They've had the opportunity to go with that format in several other places where they've flipped formats, and they haven't.
-
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
Entercom
- Thread starter CassChopper96
- Start date
They've had the opportunity to go with that format in several other places where they've flipped formats, and they haven't.
Hey, everybody! let's play High / Low with radio station prices. $800 thousand?! You're too lowwwww.
The value of 107.7 *may* have depreciated, but c'mon man, not that much. And really, can you imagine Entercom corporate taking a $9 million haircut? Not hardly. Not even as a tax write off or write down.
But can you sell it? That's an "at work" format and 107.7 just doesn't penetrate Buffalo-core big buildings where, at least up until March 15th, most workers were housed. Besides, there's already WHTT, the Breeze and WECK providing formats serving that demo. Maybe they can sell it in Rochester.
The fundamental error with 107.7 may be that it's always thought to be a Buffalo signal. The station blasts into Batavia, Medina, LeRoy, Brockport, the East and West Side of Rochester, and comes in strong from Brighton to Irondequoit. Think outside the box. Scrap the Buffalo connection and tie it into Rochester. This calls up the suggestion from SirRoxalot, "Bundle it as classic country with WBEE." Problem is, that looks better on paper than in reality because Classic Country might take the top end off of WBEE, which for all intents and purposes, owns the whole demographic spectrum. So why mess with success? Too risky.
Back to Buffalo. Country on 107.7 to challenge WYRK? Again? WYRK plowed it under last time like a John Deere tilling soil on and Eden cornfield. Take two?
You can see how that exact situation works for Cox in Houston.
It would depend on who owned it and their approach to the country format. WNUC tried to go after the same audience (maybe slightly younger with the 'New' country approach) as WYRK had sewed up rather than playing to the strengths of where the signal actually covered. If it's Buddy that's going after the 107.7 signal with country in mind, since he worked there when Casciani owned it (and arguably was the best fit for country among the air staff back then), he certainly knows what the reasons were for the lack of success. Based on the WECK track record one would have to imagine that he would have calculated a far better approach to country on 107.7 than to go with what failed in the 90's.
If that's what is going on.
B
Buddy Shula
Guest
I can answer all of these questions for you, but I won't. I will say this. I worked at WNUC and WYRK did not PLOW over it. NUC at that frequency had 100,000 Cume TSA. We did not start subscribing to Arbitron until late. It's a regional station. Much like we are doing with More 101.1FM right now. As far as the price, ETM way over-paid....that's all I will say on that. Stay tuned. Randy Travis and Clint Black will be proud...just like they were on The Farm.
B
Buddy Shula
Guest
For once, your just about right.
Cox's (Terrier now, for some unexplained naming philosophy... a terrier is a dog, and who wants a "dog" radio station) main country billed nearly $16 million last year, and the classic country did less than $1 million. Entercom's country station did about $19 million to lead in that category and to be third in the market.
Obviously, the KTHT "Country Legends" signal hits less than a fifth of the market adequately, so that is a factor.
Last edited:
I checked Orlando's ratings, uncertain what I am permitted to post [ error on the side of caution ] and the alt. format is only yielding a low rating ( less than 2 ) - the cup isn't half empty, it's only ⅙ full
I thought my reply was going to a comment on an earlier page by TVEngineerArk about holding onto underwhelming / zero results stations owned by Entercom..
And to think just two months ago a certain somebody was bitching about the inaccuracy of the (Nielsen) ratings, how much they cost, how even the Nielsen rep couldn't explain them and having no intention to renew.
BTW, what's the definition of "player" this trend and last two months?
When he was CEO of Arbitron, Owen Charlebois told me once that there were three kinds of Arbitron subscribers...
First, the ones whose ratings had dropped a lot. They knew that it was all because of Arbitron's defective system.
Second, were those who had stayed the same. They thought that Arbitron was doing a good, stable job.
Third were those whose ratings had soared. Of course, that was due to good management and good programming at the station.
Nothing has changed.
B
Buddy Shula
Guest
My opinion of neilson and the facts neilson provides are two different things
B
Buddy Shula
Guest
Good or bad , neilson is the only metric we have. I do not agree at all with their outdated methodology. However, it’s all we got. I am not crowing about a 3.1 share. In fact, I think it should be higher because I know some demos are oversampled. So don’t try to be an ahole and audit everything I have said for the past 3 years. I think I have been pretty consistent. I do not think neilson diary is that correct. I would rather be in a PPP market. But my opinion of neilson has nothing to do with the numbers they send me each month. My gauge of audience is client results.
Even if some demos get over-sampled (sampling variances are common in the diary method), they are weighted up or down to achieve proportionality.
If a demo is, let's say, 27.5% of the population, but gets 34% of the diary returns, each diary is weighted down so that the total demo results are fully proportional.
In fact, between sampling and weighting, they get proportionality on all the stratification variables, including gender, age, ethnicity, income level, sample zone (county or HDBA / HDHA) and a bunch of other things.
The PPM is a better measurement, but vastly more expensive. But it has the disadvantage then when compared to the dairy, the listening by the average person is about 30-some percent less than shown in the diary. Nobody in the Top 50 markets really wanted the PPM... it was the agencies that pushed it. It cost all stations revenue in those markets, and increased the bill from Arbitron by about 60%.
I don't think you really want the PPM in Buffalo. Were I an owner there, I would not want the extra expense and the reduction of AQH persons that hit every station.
So be careful what you wish for.
The only thing you forgot to mention, David, is that undersampling is rampant on both diaries and PPM. We've all seen instances where a single book or single household was thrown out and the revised ratings were markedly different.
Reality is that it's the only system we have, and a single book doesn't tell us much. One book can skew the numbers for that month and a few months afterward thanks to the three month rolling average. The margin for error is significant.
Reality is that it's the only system we have, and a single book doesn't tell us much. One book can skew the numbers for that month and a few months afterward thanks to the three month rolling average. The margin for error is significant.
The current sample sizes are what stations are willing to pay for and adequate for what advertisers need to make decisions.
Improving the results by the range of one standard error means quadrupling the sample.
Sample errors like what you describe are caused when the sample itself is not close to purely proportional, and excessive weighting is given to the few people in a cell. Increasing sample will not cure that... improving sample balance will.
The margin of error now is no different than it was for full every-three-month books before. The difference is that any 12-week period is going to be as balanced as possible, mostly via weighting, whereas only 1 out of every 3 12-week periods in the past was "accurate enough" based on the affordable sample size.
Remember that ad rates are set by the perceived value of the top few stations vs. the rates they charge. All the other stations establish rates that are rather proportional to their audience size, but it is the market leaders that set the top rates.
I know some demos are over-sampled Not dramatically. Go to the charts in the monthly report (they're nicely color coded) which clearly show the weighting of the demos. There may be a month, for example, when the sample for 25-34 Women was higher than the population. There are months when Men may return a higher sample than the specific population in a demo; but this is where weighting comes into play, the value of each diary is proportionately weighted up or down to correspond to the population. It's not that complex.
I am not crowing about a 3.1 share. No. You're crowing about cume. You're crowing. You always crow. You crow so much here your name could be The Crow Man. But I'll throw you a bone: You're entitled to crow. So caw-caw-crow away.
So don’t try to be an ahole and audit everything I have said for the past 3 years. Heh, heh... I've been called far worse by far better. You should consider it a compliment when and if people actually recall what you write here. One of the neat features of this board is a search option.
B
Buddy Shula
Guest
Let the results speak for themselves. I did not start a ratings conversation about WECK, someone else did. When WECK's cume is bigger than some 50,000-90,000 watt stations that cover 7 counties, including Erie and Niagara, and 90% of WECK cume is from Erie County only, that IS something to crow about. Your beef should be about why the many larger signal stations are not doing better. I know why. Do you?
I am reporting what is in front of my eyes on Neilson. If i owed a 50,000 watt station, wall-street funded FM and was being beat by a locally owned 1KW AM that covers one county, i would not be happy. Fact is, the stations we are beating or coming close to should be hanging their head in shame. WECK is now in the same league as any 3-5 share station. Then you have your mammoth league....WYRK, WBLK, WBEN, WGRF.
Also, now that WECK is solidified and I am not just speculating like I was 3 years ago when i bought it, in July, WECK will have a 3.5 share. Keep that on your search for comments button. I have seen the trends.
With our current 3.1, WECK would be a top 6 station in Rochester. 1 KW AM!!!!! Get over yourself and realize that I care about radio....a lot. I am also a fierce competitor. I think other stations may have lost the fire in the belly. Not all, but many.
So there, I threw you a bone and wrote back to you. Stop reporting fake news, and deal with facts.
Over-sampling is not an issue... it is under-sampling where very few people respond and they are severely weighted up. I'd love to have consistent over-sampling as it makes the margin of error less.
- Status