or something like this:Do you still watch a black-and-white TV? That's what the future holds.
or something like this:Do you still watch a black-and-white TV? That's what the future holds.
Right.Talk radio hadn't been made obsolete yet by cable talk shows and Twitter in the late 1990s. The audience was by no means younger-skewing but they weren't literally aging out of salability and those AM stations could still operate with a profit, even if they were totally off the bird.
The only thing is that said audience never changed. It just got older and older.
Hey, someone who did it worse than KGO!or something like this:
It is arguably the most inartful sign-off of a radio station ever, especially for a station that traced back to CFCF.Hey, someone who did it worse than KGO!
Hey, someone who did it worse than KGO!
Actually, I think AM 940 Montreal did a much better send off than KGO. The general manager actually came on the air and thanked all the listeners, clients and employees of the station. KGO didn’t do any of that. In fact, they gave a big middle finger to their listeners, clients and employees.Hey, someone who did it worse than KGO!
Did you transpose those last two numbers? I've always heard "1978"!Go back further. 1987 was the year when the compiled Arbitron national numbers showed FM tied with AM in listenership. See the Duncan reports that detail this at the link below.
Part of this change was due to the FCC limiting AM/FM duplication. Another part was the improvement in FM reception once the patents were freed up in the early 60's. And a bigger part was due to Arbitron taking over dominance in radio ratings in the early 70 and their creation of much larger survey areas than Pulse or Hooper had, giving the benefit to FM stations in most markets.
Yes, but they could have allowed the general manager to finish his explanation and goodbye instead of cutting him off mid-sentence…or did you not actually listen to the clip?I dunno, shutting it off seems a lot classier than flipping it to sports betting.
They turned off the transmitter while he was still talking! He was only a few seconds in. He was mid-sentence!Actually, I think AM 940 Montreal did a much better send off than KGO. The general manager actually came on the air and thanked all the listeners, clients and employees of the station.
The clip above features the music, a complete announcement, the music again and then the announcement which went like this:That announcement from the GM was recorded and running on a loop. Listen to the beginning. Regular programming had ended at 10 a.m., followed by the repeating announcement and ominous-sounding music until 7:15 p.m. What happened at 10? A goodbye from the staff or music cut off in mid-song?
Thanks for the correction.Management "of Corus," not "of course." And if the announcement had been running since 10:00, how many people would be tuned in nine hours later, during a day part when not many listen to radio at all?
Ad agencies haven't bought based on cume in 50 years. It can't tell you how old the listener is or how long they listen.KGO had around 201K listeners before switching. 201K is more than the population of a lot of cities in the US. 201K is more people than a lot of metros have in certain demographics. Almost more than cities that have 15-20 stations, like Spokane, the Tri-Cities, Eugene and Boise. Yet KGO was still losing money, with a 201K cume. I guess that tells us all we need to know, not just about talk radio, but the economics of AM radio in general.
Right now I am listening to KGO. It's the early morning sports-betting show. The hosts aren't exactly compelling, when compared to any of the Sports Radio talk hosts, be they on CBS Sports Radio, ESPN, or Fox Sports. Maybe they don't need to be. They sound like sports radio amateur hour. Maybe that works for sports bet radio. I don't know.
Fair enough, but doesn't it need to be compelling radio? Scott Ferrall talked about betting a LOT during his last several months on CBS Sports Radio, but he made it interesting, even to a non betting person like me. So far, this morning crew just doesn't sound compelling.They sound like horse racing analysts doping out the probable winner of the next race during the simulcast feed of a midweek card at Belmont Park. Which, IMO, is what they should sound like. They aren't talking about sport for the sake of sport, or as fans of a certain team; they're talking about sport as a generator of possible outcomes on which money can be wagered. Leave the long-winded discourses on rule changes or player personalities to the mainstream sports talk stations. This is the sort of talk that gamblers want to hear. Put aside your feelings about gambling or the "purity" of sports and think of it purely as programming that knows its target audience -- gamblers who happen to like sports -- and gives it what it wants with no filler.
Good catch. Yes, 1978 was the 50-50 year.Did you transpose those last two numbers? I've always heard "1978"!
I haven't listened enough to form an opinion, but from all the advertising I see and hear for sports betting apps, they are trying to get new people to download the apps and place bets. There are live reads on the News/Talk station. I imagine they want the long-time gamblers but new ones getting (hopefully not too) hooked as well.Fair enough, but doesn't it need to be compelling radio? Scott Ferrall talked about betting a LOT during his last several months on CBS Sports Radio, but he made it interesting, even to a non betting person like me. So far, this morning crew just doesn't sound compelling.
But like you said, maybe to hard core sports betters, it doesn't matter.