• 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

WABC Cats' at Night

MacjT

Banned
This is my first post - so pls excuse and delete if program specific posts are not allowed.

I find it interesting how John Cats has restructured his radio station.
Rather than the standard 3hr hour shows in the mid morning and evening he has retooled that time slot and reduced them to 1 hr slots hosted by various talent who still line up the same way but come from different angles.
This seems to be a winning formula if you go by ratings.
In March they scored 3.8 and in April 3.6 both times #8 in the NYC area, he is clearly doing something right.

His Cats at Night program is unique in that its truly awfully conducted but with superb content and A+ guests!

Also sometime back someone posted an image of hourly morning ratings, I wasnt able to find that for the most recent month , if someone can post the most recent morning ratings by show that would be appreciated. I want to see if Bernie and Sid is as popular as they claim it to be.
 
Overall ratings are one thing, but ratings in the desirable demos and actual sales numbers are what really count. How are they doing there?
 
Bernie & Sid ranked 20th in mornings out of 25 stations in September in cume (total weekly persons)


There is more recent data for subscribers, but I don't see it published for the public anywhere
 
Bernie & Sid ranked 20th in mornings out of 25 stations in September in cume (total weekly persons)


There is more recent data for subscribers, but I don't see it published for the public anywhere
Yes this is the one I've seen, I am looking for the latest one.

But lately theyre saying its a 6 share, I dont know what that means in terms of listeners, but getting beaten by Riedel and Berman last yr is pretty bad.
 
This station sounds great. Better than WOR by far. John is on to something and word is he may buy another station.
 
Yes this is the one I've seen, I am looking for the latest one.
#2 12+, #23 in 25-54.
But lately theyre saying its a 6 share, I dont know what that means in terms of listeners, but getting beaten by Riedel and Berman last yr is pretty bad.
In 25-54 they average 2,600 persons listening. Overall, they have 58,600 persons. So 56,000 are 55 and older. There are about 6,000 AQH persons 55-64, so we end up with around 48,000 over age 64. Around 15% of the listeners are under 65.
 
#2 12+, #23 in 25-54.

In 25-54 they average 2,600 persons listening. Overall, they have 58,600 persons. So 56,000 are 55 and older. There are about 6,000 AQH persons 55-64, so we end up with around 48,000 over age 64. Around 15% of the listeners are under 65.
Thanks for the info.

Wow that is brutal!
#2 in all demos and #23 in the key demo is pretty bad. Kinda reminiscent of Fox News demos.
By extrapolation that rating / listener number must be the case for all WABC shows.

BTW how can I obtain this level of detail on a monthly basis? Is it a subscription , if so from where?

Thanks!
 
Thanks for the info.

Wow that is brutal!
#2 in all demos and #23 in the key demo is pretty bad. Kinda reminiscent of Fox News demos.
By extrapolation that rating / listener number must be the case for all WABC shows.

BTW how can I obtain this level of detail on a monthly basis? Is it a subscription , if so from where?

Thanks!
AllAccess has monthly demo rankers. Any more data, you need to subscribe to Nielsen and that costs thousands... and thousands.
 
#2 12+, #23 in 25-54.

In 25-54 they average 2,600 persons listening. Overall, they have 58,600 persons. So 56,000 are 55 and older. There are about 6,000 AQH persons 55-64, so we end up with around 48,000 over age 64. Around 15% of the listeners are under 65.
Why do you think Wabc does alot better than kabc?
 
AllAccess has monthly demo rankers. Any more data, you need to subscribe to Nielsen and that costs thousands... and thousands.
Would Nielsen sell its data, though, to someone who isn't in the industry? Could a wealthy fan write a big check to Nielsen and get the same info you get as an industry insider?
 
Why do you think Wabc does alot better than kabc?
Start with the signal. WABC has a good signal primarily in the HDHA and HDBA and Asian area of LA. Where the old white guys live, the signal is terrible.
 
Would Nielsen sell its data, though, to someone who isn't in the industry? Could a wealthy fan write a big check to Nielsen and get the same info you get as an industry insider?
Good question.

Nielsen sells the ratings service to ad agencies at near-cost. Back in the earlier Arbitron days, they even released a quarterly book with ratings summaries for every market, but with limited data.
 
What would the wealthy fan use it for?
Personal satisfaction, I suppose, just for the satisfaction of knowing things his fellow listeners don't. The fan may be obsessive about radio, driven to become an expert on the subject. I didn't say "a wealthy, balanced fan," did I?

Anyway, just suppose this person had some sort of motivation to shell out thousands of dollars just to know how KXXX or WZZZ did last month among 25-44 non-Hispanic females. If Nielsen accepts the subscription and payment, is the fan subject to the same non-disclosure rules that David and all the other industry users (including ad agencies) are? Would that prohibit the fan from sharing all the detailed info with other radio geeks, even if the fan and fellow geeks had no plans to profit from the data?

I really am overthinking this ...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom