Nights and Weekends

[wadio]

Last night, instead of a Red Eye Radio "best of," Westwood One had Dan Mandis do a live show (due to the news cycle that began Friday around 3pm.) It was refreshing to have live content at that time. I'm told that Coast to Coast does have live hosts on the weekends, but that seems rare these days.

It's long been my belief that if you send listeners away on the weekends they may not come back on Monday. In the overall cost of running a radio network, how much does it affect the bottom line to hire a weekend host (or alternating hosts) who now work out of their homes? Dan Mandis, Mike Opelka and others do a great job of fill-ins and might be available.

Infomercials are another matter because they're a source of income. But again, how does that compare to the cost of losing listeners? Listener decline due to weekend tune-out might be hard to measure but, as infomercials became more prevalent over the years, listenership declined. Coincidence?

For example, back in the day WABC talk radio had a great weekend lineup and a good audience that gradually diminished. Today they've revived live weekend programming (although it's not my cup of tea) and their overall ratings are improving.

Could LIVE 24/7 content, local or syndicated, help save linear radio?

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Let's look at Premiere Networks. They offer these live talk programs today, Saturday Aug 16th:

Mid-6a: Coast to Coast
6a-9a: In the Garden with Ron Wilson
9a-noon: At Home with Gary Sullivan
noon-3p: The Weekend with Mike Brown
2p-5p: Rich on Tech

17 hours live each Saturday doesn't sound bad to me from just one syndicator. But relatively few stations carry these non-political/how-to shows.

The reason these how-to shows work is because they get advertisers who don't normally buy talk radio. For example, Gary Sullivan's show is full of ads for products you could buy at Lowes, like caulking and light fixtures.

A new conservative talk show that airs at 9am on Saturday and Sunday mornings would not bring in new classes of advertisers, and in fact might cost advertisers, compared to a best-of. The new guy wouldn't have the name ID that Glenn Beck has, and it would be harder to bolt on the best-of to the ad buys that already appear in Beck's M-F show.

 

[TheBigA]

It's long been my belief that if you send listeners away on the weekends they may not come back on Monday.

The operative word in that sentence is "may." The fact of the matter is they do. We have proof. It's called Nielsen.

Could LIVE 24/7 content, local or syndicated, help save linear radio?

It exists. Maybe not everywhere, but it exists. Just tune around to different stations in different places.

Could it save linear radio? I doubt it. Listeners aren't the problem. Money is.

 

[wadio]

A new conservative talk show that airs at 9am on Saturday and Sunday mornings would not bring in new classes of advertisers, and in fact might cost advertisers, compared to a best-of. The new guy wouldn't have the name ID that Glenn Beck has, and it would be harder to bolt on the best-of to the ad buys that already appear in Beck's M-F show.

Good point. But it takes time to build an audience, just as it took time to lose it.

 

[wadio]

The fact of the matter is they do. We have proof. It's called Nielsen.

Can you substantiate that? If so please do. I don't believe Nielson has the metrics to determine exactly when and why individual listeners leave and when or if they come back. It's a slow process that's been happening for the past 30 years or so.

 

[TheBigA]

Can you substantiate that? If so please do. I don't believe Nielson has the metrics to determine exactly when and why individual listeners leave and when or if they come back.

Nielsen has the metrics to show when they leave and when they come back. However that information is trademarked, so I can't post it here. There was a time when stations had live shows on the weekends and overnights. The audience was not enough to sustain those dayparts. So that's why stations do what they do. If all it took to bring all the former radio listeners back was live bodies 24/7, it would happen. But people are moving away from linear 24/7 radio and TV. That's why companies do what they do.

Nielsen doesn't track why this is happening. That research is done by Edison and other pollsters who ASK listeners why they don't listen as much on weekends and overnights. It varies person to person, but mostly it's because people do other things besides listen to the radio.

The bigger factor in this is diminishing advertising revenue and rising costs. So stations have to make more efficient use of the money they spend on programming. If money wasn't as tight as it is, you'd see stations spending more. As advertising revenue continues to drop, and stations look to repurposing on-air content on-line and social media, you're likely to see less live & local programming.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Good point. But it takes time to build an audience, just as it took time to lose it.

And time is exactly what radio doesn't have.

Many of the big radio chains are on the brink of insolvency, so increasing costs and/or decreasing revenue in hopes of getting a return in several years is not a realistic option.

 

[wadio]

Nielsen has the metrics to show when they leave and when they come back. However that information is trademarked, so I can't post it here. There was a time when stations had live shows on the weekends and overnights. The audience was not enough to sustain those dayparts. So that's why stations do what they do. If all it took to bring all the former radio listeners back was live bodies 24/7, it would happen.

If you can't substantiate that I'll take it as a theory. We're talking about a trend that began 30 years ago. Has none of that data become public domain?

But people are moving away from linear 24/7 radio and TV. That's why companies do what they do.

And why are they moving away? I've suggested one theory.

Nielsen doesn't track why this is happening. That research is done by Edison and other pollsters who ASK listeners why they don't listen as much on weekends and overnights. It varies person to person, but mostly it's because people do other things besides listen to the radio.

Again you've provided no evidence.

The bigger factor in this is diminishing advertising revenue and rising costs. So stations have to make more efficient use of the money they spend on programming.

Again, how much would 2 more overnight shifts cost relative to a network's annual budget? Give us some figures.

If money wasn't as tight as it is, you'd see stations spending more. As advertising revenue continues to drop, and stations look to repurposing on-air content on-line and social media, you're likely to see less live & local programming.

If that's their goal they're probably moving in the right direction.

 

[TheBigA]

If you can't substantiate that I'll take it as a theory

I can substantiate it but it will violate the terms of this site. Believe whatever you want to believe. It won't change a thing.

We're talking about a trend that began 30 years ago.

Radio listening has been in decline for 30 years. The reason is because people have other options. The options have increased and the ad revenue has been diluted. Adding more staff in fringe times won't change either of those two things.

The fact is the radio usage in overnights has been in decline longer than 30 years.

Again you've provided no evidence.

I said the information is provided by Edison Research, Jacobs Media, and other pollsters.

Again, how much would 2 more overnight shifts cost relative to a network's annual budget? Give us some figures.

Any additional money is money they don't have.

If that's their goal they're probably moving in the right direction.

They're diverting what resources they have to media that is growing.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio listening has been in decline for 30 years.

More like 20 years. The periods between the late 1980's and around 2006 had rather comparable PUR/PUMM numbers.

The reason is because people have other options. The options have increased and the ad revenue has been diluted. Adding more staff in fringe times won't change either of those two things.

The real issue is the decline in revenue... about 60%, inflation adjusted, since 2005.

The fact is the radio usage in overnights has been in decline longer than 30 years.

No, it hasn't. It did not start declining until the 2008 benchmark of the recession, the PPM and the smartphone.

I said the information is provided by Edison Research, Jacobs Media, and other pollsters.

Those folks will not like to be called "Pollsters". A "poll" is a single-event, one moment in time sounding of attitudes. Radio research companies do, well, research. I ran a research company for over a decade and never heard us... or any of the companies like Critical Mass or Harker or others called "pollsters".

 

[TheBigA]

More like 20 years. The periods between the late 1980's and around 2006 had rather comparable PUR/PUMM numbers.

The real issue is the decline in revenue... about 60%, inflation adjusted, since 2005.

Maybe you should be responding to the original post, rather than my responses. There's a lot more fodder for you there

 

[Delete My Account]

As advertising revenue continues to drop, and stations look to repurposing on-air content on-line and social media, you're likely to see less live & local programming.

I don't disagree but first of all, a lot of stations don't have much left live or local to cut. Case in point, Beasley Boston.

Secondly, at a certain point, if the on air content is cut to the bone, and staffing is as well, who's going to create and repurpose all this wonderful content that they couldn't afford to produce because human beings cost money?

 

[TheBigA]

Secondly, at a certain point, if the on air content is cut to the bone, and staffing is as well, who's going to create and repurpose all this wonderful content that they couldn't afford to produce because human beings cost money?

It depends on the company. Townsquare is handling it in a decentralized way. Most companies make it the responsibility of the show producer.