• 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 To Rebrand as Audacy

boombox4 said:
it doesn't make it a good name for mass communications company.
Click to expand...

Does Disney make for a good name? If you didn't know the history, would you think the name of the founder was a good name? Before Disney owned ABC, it was owned by Capital Cities. Is that a good name for a communications company? How about Warner Media? OK Viacom has "com" in it, just like Entercom. None of these are particularly good names.
 
TheBigA said:
Does Disney make for a good name? If you didn't know the history, would you think the name of the founder was a good name? Before Disney owned ABC, it was owned by Capital Cities. Is that a good name for a communications company? How about Warner Media? OK Viacom has "com" in it, just like Entercom. None of these are particularly good names.
Click to expand...
Time/Life was the best possible name. Who wouldn't want those two words as trademarks? I just wonder how they were pried away from the Creator.
 
CTListener said:
Time/Life was the best possible name. Who wouldn't want those two words as trademarks? I just wonder how they were pried away from the Creator.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's been cheapened a bit. For the past few years when I've heard the name "Time-Life", I'd be expecting a commercial or full-length infomercial for DVDs, compilation CDs or mail order stuff. The DVDs in particular would usually be something of interest to my parents or older.
 
TheBigA said:
Does Disney make for a good name? If you didn't know the history, would you think the name of the founder was a good name? Before Disney owned ABC, it was owned by Capital Cities. Is that a good name for a communications company? How about Warner Media? OK Viacom has "com" in it, just like Entercom. None of these are particularly good names.
Click to expand...
Sure, Disney was a good name for a company. Even when it started. Easy to pronounce, phonetic, and instantly memorable. Same reason Warner Brothers is also a good name. Capitol, Reprise records. They were good names. Audacy not so much. If they spelled it Odyssey, perhaps it would be a stronger name for a company. Technically, Audacy is phonetic, but just is an odd name. Like I said, when people in the business are scratching their head, trying to guess how a word is pronounced, that's not a sign of the best name you could find for your company.

But like I said, I don't really care. I just find it to be a curiosity, and nothing more. I'm sure they won't lose any radio business over it.
 
boombox4 said:
Sure, Disney was a good name for a company. Even when it started. Easy to pronounce, phonetic, and instantly memorable. Same reason Warner Brothers is also a good name. Capitol, Reprise records. They were good names. Audacy not so much. If they spelled it Odyssey, perhaps it would be a stronger name for a company. Technically, Audacy is phonetic, but just is an odd name. Like I said, when people in the business are scratching their head, trying to guess how a word is pronounced, that's not a sign of the best name you could find for your company.
Click to expand...
How about names like Sturm Ruger? (symb: RGR) Momo? (symb: MOMO) Southwest Airlines (symb: LUV)

There are literally hundreds more who's parent companies you probably don't recognize, yet use their products or services on a regular basis.
 
boombox4 said:
Sure, Disney was a good name for a company. Even when it started. Easy to pronounce, phonetic, and instantly memorable. Same reason Warner Brothers is also a good name. Capitol, Reprise records. They were good names. Audacy not so much. If they spelled it Odyssey, perhaps it would be a stronger name for a company. Technically, Audacy is phonetic, but just is an odd name. Like I said, when people in the business are scratching their head, trying to guess how a word is pronounced, that's not a sign of the best name you could find for your company.

But like I said, I don't really care. I just find it to be a curiosity, and nothing more. I'm sure they won't lose any radio business over it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. Speaking of which, I think “Curiosity” would have been a better company name than Audacity!
 
wadio said:
But some say Repreeze, some say Reprize.
Click to expand...
And Capitol was such a strong name that, when Jimmy Bowen was given the reins at Capitol Nashville, one of the first things he did was rebrand it Liberty, reviving an old name. Many of Garth Brooks' best-selling albums were on Liberty rather than Capitol.
 
I get Entercom changing their corporate name. Entercom always reminded me of the old home intercom systems. I don’t know how much they spent on researching “AUDACY” but for a cool $2.5 million (US) they could have AUDIO.COM*. That would pass spell check, and is a relatively common word in the English language. If you put a dollar value in the time spent spelling “audacy” at station ID instead of commercials maybe 5 seconds x 24 hours equals 120 seconds or 4 second 30 second commercials on around 230+ stations daily equals around 920 30 sec, spots. I realize there is not a large demand for 5 second commercials but time is money in broadcasting. $2.5 million is cheap might be cheap over the years.



*Audio.com | Domain Name For Sale | Uni Market
 
secondchoice said:
I get Entercom changing their corporate name. Entercom always reminded me of the old home intercom systems. I don’t know how much they spent on researching “AUDACY” but for a cool $2.5 million (US) they could have AUDIO.COM*. That would pass spell check, and is a relatively common word in the English language. If you put a dollar value in the time spent spelling “audacy” at station ID instead of commercials maybe 5 seconds x 24 hours equals 120 seconds or 4 second 30 second commercials on around 230+ stations daily equals around 920 30 sec, spots. I realize there is not a large demand for 5 second commercials but time is money in broadcasting. $2.5 million is cheap might be cheap over the years.
Click to expand...
I doubt they care about announcing their listed corporate name on the air. That name ultimately faces investors, not your average listener. That, and I wouldn't want to dilute any station branding by adding additional corporate names.
Maybe they don't want to be pigeon-holed into being associated with just "AUDIO". Radio has been their bread and butter since the beginning. If you're going to bother renaming the company, why not leave it open-ended with an eye toward digital and other products and services which represent the future?
 
Kelly A said:
I doubt they care about announcing their listed corporate name on the air. That name ultimately faces investors, not your average listener. That, and I wouldn't want to dilute any station branding by adding additional corporate names.
Click to expand...
Then they shouldn't have renamed their streaming platform.
 
Does anybody else think they are in a state of disarray over there? I can't think of any station they own that sounds good (especially the alternative ones) and most of their ratings are poor.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom