Buffalo Do young people even know what radio is?

[SirRoxalot]

I thought that the idea of groups owning multiple stations in one market was supposed to be so they could appeal to multiple audiences while paring down the back-office, sales, and support numbers in order to justify overpaying for many of the stations they acquired post-1996. How many signals languish with a 1 or 2 share, acting a flankers for successful stations, instead of programming to an underserved audience in the market? Go back to the beginning of rock radio, and the target was teens. There was an awareness that they had money to spend too, just not as much as mom & dad. If everybody targets mom & dad, there's cash on the table that's going to go somewhere. That's where format-agnostic services like Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Music, YouTube Music and others serve up all kinds of music and develop algorithms to direct listeners toward either perceived preferences or what advertisers are pushing toward their particular demographic.

Radio's place in the market is to deliver content that adds value to pure-play music by creating content that relates to listeners. Sure, music can be part of it, but there are other relevant content options that are at their best when focused on a local or regional audience. Sports is a great example. In Buffalo, we want to hear about the Bills and Sabres, not so much about the NY Knicks or Philadelphia Eagles. With music, there's a much greater interest in Canadian content here at the border than there is in LA or NY. Seasonal changes here make LA radio sound out of sync with our experience.

There was a time when owners handed the reins of loser stations over to "kids" who were allowed to program to a younger audience with the hope of becoming self-sufficient. It's amazing how well that worked out at times, and created more than a few of today's "legacy" stations. It sure seems to me that it might have a better chance of being effective than another computer in a closet pumping out bland syndication to a 1-share audience.

 

[TheBigA]

I thought that the idea of groups owning multiple stations in one market was supposed to be so they could appeal to multiple audiences while paring down the back-office, sales, and support numbers

That assumes that revenue remains the same. Revenue for all media has been dropping, while costs have been going up. Something has to be done to make up for the loss of revenue. The benefits from consolidation are really only felt in the first few years. Once the synergies are absorbed, they simply become operating expenses. Now with falling revenues, those expenses become harder to meet.

Radio's place in the market is to deliver content that adds value to pure-play music by creating content that relates to listeners.

It only adds value if the customer perceives it as such. If all the customer wants is music, then the added content is an interruption. The fact that over 150 million people have chosen a music delivery service that provides no hosts demonstrates there's an audience for that kind of thing. If people want local hosts, they can listen to WECK, WGR, or WBEN. Lots of local hosts there. Every station doesn't have to do the exact same presentation. Plus we now have an entire generation that's grown up with unhosted music delivery. Radio companies don't create the music. The music, especially the older music, doesn't benefit by having someone speak the name of the song and artist. They audience knows those songs. That's why they listen.

In Buffalo, we want to hear about the Bills and Sabres, not so much about the NY Knicks or Philadelphia Eagles. .

Nobody is suggesting that would change. In fact Audacy just started new locally hosted sports stations in Miami and Los Angeles. The PD of the LA station was asked why he didn't add the syndicated Jim Rome show to the station. The PD said he wanted all of his hosts to be "in the building." So Audacy understands the value of local hosts in the sports format. They also see that value in talk, with WBEN, and in all news, with WINS or their other all news stations.

There was a time when owners handed the reins of loser stations over to "kids" who were allowed to program to a younger audience

The problem today is younger people don't own the device needed to listen. That was evident with Radio Disney, a format that aimed at children. It was a failure because those children were watching the Disney Channel, not listening to their parent's radio. Today's children want to have phones. Their parents give them to them because they can watch YouTube videos and they can use them for interaction. A radio can't do those kinds of things.

Look, there's no question everything was better for radio 50 years ago. Things changed. We can all cry in our beer about how things have changed, or we can adapt to it.

 

[Kent]

I thought that the idea of groups owning multiple stations in one market was supposed to be so they could appeal to multiple audiences while paring down the back-office, sales, and support numbers in order to justify overpaying for many of the stations they acquired post-1996.

The idea of groups owning multiple stations in one market goes back to before 1996, and it was to allow companies to better compete for advertisers in a market that saw the number of stations double over roughly a decade while the advertiser pool had shrunk. In order to do that, those companies had to compete for multiple audiences.

How many signals languish with a 1 or 2 share, acting a flankers for successful stations, instead of programming to an underserved audience in the market?

Most of the stations that do that are on disadvantaged signals that don't get a share higher than that no matter what they do. I'm sure you can find the occasional broadcaster that's programming stupidly and using a viable signal as a flanker, but that strategy has been accepted as one that usually doesn't work. I can think of a few examples where an audience for a specific format is large enough that the owner can be successful having multiple stations covering it and be successful, but it's not many.

Go back to the beginning of rock radio, and the target was teens. There was an awareness that they had money to spend too, just not as much as mom & dad. If everybody targets mom & dad, there's cash on the table that's going to go somewhere.

Radio stopped targeting teens in the 80's because the businesses that tended to cater to them and wanted to reach them got run out of business by the big box retailers. When I was growing up, there was a strip mall about a half mile from my house. It had an electronics shop, a music store, a comic book shop, a toy store, a pharmacy, and even a Casa Bonita (yes, part of the chain that was featured on South Park). It also had a Crystal's Pizza, which was similar to Casa Bonita but served a different fare. Some summers, I'd walk to that strip mall two or three times a week. My mom would send me with $5, enough for the Crystal's or Casa Bonita lunch buffet and to play a few video games. Today, that strip mall still stands but is pure blight. Crystal's closed in 1995, was replaced by a Dollar General, and even that went out of business. Casa Bonita went out of business about 20 years ago, briefly came back around 2009, and was replaced by a bar that became a hotbed for crime. The electronics, music, and toy stores were gone by the end of the 80's, and the pharmacy went out of business in the 90's when the owner retired. A few other bars, all seedy and with a reputation for crime, have replaced some while most of the other storefronts are vacant. The McDonald's on the outlot is still there. The Blockbuster Video that was built in the early 90's is now a liquor store, and the Wendy's that popped up in the late 80's is a local donut shop. The electronics, music, toy, and comic stores were businesses that advertised to teens on the Top-40 stations. When they got run out of business by Walmart, K-Mart, Target, and Venture (which opened across the street), nobody replaced them. The big box retailers either don't buy radio or only buy adult radio audiences.