Fans of these artists whose careers are built around their live show are not interested in format radio. Their music fix is handled by these Sirius channels or other online services. The problem I see is that more alternative bands are building those kinds of fan bases. Their livelihood is based on it. They're being managed in that direction, to super-serve your fans, give them inside access to things, and they'll support the band on the road. Radio isn't part of the equation. Back in the 80s, bands would visit radio stations to promote their records and shows. Now they use Twitter and social media to interact directly. They don't need an intermediary. So it's less likely that alternative format radio stations will attract the kind of listenership they once received. At least as far as current bands are concerned.
-
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
The ratings are out for los angeles.
- Thread starter hotpatrick2004
- Start date
Fans of these artists whose careers are built around their live show are not interested in format radio. Their music fix is handled by these Sirius channels or other online services. The problem I see is that more alternative bands are building those kinds of fan bases. Their livelihood is based on it. They're being managed in that direction, to super-serve your fans, give them inside access to things, and they'll support the band on the road. Radio isn't part of the equation. Back in the 80s, bands would visit radio stations to promote their records and shows. Now they use Twitter and social media to interact directly. They don't need an intermediary. So it's less likely that alternative format radio stations will attract the kind of listenership they once received. At least as far as current bands are concerned.
The Dead and Springsteen are just 2 examples. Dave Matthews has a huge following and gets almost no airplay on commercial Radio. "Classic" Alternative artists like R.E.M., Elvis Costello, Cure, 10,000 Maniacs, etc...are not on many radio playlists. The current "Alternative" format is hardly that. It's Pop music, not Rock oriented.
Many people in the 40-55 year old demos would welcome a Classic Alternative format. It almost certainly would get better ratings. A competent sales staff should be able to monetize it...
Maybe not the 80s stuff, but it's not unusual to see 90s alt mixed in with currents. I've seen Nirvana and that kind of thing. But the format is changing because the harder stuff simply doesn't work on the radio.
Alternative was never more than a 5% format, so saying "many" would be more accurate using the word "some".
In much of the country, that figure was well below 5%... alternative was never a good smaller market format.
So, take the 40-54's who liked 80's and 90's alternative who have not moved on is a very small slice. And if you recognize the point BigA makes frequently that alternative has always been a polarized, fragmented format, you know that today a large percentage of those remaining partisans use on-demand and personal playlists to hear the bands and songs they like.
It's no even a 1-share format. And a competent sales staff can't sell a bad delivery system.
Which, by the way, is why a lot of the current alt has become more pop (as you say) rather than rock. The hard rockers stay in their own world and dislike the pop. But you can attract a bit of an audience with alt-pop. And the bands like it because pop makes more money than traditional alt. But even with the pop-alt, it's a bit of work to get a 2 share in some places. I think LA's history of hair bands makes this pop-oriented alt work. I listen to some of this, and I'm reminded of Poison.
FWIW, that format failed in Seattle, which -- being the birthplace of grunge -- should be super into classic alternative. The format is carried by a small college station about 25 miles south of town, on 1330 AM (KGRG-1).
Are you saying Radio is a "bad delivery system"?
I'm saying that 40-55 year olds who like 80s & 90s Alternative (And even select 60s - 70s artists) would support a commercial station that played them. If the current Alternative format cannot find an audience or generate revenue, try something else. It sounds like your saying the "too cool for the room" crowd thinks radio sucks and will never come back...
I'm saying that 40-55 year olds who like 80s & 90s Alternative (And even select 60s - 70s artists) would support a commercial station that played them. If the current Alternative format cannot find an audience or generate revenue, try something else. It sounds like your saying the "too cool for the room" crowd thinks radio sucks and will never come back...
Those people are being taken care of in most places with other formats.
What everyone is trying to tell you is that alt wasn't mass appeal music in the '80s and '90s. Much of the age group that strongly supported rock in decades past decided that rap and other pure rhythmic genres were more fun to listen to than rock, which had become old hat and stale and didn't convey the sense of rebellion and danger and "keeping it real" that rap did. Suburban teens used to be rock's happy hunting ground. Now they're just as likely to have the inner-city sound of hip-hop playing, maybe even moreso. RIP, rock, you had a damned good run.
ALT was not mass appeal? Ever heard of Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Dave Matthews, R.E.M., etc... Those bands were huge and sold a lot of records and tickets. Dave Matthews still sells out arenas, so he must "keep it real" as you say.
ALT as a Radio format was not a #1 station, but it was still viable. The point is that the current "Alternative" formats that exist are struggling. It's being rejected by the prize demos they want to reach...
As I've been saying in this thread, the current bands aren't as big as the ones you mention. It's becoming more underground. Meanwhile there are other genres that are growing and strengthening.
No, I am saying that a low rated station does not do a good job of delivering potential customers to advertisers.
No. I am saying that many who liked 80's and 90's alt have moved on, so the base is lower. And alternative has always been a fragmented-core format. That worked when there were few other ways of getting alt rock. Today, that is not so.
Somewhat disagree re. Bruce Springsteen. Free-form, progressive and later AOR formats clearly helped build Bruce's career. This was also true for The Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews, Jimmy Buffett...all of them. As people aged and those formats essentially disappeared, fans continued to go to the shows..why? Because these artists absolutely delivered great shows in concert. Their legacies were cemented and radio play was no longer necessary to sustain their popularity. Arcade Fire might be the last example of this. Agree that with ALT and Rock disappearing from the airwaves, other vehicles are being used to get an artist established. To us older folks, it's somewhat of a surprise to see shows sell out 15K arenas without any local radio play. Times have changed, but talented artists are still finding away to get seen.
My view is that Alt & Rock haven't completely disappeared yet, but you're right that artists are using other means to reach fans. My question is will they be as effective long term as radio was for Springsteen, Dead, Buffett, etc? Maybe it doesn't matter. But bands don't use radio as much, and labels have cut back on radio promo, and it's hurting the genre, as people are listening more to other styles of music.
Somewhat related to this is a research study from Coleman Insights talking about music consumption. It says Rhythmic R&B, Country, and pop are the most consumed forms of music, while Alt & Rock only receive single digits.
http://colemaninsights.com/?p=3333&preview=1&_ppp=33b70abf0a
The upside is that while rock & alt audiences are smaller, they're passionate, which may explain why radio stations stick with the format, even though it underperforms in ratings.
Last edited:
Do you have any similar numbers from alt's heyday (late '80s/early and mid '90s), which coincided with the rise of hip-hop? How much did the presence of singles by alternative rock acts on CHR radio help, or did the splintering of CHR into rhythmic and rock decrease the impact of that airplay? In other words, how mainstream-popular were polarizing bands like Nirvana and Stone Temple Pilots in the first place?
Interesting questions. My sense is it's a blessing and a curse. The CHR airplay comes with a price: Fans that aren't as dedicated and music that's seen as a bit more commercial. So it will increase popularity with one group, while decreasing popularity with the core rock audience. Then how does it effect radio? You're basically stealing from one genre to populate another.
Can't answer the radio part of it but I recall that during the 1990's bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and STP got airplay on several formats at once (Modern Rock, CHR (Nirvana), Mainstream Rock, Active Rock) and it only helped consolidate the artists in the eyes of the music buying public. There aren't that many, if any, artists that go that far across genres now -- at least included in the rock genre.
- Status