Most of the programming on MeTV itself is older than the music that MeTV Music/FM is playing, yet they've found some way to get enough advertisers to keep it going.
-
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
MeTV FM?
- Thread starter A_b_m_90
- Start date
As you are aware, this was a lot of nonsense years ago and still is nonsense today. KHJ, KYA, WLS, WCFL and WABC of yesteryear were programing to a 16 to 25 year old demographic where many 16 to 18 year olds had zero money to spend and maybe just maybe you had disposable income to spend once you were out of collage or your trade school of choice.
When I was in my late teens, I bought zero stuff I heard advertised on WLS on WCFL because I had next to no money to spend on any of that stuff. As a 71 year old, I have money to spend on stuff I hear advertised if I desire. I'm sure the same is true for you as well.
Ad agencies are living in a dream world.
It's hard to know if the advertising they do run is sufficient to keep the lights on, but when you consider the fact that it is a promotional tool for their demographically similar TV network, it seems to work for them. More power to them!
When you talk about “national advertisers” keep in mind that the smaller market gets the less national advertising there is. Many campaigns are limited to the top 20 or 25 markets, others to the top 50, and some to the top 100. By the time you get beyond that point there is essentially no national advertising for stations in smaller markets or unrated markets. And they’re never was.
Even back in the 50’s, when ratings did not break out listening by age, the early top 40 stations sometimes showed as much as a 50 share. You cannot get a 50 share by only serving teenagers. Top 40 has always appealed to both teens and young adults. And by young adults, I mean at least 18 to 34 if not 18 to 44 or 18 to 49.
Add agencies use extensive research to determine everything from the creation of commercials to the media used to run those commercials. And the clients of agencies spend even more on consumer research.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Okay, I have to step in here, because the quoted poster is the one "living in a dream world".
Okay, let's take the tail end of that era. 1976 makes the math easier.
And let's take the more accepted 18-34 demographic, to make this a fair comparison in terms of how the ad agencies think.
Someone who was 18-to-34 then is 68-to-84 now, and let's look at the argument about disposable income:
The problem here is that the argument is based entirely on the poster's personal situation. I am only one year younger, and have a decent amount of disposable income (partially because I still have revenue coming in from programming the stations in New Mexico), but if you removed that from the equation, more than 25% of my income is from Social Security. Another 50% is due to my late mother having set up a trust a few years before her death which provides me with regular payments from two lifetime annuities ... but those payments are fixed, unlike SS which has an annual adjustment for inflation, so the buying power of that income decreases over time. (Supporting fact: $1000 when those annuities first started paying out is worth $642 in today's dollars, according to the inflation calculator at the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.) For that reason, I have consistently put as much of that income into my investment account, which to date has added 85% in value over the amount invested. That's my hedge against inflation ... buying "stuff I hear advertised" provides no ROI.
I openly admit that I have it better than a huge percentage of seniors. According to the Social Security Administration, 40% of recipients have little to no other income or savings beyond their monthly SS benefits. Anyone who believes that those seniors -- almost 24 million of us -- are going to rush out and buy something just because they saw an ad for it are delusional.
If anything, studies have proven, over and over and over again, that seniors are the most brand-loyal consumers, and can't be swayed from the brands they have used for decades, much less get them interested in something new. It sounds like the poster's financial situation is much better (so is mine, to be fair) and if he wants to spend money that he won't have years from now when he might need it for something as basic as groceries I can't stop him. But he is an exception to the reality that those in the upper demographics live with.
The ad agencies know all this. And I note that products such as LifeAlert or step-in shower/tubs, aimed at the senior population, are all marketed via per inquiry/direct response, which means they were not direct cash buys by the agencies to the stations. About the only direct buys that have that demo in their target are pharmaceuticals, which do not translate well to radio and are virtually all television ads.
So ...
No, they are living in the real world. You appear to be the one who is dreaming.
Okay, let's take the tail end of that era. 1976 makes the math easier.
And let's take the more accepted 18-34 demographic, to make this a fair comparison in terms of how the ad agencies think.
Someone who was 18-to-34 then is 68-to-84 now, and let's look at the argument about disposable income:
The problem here is that the argument is based entirely on the poster's personal situation. I am only one year younger, and have a decent amount of disposable income (partially because I still have revenue coming in from programming the stations in New Mexico), but if you removed that from the equation, more than 25% of my income is from Social Security. Another 50% is due to my late mother having set up a trust a few years before her death which provides me with regular payments from two lifetime annuities ... but those payments are fixed, unlike SS which has an annual adjustment for inflation, so the buying power of that income decreases over time. (Supporting fact: $1000 when those annuities first started paying out is worth $642 in today's dollars, according to the inflation calculator at the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.) For that reason, I have consistently put as much of that income into my investment account, which to date has added 85% in value over the amount invested. That's my hedge against inflation ... buying "stuff I hear advertised" provides no ROI.
I openly admit that I have it better than a huge percentage of seniors. According to the Social Security Administration, 40% of recipients have little to no other income or savings beyond their monthly SS benefits. Anyone who believes that those seniors -- almost 24 million of us -- are going to rush out and buy something just because they saw an ad for it are delusional.
If anything, studies have proven, over and over and over again, that seniors are the most brand-loyal consumers, and can't be swayed from the brands they have used for decades, much less get them interested in something new. It sounds like the poster's financial situation is much better (so is mine, to be fair) and if he wants to spend money that he won't have years from now when he might need it for something as basic as groceries I can't stop him. But he is an exception to the reality that those in the upper demographics live with.
The ad agencies know all this. And I note that products such as LifeAlert or step-in shower/tubs, aimed at the senior population, are all marketed via per inquiry/direct response, which means they were not direct cash buys by the agencies to the stations. About the only direct buys that have that demo in their target are pharmaceuticals, which do not translate well to radio and are virtually all television ads.
So ...
No, they are living in the real world. You appear to be the one who is dreaming.
I am in a similar situation. Like many seniors I have a 401(k) and receive Social Security. I also have investment account that I created during the many years when I tried to save around 50% of my net income in stock investments and mutual funds. I also have highly variable income from consulting projects in Latin America, but I cannot depend on those and sort of consider them as our slush fund . My wife has a very comparable situation based on her career in radio.
We occasionally purchase new products, but those tend to be innovations that did not exist previously. As to those standard things such as laundry detergent, bathroom, supplies, and household items, we generally buy the brands that have proven themselves to be good, useful or effective over the years. We are not particularly interested in a new brand of toothpaste.
And we try to limit ourselves in so far as impulse buys are concerned. So, much of what is advertised on radio falls into the categories where we are not interested in changing brands. And, because we are empty nesters , we buy a lot less than heads of households with children.
So, radio today finds itself losing the youngest adult demos well those over 55 or 60 are as unsalable as ever. So radio has to focus on the demographics where there is still money and audience,and that means roughly 30 to 60 years old.
It was a placeholder format while Brad got the pieces in place to KGAY to FM instead of via a HD 2 Relay on 106.5 while having to pay to keep a AM no one wanted to listen to powered.
It was a easy feed to pipe in.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I keep an amount roughly equal to one year's rent/utilities/living expenses in a high-yield (3.50% APR) savings account as well, and have my Social Security and one of the annuity payments direct deposited there for convenience (as in, I don't have to remember to move it there). I get paid from New Mexico via PayPal and can also move that revenue to the savings account with just a couple of clicks.
David calls it a "slush fund" and I call it my "emergency reserve fund" but the concept is the same.
And all of this shows how seniors who even have discretionary income have its usage well planned. This is why advertisers do not focus on those over 65. That group is either unlimited income, budgets, or carefully measures their use of money in the event that they need it further on in retirement; high costs of assisted living, retirement homes, and uncovered, medical expenses.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Another point:
I tried to remember when I last "changed brands" on anything. And it turned out to be a situation where the change was because of a senior discount: My wireless, from AT&T to Consumer Cellular, and my broadband internet, from AT&T to Charter/Spectrum.
Neither of those advertise on radio. CC does run television ads but I first became aware of them via their advertising in the AARP magazine. Spectrum was my only option as my AT&T service was deteriorating and 5G wireless home internet proved to be unreliable at my address. (But I still got a discount for the first three years, without a bundle, and the monthly charge is still lower than what I used to pay AT&T, for faster speed.)
And my former landline number is now on VoIP, with a company that provides free service for life (only charging $8/month in taxes and surcharges) with the purchase of their base unit, plugged into the back of my router. I also pay them $120/year for a second virtual number and enhanced voicemail and caller ID, plus built-in telemarketer blocking. And when I signed up for that premium package, they gave me a free two-line desk phone that includes one-button 32-number speed dialing and easy access to unlimited 3-way calling. They don't advertise much at all in any medium.
But I still buy the same brands of peanut butter and toothpaste, and the store brands of milk and cottage cheese that I have purchased for decades.
I tried to remember when I last "changed brands" on anything. And it turned out to be a situation where the change was because of a senior discount: My wireless, from AT&T to Consumer Cellular, and my broadband internet, from AT&T to Charter/Spectrum.
Neither of those advertise on radio. CC does run television ads but I first became aware of them via their advertising in the AARP magazine. Spectrum was my only option as my AT&T service was deteriorating and 5G wireless home internet proved to be unreliable at my address. (But I still got a discount for the first three years, without a bundle, and the monthly charge is still lower than what I used to pay AT&T, for faster speed.)
And my former landline number is now on VoIP, with a company that provides free service for life (only charging $8/month in taxes and surcharges) with the purchase of their base unit, plugged into the back of my router. I also pay them $120/year for a second virtual number and enhanced voicemail and caller ID, plus built-in telemarketer blocking. And when I signed up for that premium package, they gave me a free two-line desk phone that includes one-button 32-number speed dialing and easy access to unlimited 3-way calling. They don't advertise much at all in any medium.
But I still buy the same brands of peanut butter and toothpaste, and the store brands of milk and cottage cheese that I have purchased for decades.
Not really true. I posted Brad's blog back when the flip occurred. He stated that he had high hopes for the Oldies format (he personally was fond of it), but had trouble finding advertisers for it. Which led to the decision to try AC instead. It was not intended to be a placeholder format.
EDIT: I found the blog I was referring to...
What's Happening This Weekend in #ILoveGayPalmSprings
KGAY 106.5 and Gay Desert Guide's Brad Fuhr gives you a complete rundown of this weekend's fun events, music, theatre and more!
mailchi.mp
Last edited:
I'll give one example. As a kid, my mom bought me my first shaving cream and it was Barbasol.
I still use it today. While harder to get, it is still available at some retail locations... and like just about everything... on Amazon.
I just bought several cans online. Why? I have a memory of once not being able to get that brand and finding one I disliked. So I am not going to experiment any further. Why would I? I have better things to do with my time.
And that in a nutshell demonstrates why agencies and their clients don't generally advertise mass market products to seniors.
People actually watch MeTV in decent numbers. It got higher viewership last year, in prime time, than CW, and a bit less than HGTV.
It seems like it has real advertisers. I just checked a break during "Perry Mason" and the national ads were for Home Depot, Dulcolax, Sketchers, and the MeTV merch store.
What MeTV has harnessed is the fact that all viewers of prime-time programs on OTA TV tend to be very old (average age in mid-upper 60s), regardless if you are programming "Perry Mason" or a new season of "Dancing with the Stars"
Fox News for example very much trends to an older demographic. Has been that way for decades and yet, it still plays on in its current form not missing a heart beat. Conservative talk radio on what is a dyeing AM band still lives on with a huge older demographic. Yet, the current day WLS, WABC, WIND live on. KSFO in San Fransisco was given a life line by moving from 560 AM to 810 AM. Maybe someone can tell me if the ratings and demographics for this move actually benefited Cumulus or maybe this was a wise political move for them.
The over the air broadcast medium is dyeing. Most even older people are turning to streaming music or podcasts because they can listen to what they want to, vs the over the air broadcasters trying to pick their listeners. Yes, technology is forcing this trend, but the broadcast industry itself has accelerated this change due to poor, lazy and political decisions that have been made primarily since 1996 when broadcasting monopolies were given the green light to flourish.
The over the air broadcast medium is dyeing. Most even older people are turning to streaming music or podcasts because they can listen to what they want to, vs the over the air broadcasters trying to pick their listeners. Yes, technology is forcing this trend, but the broadcast industry itself has accelerated this change due to poor, lazy and political decisions that have been made primarily since 1996 when broadcasting monopolies were given the green light to flourish.
KSFO at 810 has virtually no listeners
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
If you are basing that on the fact that they don't appear in the public ratings that appear on Lance's site, please remember that Cumulus has been delisted while the lawsuit is pending. No Cumulus stations, in any market, appear in the current ratings.
And that also answers @JoeU's question. No one can tell him what he wants to know because none of us can see the ratings for KSFO at present.
In the early 90's, half of all stations were not making a profit. The reason was that they could not offer the scale that cable and national TV offered to national advertisers in that era.
While in other nations where consolidation was a long time fact and radio as an industry took as much as twice the national ad revenue as it did in the U.S., in this country am advertiser buying radio nationally had to deal with hundreds of different stations, all with different looking invoice forms, different ways of scheduling dayparts and the like.
Consolidation actually increased PUR (now PUMM) after it began.
So what "poor, lazy and political" decisions were made?
(Side point: there are no monopolies even now in radio markets)
The era when broadcasting had a monopoly was in the 60s. At that time, if you wanted to listen to music, you either had to buy it or listen on the radio. In most markets, there was a very limited number of stations. From the 70s to the 90s, the number of radio stations grew geometrically. Then radio had to deal with other media, starting with MTV and other music TV channels. Then of course the internet, satellite, and gaming. Owning radio stations today is no monopoly. Plus now the FCC is telling its licensees they have no rights.
If I recall correctly 1960 era FCC rules for the major broadcast ownership groups allowed for no more than seven AM/FM radio pairs per city, seven TV stations total for the entire country. If you owned a major news paper that was also considered for what your total ownership per market could be as well.
With the above mentioned ownership caps, local radio ownership was allowed to thrive. Most of the local ownership was on the FM side of things as AM radio was king during that time period and the larger ownership groups were still trying to figure out how to monetize the FM frequencies across the country as most were either classical or easy listening elevator music formats.
The ownership rules were basically done away with mid 90s. Ownership groups were allowed to buy up properties and consolidate into larger conglomerates. Syndication became the norm throughout the 80s and the 90s. The conglomerates also owned the syndication structure as well dictating what programs were to be fed the local stations in the chain. This paved the way to the larger conglomerates we have today of Audacy, iHeart and Cumulus all of which have filed for at least one or two bankruptcies in recent years, cutting cost, laying off talent, gutting live a local programing in favor of voice tracking.
This is the broadcast industries definition of progress.