• 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

Declining radio audiences

Several people (notably including David Eduardo) have commented on the rather substantial loss in radio listening that has occurred over the past couple of decades, but I've been looking at a way to quantify it. If I want an idea of what radio listening levels used to be, old copies of the "The M Street Radio Directory" included average listenership for radio stations between 6 AM and Midnight for many years -- and that information can provide a baseline to compare to more recent data.

But what to compare that baseline against, since "The M Street Radio Directory" is long gone? Well, All Access provides audience data with their station playlists, along with number of plays. For example, as of right now, the most played song on KHKS in the Dallas/Fort Worth market is "Saturn" from SZA, with 106 plays and a total audience from those plays of 878,900. To get a rough average audience for the station, simply divide 878,900 by 106, which gives an average audience of per play of 8,292. For comparison, the 2000 edition of M Street shows an average audience for that same station of 41,100.

That's a drop of 80%, right? Well, it's not quite as easy as that, because the All Access numbers are going to be somewhat lower because they include they presumably include the average audience from overnight plays when listenership is really low. So the actual drop is presumably a little less...but still...it's going to be a big drop. And, yes, the audience share for KHKS has dropped significantly between 2000 (7.0 share) and 2024 (4.0 share in February)...but nowhere near enough to account for that big a drop.

So how big is the drop. In 2000, it looks like a single share point in the DFW market accounted for an average listenership between 6 AM and Midnight of about 5900 people. In 2024, it looks like a single share point might account for an average listenership over the full day of about 2200 people. Take out the low-rated overnights and maybe that number goes up to 2800 or 2900 people. Notably, that's just under half what it was in 2000 -- and that's despite the fact that there's been some rather dramatic population growth here in that 24 year period.

I tried doing a similar analysis for the Seattle/Tacoma market (where I grew up), with similar results. In the year 2000, a single share point was worth about 4100 listeners average between 6 AM and midnight. Today it looks like a single share point is worth not more than 1400 average listeners on a 24 hour basis (maybe 1800 average listeners when we take out overnights). So that's an even bigger drop -- and, again, this is a market that has been gaining people.

So if that analysis is correct, in both markets I'm seeing that a radio share point is worth less than half what it was 24 years ago in terms of average number of listeners.

To those in the industry, how close is this analysis to the reality?
 
Several people (notably including David Eduardo) have commented on the rather substantial loss in radio listening that has occurred over the past couple of decades, but I've been looking at a way to quantify it. If I want an idea of what radio listening levels used to be, old copies of the "The M Street Radio Directory" included average listenership for radio stations between 6 AM and Midnight for many years -- and that information can provide a baseline to compare to more recent data.
The only way to show listening levels is by looking at ratings, not shares. The "free" Arbitron / Nielsen data consists of share data. Share will always add up to 100, no matter how few listeners there are.

"Rating" is the percentage of all people, listeners or not. Back around 2000, the rating in different markets was in the 18 to 20 range. That meant that about one out of every 5 people were listening on average from 6 AM to Midnight. It could be as high as 25% in drive times, too. That is called Persons Using Radio, or PUR.

Now, the figure is more like 5% to 6% in most markets that have PPM. It is a bit higher due to methodology in the diary markets. That means that about one person out of every 20 is listening on average in that same time period.
But what to compare that baseline against, since "The M Street Radio Directory" is long gone? Well, All Access provides audience data with their station playlists, along with number of plays. For example, as of right now, the most played song on KHKS in the Dallas/Fort Worth market is "Saturn" from SZA, with 106 plays and a total audience from those plays of 878,900. To get a rough average audience for the station, simply divide 878,900 by 106, which gives an average audience of per play of 8,292. For comparison, the 2000 edition of M Street shows an average audience for that same station of 41,100.
Your methodology, while a bit imprecise, does replicate the change. But we have to consider that KHKS had higher shares of all listening "back then" so, unless the rating today and then was identical, you can't compare stations with different ratings and shares (AQH persons reflects ratings as well).
That's a drop of 80%, right? Well, it's not quite as easy as that, because the All Access numbers are going to be somewhat lower because they include they presumably include the average audience from overnight plays when listenership is really low. So the actual drop is presumably a little less...but still...it's going to be a big drop. And, yes, the audience share for KHKS has dropped significantly between 2000 (7.0 share) and 2024 (4.0 share in February)...but nowhere near enough to account for that big a drop.
You are hitting close to the actual numbers. But Nielsen does not release overnight numbers at all except to subscribers. I'm not certain, but I believe that the All Access data does not include overnight plays...
So how big is the drop. In 2000, it looks like a single share point in the DFW market accounted for an average listenership between 6 AM and Midnight of about 5900 people. In 2024, it looks like a single share point might account for an average listenership over the full day of about 2200 people. Take out the low-rated overnights and maybe that number goes up to 2800 or 2900 people. Notably, that's just under half what it was in 2000 -- and that's despite the fact that there's been some rather dramatic population growth here in that 24 year period.

I tried doing a similar analysis for the Seattle/Tacoma market (where I grew up), with similar results. In the year 2000, a single share point was worth about 4100 listeners average between 6 AM and midnight. Today it looks like a single share point is worth not more than 1400 average listeners on a 24 hour basis (maybe 1800 average listeners when we take out overnights). So that's an even bigger drop -- and, again, this is a market that has been gaining people.

So if that analysis is correct, in both markets I'm seeing that a radio share point is worth less than half what it was 24 years ago in terms of average number of listeners.

To those in the industry, how close is this analysis to the reality?
Your approach is approximate but it shows the overall loss of listening levels. But the real fact is that PUR in 2000 was around 18 to 20, depending on the market and now it is 5 to 6, which represents a drop of between 66% and 75% in average quarter hour listening, 6 AM to 12 MN M-S.
 
I tried doing a similar analysis for the Seattle/Tacoma market (where I grew up), with similar results. In the year 2000, a single share point was worth about 4100 listeners average between 6 AM and midnight. Today it looks like a single share point is worth not more than 1400 average listeners on a 24 hour basis (maybe 1800 average listeners when we take out overnights). So that's an even bigger drop -- and, again, this is a market that has been gaining people.
As David mentioned, it isn't possible to compare a 'share point' value today with how it was even back in the 90's. The reason is advertisers now look at media differently than they did before streaming and social media. Advertisers more than ever are interested in demographic reach and many other factors that include radio as a category as simply: 'audio advertising'. Unlike what radio or TV ratings can offer, digital advertising gives them low or no-cost almost immediate landscape on who is looking at or hearing an ad. That ability has completely turned any per share value on its head from the days when radio was the only game in town.
So if that analysis is correct, in both markets I'm seeing that a radio share point is worth less than half what it was 24 years ago in terms of average number of listeners.
As combined with other forms of media, I'd say more like one-fifth.
 
To those in the industry, how close is this analysis to the reality?

You're looking at this from an overall national industry perspective, and that's not what stations do. Some stations and formats have retained a higher percentage of listeners than others. They've all had an amount of loss, especially in certain dayparts. But you can see the decline in audience in how these companies are operating. The formats that have lost the most audience are the ones that have gone away. The big companies have diversified from towers & transmitters., and they've adjusted station operating budgets. There is nothing these companies can do that will cause people to throw away their phones or other devices, and seek out OTA radios. They can't raise their spot rates unless they can provide more value, and that value won't come from anything they do on air. The value of the inventory has dropped, and there's nothing they can do about it.
 
I put this data on cumes together last year, but it still illustrates the drops in cume:
I compared several different formats. You can see CHR has suffered the biggest declines, but no format is immune.
View attachment 7308
View attachment 7309
This is spot on given that Audacy and Iheart have been putting more emphasis on their apps. Yes this data is from ppm only. Iheart on their own and operated stations there's emphasis that they are the radio home of the 2024 Olympics recently. That decline on OTA was expected between 2013 to 2023. The attention in recent years is how to not get killed off by Spotify app that radio has been going through and it's aggressively focusing on their podcasts as mentioned here and be the top show in their respective apps.
 
Radio (as an industry) has missed the digital train sales wise. Go to a lot of music stations websites. It basically is a rehash of yesterday's TMZ. What could have happened is local information with an easy to navigate listing of their sponsors services and easy steaming with or without an ap should be there too. One of the strengths of newspaper advertising is you can "see" the ad. A large part of the industry never had "display ads" on their site. A digital "free" local newspaper is possible for a very low cost. If you still have a news department it could be daily. Almost every local High school has a newspaper. Finding competent folks should not be hard. At least digital coupons should be available for any potential sponcer.
 
Radio (as an industry) has missed the digital train sales wise.

Radio doesn't operate as an industry. Some companies are ahead of the pack. Townsquare is one of them. But the fact is that websites aren't where the action is anymore, and everyone knows it. Especially local station websites. They simply can't deliver the numbers of the big national sites. The emphasis is on brands and interaction.
 
If you are in a sub 150 market why would a local business spend the money on a national site? Pandora tried local ads. Pandora was not good to it's shareholders. Maybe that's why Townsquare doesn't have a lot of stations in big markets.
 
Radio (as an industry) has missed the digital train sales wise. Go to a lot of music stations websites. It basically is a rehash of yesterday's TMZ.
That's because consumers don't go to station websites to see stuff. There maybe is a place to register for a contest, see an event calendar, or a link to their stream, and the requirement with a link to their public file. But websites stopped being a thing about 2010. We live in a much more mobile society, so apps have replaced websites as any sort of regular destination.
What could have happened is local information with an easy to navigate listing of their sponsors services and easy steaming with or without an ap should be there too.
Radio made the mistake years ago of 'comping' ads on their website for buying ads over the radio. Once you give stuff away, it's very hard to turn 180 and charge for it.
 
If you are in a sub 150 market why would a local business spend the money on a national site?

Why would a local business spend money to reach a few thousand people on a local radio site? Outdoor ads get more eyes.

Maybe that's why Townsquare doesn't have a lot of stations in big markets.

The digital business Townsquare does is with its national music sites, not local radio sites. Taste of Country is the #1 country music site now.

Taste of Country is staffed with national reporters in Nashville. The local stations promote it, and its integrated in their local sites. But most of the traffic they get is from places where they don't own stations. This way they've expanded their sales footprint way beyond local markets.
 
The digital business Townsquare does is with its national music sites, not local radio sites. Taste of Country is the #1 country music site now.
Townsquare makes its most local money by combining radio ads with dedicated online options they give to local accounts. They basically bundle radio with a bunch of new media in a package.
Taste of Country is staffed with national reporters in Nashville. The local stations promote it, and its integrated in their local sites. But most of the traffic they get is from places where they don't own stations. This way they've expanded their sales footprint way beyond local markets.
But where they own stations, they offer a front door in to local accounts as part of a package.
 
I just wish we still had something like M Street Radio Directory.

Also, radio listenership might be down to less than one-fifth of what it was. Nobody can remember what a station that currently has a 10 share was doing just yesterday, yet people can remember what a station that had a 0 share in 1985 was doing back then.
 
I just wish we still had something like M Street Radio Directory.

Also, radio listenership might be down to less than one-fifth of what it was.
Exaggerated, slightly. Today's AQH listenership is down about two-thirds, not 80%. And cume is down about 10%... that's right... nearly as many people use radio today as they did 20 years ago, but they just spend less time with it due to all the new alternatives.
 
Exaggerated, slightly. Today's AQH listenership is down about two-thirds, not 80%. And cume is down about 10%... that's right... nearly as many people use radio today as they did 20 years ago, but they just spend less time with it due to all the new alternatives.
I think they were talking about my per-share point being reduced to one-fifth as compared with back in the 90's.
 
I think they were talking about my per-share point being reduced to one-fifth as compared with back in the 90's.
No, depending on markets the rating behind each share point is off by about 66%.

However, remember that the introduction of the PPM in 2008-2009 reduced Persons Using Radio (the sum of all station ratings) from the later 90's figure of around 18% to 20% to around 11% to 12%. So more than half of the "change" is due to more precise methodology and not actual changes in listening durations.

In other words, the diary always overestimated the amount of listening time due to the way most people rounded up to hours and half hours in the diary and seldom rounded down to shorter intervals.

And the variances between markets may have to do with climate, use of public transportation and the like. While most diary markets showed about 31% to 33% of all AQH listening to be in cars in the pre-PPM days, in New York city it was more like 23% to 25% because of the huge number of people using public transportation.

The diary gave us precise in-home, at work and in-car listening numbers. The PPM only shows "home" and "away". It does not break "away" into in-car and at-work as the meter is stupid in that way and it only knows when it is not near its home base charger/data collector.
 
No, depending on markets the rating behind each share point is off by about 66%.

However, remember that the introduction of the PPM in 2008-2009 reduced Persons Using Radio (the sum of all station ratings) from the later 90's figure of around 18% to 20% to around 11% to 12%. So more than half of the "change" is due to more precise methodology and not actual changes in listening durations.
But, if you consider most larger markets had reached a point of saturation by 2008, as in the number of stations one could listen to in a single market, the overall share is diluted automatically. Then PPM comes along and shows the amount of total listening is much less than was estimated. Oh, and then throw in an economic recession which cut station valuations by 30-70%, depending on market size, and lending for M&A quickly began trailing off.

Fast forward to the pandemic in 2021, and in-vehicle listening during commutes comes to a grinding halt for at least a year, and streaming services are picking up speed, taking additional share away from traditional media. So, here we are today; for the most part, still station saturation, but more competition now from subscription or ad-supported streaming.

I'd still stand by my one-fifth traditional radio share point statement. I think there are so many more factors that there were when radio was the only game in town that have diluted what would be considered an audience share.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom