Spot loads are part of the problem. Sitting through 10 minutes (OK, it just feels like 10 minutes) of spots just doesn't work for the young generation, it doesn't work for me, and I'm "out of the demographic." Radio has got to find a way, if it even exists, to balance making a profit and remaining relevant. I don't have the answer, but increasing or maintaing the current spot load is definitely not it.
-
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
Buffalo & Rochester June books
- Thread starter ckg279
- Start date
People buy the Sunday paper for the spot load. People watch the Super Bowl for the spots. Spots are a good thing, if they are creative and compelling.
Radio has always done a half-assed job of creating compelling commercials. 10 minutes of hearing rip and read spots is a problem.
The entire reason people, especially women, buy the Sunday paper is the ads, not the news, we are knew about yesterday.
Creative ads help the client, they help the listener in bringing them messages that may help them, and they help the radio station for revenue.
The problem is, nobody thinks of doing all those elements at the same time. It takes THINKING .
Radio has never THOUGHT this way. Radio looks at is only source of revenue as the enemy! They even promote more music, less commercials! Imagine being an advertiser, and a sales rep says “ we play more music, with less commercials, because we feel less commercials are better for the station, and our audience turns the dial when an ad comes on.”
That literally has been happening for decades in the radio industry!! They actually promote on air , that commercials are bad!!!
Try to be a sales person for radio when the programming people of the product you are trying to sell are actually against the advertiser!!
The whole thing is a joke.
Thank you for the radio gurus who think this way. You’ve ruined the industry!
Radio has always done a half-assed job of creating compelling commercials. 10 minutes of hearing rip and read spots is a problem.
The entire reason people, especially women, buy the Sunday paper is the ads, not the news, we are knew about yesterday.
Creative ads help the client, they help the listener in bringing them messages that may help them, and they help the radio station for revenue.
The problem is, nobody thinks of doing all those elements at the same time. It takes THINKING .
Radio has never THOUGHT this way. Radio looks at is only source of revenue as the enemy! They even promote more music, less commercials! Imagine being an advertiser, and a sales rep says “ we play more music, with less commercials, because we feel less commercials are better for the station, and our audience turns the dial when an ad comes on.”
That literally has been happening for decades in the radio industry!! They actually promote on air , that commercials are bad!!!
Try to be a sales person for radio when the programming people of the product you are trying to sell are actually against the advertiser!!
The whole thing is a joke.
Thank you for the radio gurus who think this way. You’ve ruined the industry!
First you said this:
Then you said this:
The programming people don't make those half assed commercials. They're just agreeing with you.
Then you said this:
The programming people don't make those half assed commercials. They're just agreeing with you.
In your first quote, I was referring to the content, which includes the word “compelling”
In your 2nd quote, the programming dept should 100% vet commercials on air. If it is on air, it is programmings job to make sure everything on air sounds good. I don’t care who is writing or producing the commercial. If it does not make the station sound great, it is the PD fault for allowing it to air.
In your 2nd quote, the programming dept should 100% vet commercials on air. If it is on air, it is programmings job to make sure everything on air sounds good. I don’t care who is writing or producing the commercial. If it does not make the station sound great, it is the PD fault for allowing it to air.
It's been my experience (and yours may differ) that in matters of money, the general manager officiates between sales and programming. I know of many times when programming has deemed certain spots to be of insufficient quality to go on the air, and the decision was over-ruled by the GM. That's also the case when format was broken on the weekend in order for infomercials to air.
A lot of the worst spots I hear on the radio today seem to come from outside the station, either from agencies or networks.
I have never turned on the radio to hear a great commercial, no matter how good it was. I'd be in favor of more frequent shorter spot sets rather than one or two endless sets per hour. If I don't physically tune out I mentally tune out after the third spot.
We have several proponents of satellite radio on this board who say that they listen to it and rarely listen to OTA radio. What's the penetration of satellite? About 24%. That means that 76% of people in the USA aren't willing to pay for it despite the overwhelming marketing that has put it on the dashboard of cars, on smart phones, and on computers for the last decade or more.
I have Sirius/XM. It came with my new car. It's convenient when traveling because I can pick a few streams that fit my mood and don't have to scan the dial when I'm on the road and go beyond the reach of stations as I travel from town to town. Google Maps does a pretty good job of letting me know when there are travel issues along my route, but neither source gives me any flavor of the local area or any feel for what might be special or interesting along the way.
Too many "local" stations are now just automated suppliers of syndicated and VT content that gives me the same content as satellite but with commercials. LOTS of commercials. I go through the periodic routine of negotiating the $100.00 per year fee that you can get if you try. I'm not willing to pay the "regular price" for satellite. If you listen to satellite long enough, you'll find that there's repetition there that can grow tiresome. There's also an issue with variable audio quality on satellite. It can be awful at times.
When I get to a destination, I'll scan the local stations. If I can find interesting content that gives me a feel for the area and what's happening there, I'll put those stations on a bank of presets for the duration of my stay. Yes, I'll bounce between them to avoid overlong commercial sets unless there's something that grabs my attention or piques my interest. Even if the local talent may not be as polished as the national voices, I prefer the local content over the "more professional" delivery of content that isn't as relevant to me in that place at that time.
If I can't find local radio that gives me anything I can't get from satellite, I'll likely stay with the commercial-free source. That's becoming more and more common these days thanks to large groups that have "cut their way to prosperity" by making everything formulaic. When the "station voice" gets more airtime than the local jock and the commercials all sound like they were built using "Mad Libs," I'm out. When stations actually serve their local audiences, I've got a reason to stay local.
The streamers are struggling with the ad-supported model. Do I listen to Spotify or Pandora and program my own music? Sometimes, but not in the car. I'm busy with other things. Do I listen to their "stations?" Not so much so far, but I may go that route if satellite won't give me the "deal" and cell coverage outside of major metros actually improves. That's a work in progress at this point. I might even replace my satellite subscription with a streaming subscription if coverage gets good enough. Audio streaming certainly isn't going to impact my phone's data budget in any meaningful way. Still, streaming is simply a replacement for satellite, not a replacement for radio. Both streaming and satellite can be replaced by a USB drive if the price becomes annoying. None of the above replaces good radio for me.
I have Sirius/XM. It came with my new car. It's convenient when traveling because I can pick a few streams that fit my mood and don't have to scan the dial when I'm on the road and go beyond the reach of stations as I travel from town to town. Google Maps does a pretty good job of letting me know when there are travel issues along my route, but neither source gives me any flavor of the local area or any feel for what might be special or interesting along the way.
Too many "local" stations are now just automated suppliers of syndicated and VT content that gives me the same content as satellite but with commercials. LOTS of commercials. I go through the periodic routine of negotiating the $100.00 per year fee that you can get if you try. I'm not willing to pay the "regular price" for satellite. If you listen to satellite long enough, you'll find that there's repetition there that can grow tiresome. There's also an issue with variable audio quality on satellite. It can be awful at times.
When I get to a destination, I'll scan the local stations. If I can find interesting content that gives me a feel for the area and what's happening there, I'll put those stations on a bank of presets for the duration of my stay. Yes, I'll bounce between them to avoid overlong commercial sets unless there's something that grabs my attention or piques my interest. Even if the local talent may not be as polished as the national voices, I prefer the local content over the "more professional" delivery of content that isn't as relevant to me in that place at that time.
If I can't find local radio that gives me anything I can't get from satellite, I'll likely stay with the commercial-free source. That's becoming more and more common these days thanks to large groups that have "cut their way to prosperity" by making everything formulaic. When the "station voice" gets more airtime than the local jock and the commercials all sound like they were built using "Mad Libs," I'm out. When stations actually serve their local audiences, I've got a reason to stay local.
The streamers are struggling with the ad-supported model. Do I listen to Spotify or Pandora and program my own music? Sometimes, but not in the car. I'm busy with other things. Do I listen to their "stations?" Not so much so far, but I may go that route if satellite won't give me the "deal" and cell coverage outside of major metros actually improves. That's a work in progress at this point. I might even replace my satellite subscription with a streaming subscription if coverage gets good enough. Audio streaming certainly isn't going to impact my phone's data budget in any meaningful way. Still, streaming is simply a replacement for satellite, not a replacement for radio. Both streaming and satellite can be replaced by a USB drive if the price becomes annoying. None of the above replaces good radio for me.
Like SirRoxalot, I have XM...but I use it for listening to sports (NFL/NASCAR/IndyCar) while travelling, national news, and stuff like the Volume channel (I'm fascinated by the process of songwriting/recording/producing/engineering music)...don't much care about the music channels other than the Beatles channel and Lithium...I do a fair amount of travel during the year for my motorsports side hustle (outside of radio) and choose to sample local radio product wherever I go to see what others are doing and to get the 'local flavor' of a market/area I might be doing a show in...can't get that anywhere else.
Satellite does not give local time, temp, and weather, correct?
Those are a few things you can't get from satellite.
Yes, satellite gets about 24%, according to Nielsen. But I really question that. When we get Nielsen reports it's says 24% or so for satellite, which is more than the total combined share of radio, because there is another category called "Other" that has about 50%.
People who believe radio is the hottest medium in town are just living in another decade.
My thought from the start that WECK will win because the others will fall. That has happened. WECK is now in the 2nd tier pack like most others, and is within striking range of at least becoming #6-7 rank. 12 plus. That is because the share of the others, due to lack of listeners has fallen greatly. All major stations are in the 3 share to 5 share....except 4 stations, which I believe will always be on top
WBEN, WYRK, WBLK, 97 Rock. Those stations are tier 1 . Every other station is fighting for #5 -#10. WECK was tied for #8 this book, so it's essentially #7. Who did we beat? WMSX, WBUF, WGR, WEDG, WLKK, WBFO (TIE). That's a pretty hefty bunch to be with a 1KW AM. WECK is in striking distance of WTSS, WKSE, WHTT. I am not pounding my chest. I am simply saying that WECK always has a share of anywhere from 3.0-3.9 12 plus. We have been that way for a while. The other stations are falling in rank, thus literally handing share to WECK.
FYI, WECK is #5 45 plus, #55 plus. WBEN has a cume of 107,000. WECK has a cume of about 79,000. That is not far off.
I guess my point is, is that radio as an industry is suffering. The blocks are starting to fall down. Remember the "Other" I pointed out in Nielsen diaries.
Not in the traditional sense, but it does give you access to that information:
Around 30 million vehicles have active satellite subscriptions, and that is around 15% of the approximately 250 million vehicles in the US. That is much less than 25%.
Today most new cars can easily stream alternative music services, too.
My objection is that they try to be deeper both in gold and currents. That means fewer songs that I really know and like. On my agenda, by coincidence, this week is calling to cancel both car subscriptions.
I don’t use streams… yet… as it seems to be too much work and more of a nuisance.
There are always 100 shares. What has declined is rating.
I will agree however mornings are fairly entertaining in Buffalo - not sure about other markets but at least cumulus really knocks it out of the park
It does appear people, at my work really cop an attitude... partially due to being ignorant and/ or clueless ☆ had it on ×M and phlash phelps was " compelling " and sure enough
ok.. talk talk, the kids don't care and the grown ups just show their age....
Uh huh, that 0.1 they got in June speaks for itself. As for the worry that KB was taking listeners away from WBEN let me ask did you ever listen to KB back then? Whenever they did news they said for more details tune to 930 WBEN.
So what if KB shared a few of WBEN's older listeners? I thought the older demographic wasn't sellable anyway? That's what I've been reading here for years. If you want to look at it that way WGR is taking away listeners too.
Competition is supposed to make you better. A 0.1 on that signal is embarrassing.
It's not sellable for music. But it's sellable for news/talk. In fact the #1 billing station in the US is all news WTOP. WBEN is among the top billers in Buffalo.
Regardless of the ratings, the station provides a clear for a corporate partner, so it serves its purpose.
It's not sellable for music. But it's sellable for news/talk. In fact the #1 billing station in the US is all news WTOP. WBEN is among the top billers in Buffalo.
Okay I'm starting to get the picture, more places for Mike Lindell and his ilk to advertise
ie: a vending machine to clear spots, great!
When KB was Oldies, they actually had some listeners. However, that had a negative impact on WBEN. It brought their overall ratings down. Entercom tried everything to protect WBEN (even the failed FM simulcast attempt). AM Radio is now the equivalent of a pay telephone booth.
The ratings for 1520 AM are irrelevant. Audacy isn't going to invest in any AM format. Look at how much WGR drops without Bills games in the off-season. If the Bills left Buffalo, WGR would see it ratings fall to where KB is now...
First of all, the Bills aren’t leaving Buffalo now that a new stadium deal is in place. Secondly, if the Bills did move elsewhere, WGR would still have the Sabres. That, combined with keeping the current on-air staff in place, would generate at least a two-and-a-half to three share for WGR. Audacy would have to gut WGR to the very bone for the ratings to drop to KB’s level. But again, this discussion is purely hypothetical. Unless there is some unforeseen disastrous complication that puts a stop to the new stadium planning and construction, the Bills aren’t going anywhere! And that means strong ratings for WGR, especially during the fall and winter.
The Who? Oh, that fringe hockey team that hasn't been in the playoffs for over a decade.
When 107.7 FM was a Sports format, they were only a 1 share station. It appears that people in Buffalo only care about Bills related talk. KB has a 0.1 proving there's no interest in national sports talk. Outside of Canada and a few select American markets, Hockey is not anywhere in the conversation with the NFL, NBA or even baseball...
Last edited:
- Status