do you think both stations will see ratings growth now that WAAF is gone. New York City, Boston, Chicago and Denver Colorado are now the markets in the country that now have no active rock station at all
-
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
WBOS WZLX
- Thread starter CassChopper96
- Start date
but classic rock is doing very well in denver, boston and chicago still
Not that I think that they will do this, but there is the opening for WBOS to segue into a mainstream/active rock format, now that there is an opening. They already share a morning show with rocker WRIF/Detroit, and Beasley does have several other successful rockers, namely WMMR/Philly and WDHA/Morristown. That may be a possibility, but not in the immediate future.
Jacko
Jacko
Yeah I don’t think WZLX is changing. WBOS might become active rock
They're getting the best numbers now they've had in years. Why would they screw with that?
They won't, certainly not to play music that the labels don't care about anymore and that few radio listeners in Boston have shown interest in for years.
There seems to be a contrarian opinion that goes something like, "There's a HUGE number of people listening to new rock, but they've been so completely turned off by big corporate radio that they only listen online or via satellite radio. If they only had a really cool station like (name of webcaster or SiriusXM channel) on FM, there'd be a flood of new listeners." Problem is, even small corporate radio can't gamble on switching from profitable music with a nice audience to a format that plays music for which there's no empirical evidence of sufficient popularity to interest advertisers.
KLOS is screwing with that right now. They're one step away from flipping to a mainstream/active.
And honestly, why not go for the jugular? Risk-aversion is what's gotten rock radio to its current point anyway.
With active rock, in the last decade, a little too much emphasis is being placed on the older bands. You have to be a bit more active and incorporate more of the new and younger groups again. It's all about the mix, step it up a little. That would certainly help.
There's a lack of artist development that existed with the previous generation. That means getting to know the bands better, because if you don't, there's no context. It's bad enough when they don't get label support at shows, but then there's not as much social media support happening as you see in other genres. I can understand if they're touring all the time they can't post on Twitter, but you can pay someone to do it. Just playing the music without a story or narrative doesn't work. The narrative gets the fans more involved. They used to think about that more at one time.
This is actually what's helped Dirty Honey and Badflower blow up (the former band is still unsigned, of all things), though neither band has managed to successfully cross over to Alternative much less mainstream pop/AC. (Yes, I know Badflower has charted on Alternative twice but neither entry was a hit). Their stories, their pasts, their outreach to their fans got them to where they are.
That's funny. There were far fewer formats, far less risk, and far more greed in the 60s.
Consider beautiful music as a format. How much risk in playing the Living Marimbas and 101 Strings? Sleepy & dull, but very profitable.
Consider talk radio in the 60s & 70s. With all of the polarization, all of the controversy, all of the riots, and none of it was on the radio.
Radio is a one-to-many medium in an increasingly one-to-me environment.
To survive, stations have to make sure that songs are mass appeal within their particular format, and that the format itself has broad enough appeal to be attractive.
That generally means that radio is a simple, easy to use curated format that "plays all the songs I like".
Stations that do not do that get ratings so low that they don't have enough listeners to look good in ratings and to "ring the cash register" for clients.
A way of looking at is "every time I listened to them, they were playing a song I had never heard before or one I didn't like". That is a near quote from a one-on-one interview I was in recently; the listener quit using the station as it did not play songs they like and ones they could sing along with in typical LA traffic.
That is the opposite of "risk aversion". It is synonymous with "death".
And in case you didn't know, since the early 20's... nineteen twenties, I mean... radio has been commercial in its majority in this whole hemisphere. The reason someone builds or buys a station is to make money. Playing lots of unfamiliar songs by unknown artists does not make money.
And, in case you did not know, essentially all on-line audio streaming "stations" are not profitable. Does that lead you to a conclusion of sorts?
That perhaps the royalty structure makes it impossible to turn a profit on a streaming "station?"
I know it wasn't your point. But...
Actually, it is a fundamental base to my point. Streaming digital audio, as it exists today, can't make money. The only way to turn a profit is by increasing the charge, and that will not likely happen until the herd is thinned out a lot.
The same thing happened with satellite radio. When the two companies merged into a monopoly, they became profitable.
Agreed.
But isn't it true that what makes it "not profitable" as it stands isn't something merging companies, or anything on the "radio" side will fix?
Until the rights holders deal in fairness with broadcasters, I don't see how this changes. And in the meantime, by not working with broadcasters, they damage the relationship.
But isn't it true that what makes it "not profitable" as it stands isn't something merging companies, or anything on the "radio" side will fix?
Until the rights holders deal in fairness with broadcasters, I don't see how this changes. And in the meantime, by not working with broadcasters, they damage the relationship.
They feel it's the other way around. They feel broadcasters aren't dealing fairly with them.
They also feel they're following the law. They don't set the royalty rates. They're set by royalty judges at the Library of Congress.
Streaming companies will have to offer other profitable services that support or build on streaming. I would imagine that's why Liberty Media, majority owner of SiriusXM, invested in Pandora and iHeart.
The herd of commercial streamers will likely thin out, but there will always be 'pirate' streamers who don't pay the royalties. Those pirates will be supported by listeners who understand that the royalty structure is designed to keep out smaller players. As such, there will always be niche streamers willing to program to tens or low hundreds of listeners as a labor of love. The pirates' effect on commercial streamers will be minimal, unless commercials streamers launch niche channels despite the additional royalty load.
Either way, those of us who enjoy audio entertainment beyond the lowest common denominator fare should be able to find streams that serve our interests, whether the royalties are fair to small operators or not.
- Status