate that last statement and spout "You're licensed to serve the community". The reality is I am. I'm just not serving your segment of the community. In a major market no one station can serve all the people, so you carve out your slice of the pie. But here is the most important fact: if you don't make enough to keep the bills paid, you are silent, dark, and your service to the community is how many can hear you when you yell at the tower site.
Success in business, which applies to radio and public radio too, is determined not so much on how well you are programmed but whether you can pay the bills and have some overage in the bank to pay for those emergencies that seem to happen all too frequently. I know that is harsh but it is very real world.
As I read this I could hear Dennis Haysbert say "Allstate".
of course, that was just MY Opinion, let me reiterate. My guess is he just forgets half the time, because he's been doing the one tag thing for so long
.WDJO is a great station, one that is on my TuneIn Radio Pro and I record a lot of them. I do get a kick out of their ads too. Their spot rates must be fun to know about
Last edited:
- Status