July '21 ratings

[ckg279]

(As noted by All Access and Radio Online. 12+ only.)

*WYRK reclaims the #1 title with a 9.2 .
*WBLK drops to second with an 8.8 .
*In third place: WGRF with a 7.7 .
*WBEN drops to 4th with a 7.4(down 1.3) . (As a bit of a companion to this, WBFO continues its drop to a 3.3 in this book, down .3 . This may well be a malaise in news-talk overall compared to last year.)
*WHTT locks in at #5 with a 5.1

Also:

-If you're wondering, the Wolf is STILL muzzled ratings-wise: .7, no change from the last book.
-Not many people want to rock out with WBUF; it dropped to a 1.9 .

Add your own observations.

 

[davideduardo]

(As noted by All Access and Radio Online. 12+ only.)

*WYRK reclaims the #1 title with a 9.2 .
*WBLK drops to second with an 8.8 .
*In third place: WGRF with a 7.7 .
*WBEN drops to 4th with a 7.4(down 1.3) . (As a bit of a companion to this, WBFO continues its drop to a 3.3 in this book, down .3 . This may well be a malaise in news-talk overall compared to last year.)
*WHTT locks in at #5 with a 5.1

Also:

-If you're wondering, the Wolf is STILL muzzled ratings-wise: .7, no change from the last book.
-Not many people want to rock out with WBUF; it dropped to a 1.9 .

Add your own observations.

An 8.8 is the same as a 9.2. A 7.7 is likely within one Standard Error of an 8.8, too.

Remember, agencies don't buy based on share. They buy using ratings or, increasingly, AQH persons. The ratings of WYRK, WBLK and WGRF are quite possibly the same. One tenth of a rating point is equal to about a 1.2 to 1.3 share in most markets, depending on the market PUR and PUMM.

 

[TheBigA]

Plus remember these are three month trends, not just one month.

 

[tbolt909]

Remember, agencies don't buy based on share. They buy using ratings or, increasingly, AQH persons. The ratings of WYRK, WBLK and WGRF are quite possibly the same. One tenth of a rating point is equal to about a 1.2 to 1.3 share in most markets, depending on the market PUR and PUMM.

I thought PUR and PUMM were brands of Cat Food.

The Wolf 107.7 is roadkill on that lonely Country Road posting a 0.7. Meanwhile, WBUF is not a player at all for Classic Rockers. The Bud Light drinkers aren't straying from their dive bar known as WGRF.
Townsquare has miscalculated thinking that another Classic Rock clone will excite anyone...

 

[davideduardo]

I thought PUR and PUMM were brands of Cat Food.

Funny. Persons Using Radio and Persons Using Mass Media are standard industry terms.

The Wolf 107.7 is roadkill on that lonely Country Road posting a 0.7.

The Buffalo July book is really May, June and July (as BigA said already before you posted). Too soon to tell.

Meanwhile, WBUF is not a player at all for Classic Rockers. The Bud Light drinkers aren't straying from their dive bar known as WGRF.
Townsquare has miscalculated thinking that another Classic Rock clone will excite anyone...

Townsquare is one of the most successful radio operators now... its profits have been increasing and it combines radio formats with new media, so the thing to judge with that company is its bottom line, not radio ratings. They know how to combine new and old media, and they likely do it better than anybody.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Interesting, but no big surprises, although WBEN's slip may portend something in the future. Rush is gone and WBEN chose to go local to fill that block. Beach is gone, too. So who knows. Let's see how this plays out in the Fall, maybe the Summer book (July-August-September) at the earliest. Until then, carry on.

 

[Buddy Shula]

1 KW AM WECK up to a 3.2 (4.6 unweighted ). Besting WEDG, WBUF, WLKK…TIED FOR 10TH WITH WBFO. Nobody mentioned that. Wonder why.

 

[tbolt909]

1 KW AM WECK up to a 3.2 (4.6 unweighted ). Besting WEDG, WBUF, WLKK…TIED FOR 10TH WITH WBFO. Nobody mentioned that. Wonder why.

You just mentioned it. By the way, Unweighted numbers have no value. A 3.2 is not close to a 5 share, but it is quite respectable for an AM Oldies format. As others constantly point out, older demos are not as saleable. They are the ones still using Radio though...

 

[RadioGuy1864]

You just mentioned it. By the way, Unweighted numbers have no value. A 3.2 is not close to a 5 share, but it is quite respectable for an AM Oldies format. As others constantly point out, older demos are not as saleable. They are the ones still using Radio though...

I'd bet dollars to donuts 90% of that 3.2 comes from the FM translators. So calling it an AM Oldies format while technically correct, is a bit disingenuous.

 

[four4rock]

Curious... At what point (generally) does a ratings decline for a typical station become an "all hands on deck" concern? And when was the last time a local/Buffalo-area manager (station, program, etc) - or with whomever the buck stops - got axed because of such a decline?

 

[TheBigA]

Curious... At what point (generally) does a ratings decline...

The goal is not ratings, but revenue.

 

[tbolt909]

I'd bet dollars to donuts 90% of that 3.2 comes from the FM translators. So calling it an AM Oldies format while technically correct, is a bit disingenuous.

It does not matter WHERE they listen. The ratings will be the same. It's an OLDIES format either way...

 

[four4rock]

The goal is not ratings, but revenue.

Hmmmm. So, then, station managers (or, again, whomever) do not have ratings as one of their metrics? In an industry that seemingly constantly talks of ratings, I'm surprised that - in actuality - there is no ratings-centric goal/measure/responsibility. Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

1 KW AM WECK up to a 3.2 (4.6 unweighted )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, all ratings released by Nielsen are now "weighted." As has been explained here a number of times, "weighting"* is a generally accepted statistical correction designed to correlate the intake of diaries to proportionately correspond to the population within a demographic cell. What's more, according to Nielsen, and what's been posted here (Dave Eduardo and a few others), due to the nature of statistics and Nielsen's methodologies, a 10 share could very well be a 9 share or an 11 share (approximate example only, using a 10% variance.) Applying the same, a 3.2 could be a 2.9 or a 3.5; and a 4.6 could be a 4.2 or a 5.0) Would anybody be surprised if the bulk of the 3.2 or 4.6 was derived substantially from FM listening, especially given that WECK has three translators.
---
*And as Tom Petty sang, "the weighting is the hardest part."
Thank you... I'll be here all week. Try the veal... they tell me it's heavenly.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm surprised that - in actuality - there is no ratings-centric goal/measure/responsibility.

Did I say that? No.

 

[four4rock]

Did I say that? No.

You said "the goal"... not a goal... or one of the goals... or among the goals. No, you said "the" goal is revenue. Hence, ratings are not a goal. Maybe you meant something else(?). Is someone responsible based on metrics for ratings improvement/stabilization/etc? If so, who?

Reiterating my inquiry... At what point (generally) does a ratings decline for a typical station become an "all hands on deck" concern? And when was the last time a local/Buffalo-area manager (station, program, etc) - or with whomever the buck stops - got axed because of such a decline?

 

[TheBigA]

You said "the goal"... not a goal... or one of the goals... or among the goals. No, you said "the" goal is revenue.

And you then extrapolated other meanings to my very simple sentence.

 

[davideduardo]

You said "the goal"... not a goal... or one of the goals... or among the goals. No, you said "the" goal is revenue. Hence, ratings are not a goal. Maybe you meant something else(?). Is someone responsible based on metrics for ratings improvement/stabilization/etc? If so, who?

Ratings alone are not THE goal of a station. Revenue... and even more... the bottom line, is the endgame and only game.

There are plenty of stations with high ratings that can't monetize that audience due to its type or age. Ratings are a "tool" to get higher revenue, but not the only one.

Even things like community service are part of the practices that lead to a better financial performance. I personally have a favorite case where I turned down a client and sent them to a competitor where the long-term revenue gain created by that move was vastly greater than taking the business; again, the goal was revenue and profit.

Reiterating my inquiry... At what point (generally) does a ratings decline for a typical station become an "all hands on deck" concern? And when was the last time a local/Buffalo-area manager (station, program, etc) - or with whomever the buck stops - got axed because of such a decline?

Station managers, usually called General Managers or market VPs or similar, generally today do not determine formats... the national programmers do that. Program directors in corporate operations follow the national PD or VP of Programming.

On a local station, with a local owner, if the decline in ratings comes with a loss of revenue, the manager will decide if the reason is is internal or due to competition. Perhaps the PD all along was asking for a promotion budget, and the decline is due to lack of that money; this is the fault of the manager or owner and not the PD.

What I am saying is that your question is way to broad, and there can be many situations where a decline in ratings is not the fault of local management or the local PD. Each case is different.

 

[davideduardo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, all ratings released by Nielsen are now "weighted."

They have been weighted going back to The Pulse and Hooper. Weighting is just to create proper reflection of the market, as you say.

As has been explained here a number of times, "weighting"* is a generally accepted statistical correction designed to correlate the intake of diaries to proportionately correspond to the population within a demographic cell. What's more, according to Nielsen, and what's been posted here (Dave Eduardo and a few others), due to the nature of statistics and Nielsen's methodologies, a 10 share could very well be a 9 share or an 11 share (approximate example only, using a 10% variance.)

Yes, and that is different from weighting. The margin of error is based on a number of factors, with the error generally larger the smaller the sample is.

Applying the same, a 3.2 could be a 2.9 or a 3.5; and a 4.6 could be a 4.2 or a 5.0) Would anybody be surprised if the bulk of the 3.2 or 4.6 was derived substantially from FM listening, especially given that WECK has three translators.

That is as good a guess as mine would be. You are well within the margins of error with a sample size such as Buffalo has.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You said "the goal"... not a goal... or one of the goals... or among the goals. No, you said "the" goal is revenue. Hence, ratings are not a goal. Maybe you meant something else(?). Is someone responsible based on metrics for ratings improvement/stabilization/etc? If so, who?

Reiterating my inquiry... At what point (generally) does a ratings decline for a typical station become an "all hands on deck" concern? And when was the last time a local/Buffalo-area manager (station, program, etc) - or with whomever the buck stops - got axed because of such a decline?

The ratings listed here are 12+ ratings. They don't tell you anything about ratings in a particular demographic. It's quite possible to have mediocre 12+ (or 6+ in the case of PPM markets) but still have very good ratings in 18-34 or 25-49 females - a highly sought demo since they spend the most money in the marketplace. So, your the answer is that 12+ ratings alone don't determine the success of a station. It's even possible that a low-rated station that super-serves a niche audience may generate a lot more revenue than a general-interest station that has better ratings but a lot more competition. Add cost/benefit ratios to the mix and it becomes even more complex.