-
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
25-54?
- Thread starter semoochie
- Start date
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Doubtful. What plays most into this is that there's a general perception by advertisers that few buying habits and preferences are changed much past 55 years of age.
Theoritically, that much-beloved chunk of buyers 25-54 from a decade ago is now 35-64, which would bode very well for upper-demo radio stations. However, the ad community has not followed along the same bounding ball and is still enamored with 25-54.
Now, actually, the secondary demo to 25-54 is 18-49, long a TV darling and now more and more prevalent in radio ad buys.
> I seem to recall that the 25-49 demo was expanded to 54
> about 35 years ago. Am I remembering this correctly and if
> so, what was the reason given for the change? If it was
> just an increase in demo population, couldn't that number be
> bumped up again to 59 or so?
>
Theoritically, that much-beloved chunk of buyers 25-54 from a decade ago is now 35-64, which would bode very well for upper-demo radio stations. However, the ad community has not followed along the same bounding ball and is still enamored with 25-54.
Now, actually, the secondary demo to 25-54 is 18-49, long a TV darling and now more and more prevalent in radio ad buys.
> I seem to recall that the 25-49 demo was expanded to 54
> about 35 years ago. Am I remembering this correctly and if
> so, what was the reason given for the change? If it was
> just an increase in demo population, couldn't that number be
> bumped up again to 59 or so?
>
> Doubtful. What plays most into this is that there's a
> general perception by advertisers that few buying habits and
> preferences are changed much past 55 years of age.
>
> Theoritically, that much-beloved chunk of buyers 25-54 from
> a decade ago is now 35-64, which would bode very well for
> upper-demo radio stations. However, the ad community has
> not followed along the same bounding ball and is still
> enamored with 25-54.
>
> Now, actually, the secondary demo to 25-54 is 18-49, long a
> TV darling and now more and more prevalent in radio ad buys.
In Black and Hispanic, almost all buys are 18-49, as well.
> general perception by advertisers that few buying habits and
> preferences are changed much past 55 years of age.
>
> Theoritically, that much-beloved chunk of buyers 25-54 from
> a decade ago is now 35-64, which would bode very well for
> upper-demo radio stations. However, the ad community has
> not followed along the same bounding ball and is still
> enamored with 25-54.
>
> Now, actually, the secondary demo to 25-54 is 18-49, long a
> TV darling and now more and more prevalent in radio ad buys.
In Black and Hispanic, almost all buys are 18-49, as well.
B
Barancas
Guest
> In Black and Hispanic, almost all buys are 18-49, as well.
>
I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of age in the US; the Caucasian population of the US has stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking. Estimates are that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be Hispanic; Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
Old Europe is already experiencing a decline in the Caucasian populations of their respective countries. As they decline, the populations of the Middle East and Africa move in to take up some of the slack. That's a great part of the reason why ethnic tensions are boiling in countries where that is taking place...France, Britain, The Netherlands...just to name a few.
A little off the subject, but, of passing interest anyway.
>
I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of age in the US; the Caucasian population of the US has stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking. Estimates are that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be Hispanic; Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
Old Europe is already experiencing a decline in the Caucasian populations of their respective countries. As they decline, the populations of the Middle East and Africa move in to take up some of the slack. That's a great part of the reason why ethnic tensions are boiling in countries where that is taking place...France, Britain, The Netherlands...just to name a few.
A little off the subject, but, of passing interest anyway.
> > In Black and Hispanic, almost all buys are 18-49, as well.
>
> >
>
> I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and
> especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of
> age in the US;
No, that is a bit of a simplification. The median age of Hispanics is around 24, which means half of them are 25 and older. And the median age of blacks is about 5 years under the non-ethnic white population.
However, advertisers are uninterested in the under-18 population as they are limited consumers.
> the Caucasian population of the US has
> stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking.
Many Hispanics are Caucasian. In fact, until the 1980 Census, nearly all were counted as caucasian and not separately tabulated.
The non-Hispanic white population is growning at a lower rate than the Hispanic population. But it is definitely growing.
> Estimates are
> that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be
> Hispanic;
That is not true. It is estimated that Hispanics will become around 25% of the population by 2050, not "a majority." With uncontrolled immigration, the Hispanic percentage might reach 30%.
See this at the census website...
102.6 million
The projected Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2050. According to this projection, Hispanics would constitute 24 percent of the nation’s total population on that date. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html>
> Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind
> Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
Just untrue.
>
> >
>
> I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and
> especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of
> age in the US;
No, that is a bit of a simplification. The median age of Hispanics is around 24, which means half of them are 25 and older. And the median age of blacks is about 5 years under the non-ethnic white population.
However, advertisers are uninterested in the under-18 population as they are limited consumers.
> the Caucasian population of the US has
> stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking.
Many Hispanics are Caucasian. In fact, until the 1980 Census, nearly all were counted as caucasian and not separately tabulated.
The non-Hispanic white population is growning at a lower rate than the Hispanic population. But it is definitely growing.
> Estimates are
> that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be
> Hispanic;
That is not true. It is estimated that Hispanics will become around 25% of the population by 2050, not "a majority." With uncontrolled immigration, the Hispanic percentage might reach 30%.
See this at the census website...
102.6 million
The projected Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2050. According to this projection, Hispanics would constitute 24 percent of the nation’s total population on that date. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html>
> Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind
> Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
Just untrue.
> Thank you for your feedback. I was more interested in a
> response to my first and second sentences.
>
Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
> response to my first and second sentences.
>
Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
> I seem to recall that the 25-49 demo was expanded to 54
> about 35 years ago.
Nope. 35-64 has never been a sales demo. 35-54, which is within the 25-54 demo, definitely is.
> Am I remembering this correctly and if
> so, what was the reason given for the change?
Changes come from tendencies at marketing departments of advertisers. There is no convention or meeting where it is voted on, just a trend that can bee seen by looking at the buys that are placed.
No "resons" are given by advertisers for their actions.
> If it was
> just an increase in demo population, couldn't that number be
> bumped up again to 59 or so?
>
Nope. The issue has nothing to do with population. It has to do with what advertisers are designing their products for in terms of demos.
Most advertisers, via thier marketing departments, feel it is tough to sell to older folks and the the top end of the boomers because it costs too much per sale to "get the buy." So 55+ is pretty much ignored in mass media advedrtising like radio and broadcast TV and most cable channels and daily papers.
> about 35 years ago.
Nope. 35-64 has never been a sales demo. 35-54, which is within the 25-54 demo, definitely is.
> Am I remembering this correctly and if
> so, what was the reason given for the change?
Changes come from tendencies at marketing departments of advertisers. There is no convention or meeting where it is voted on, just a trend that can bee seen by looking at the buys that are placed.
No "resons" are given by advertisers for their actions.
> If it was
> just an increase in demo population, couldn't that number be
> bumped up again to 59 or so?
>
Nope. The issue has nothing to do with population. It has to do with what advertisers are designing their products for in terms of demos.
Most advertisers, via thier marketing departments, feel it is tough to sell to older folks and the the top end of the boomers because it costs too much per sale to "get the buy." So 55+ is pretty much ignored in mass media advedrtising like radio and broadcast TV and most cable channels and daily papers.
> > Thank you for your feedback. I was more interested in a
> > response to my first and second sentences.
> >
>
> Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
>
I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. On my opening post, the last question was basically an afterthought. I was mostly interested in whether or not it actually happened and if so, the reason given at the time.
> > response to my first and second sentences.
> >
>
> Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
>
I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. On my opening post, the last question was basically an afterthought. I was mostly interested in whether or not it actually happened and if so, the reason given at the time.
> > > Thank you for your feedback. I was more interested in a
>
> > > response to my first and second sentences.
> > >
> >
> > Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
> >
> I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. On my
> opening post, the last question was basically an
> afterthought. I was mostly interested in whether or not it
> actually happened and if so, the reason given at the time.
Gotcha. I kind of figured that out after posting, and went back and looked at the original post. I hope that explanation is helpful.
In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or fall in demand. Most of the demo specfications come as part of product design, so it is proprietary with the advertiser. All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44" and are asked to submit rates.
There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell their agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not part of the process and are not consulted.
>
> > > response to my first and second sentences.
> > >
> >
> > Why? Are you and Barancas the sasme poster?
> >
> I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. On my
> opening post, the last question was basically an
> afterthought. I was mostly interested in whether or not it
> actually happened and if so, the reason given at the time.
Gotcha. I kind of figured that out after posting, and went back and looked at the original post. I hope that explanation is helpful.
In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or fall in demand. Most of the demo specfications come as part of product design, so it is proprietary with the advertiser. All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44" and are asked to submit rates.
There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell their agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not part of the process and are not consulted.
Your unsubstantiated blather about demos, buying patterns and ethnicities might be better received without the snide attitude. Re-read your responses, please, and you'll see what I mean. Now:
> In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy
> are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or
> fall in demand.
Oh good grief! We DO know why: market research, testing, focus groups, call-out research, test-marketing, projections and pro-active consumers. Add savvy marketing campaigns that CREATE a demand for a product where none existed before and a demo-need is born. Taking the data from ratings, plus the buying power for those demos, and you have a placement need on a station that most closely matches the demos sought. Period.
> Most of the demo specfications come as part
> of product design, so it is proprietary with the advertiser.
Meaningless prattle, bushwa and blather. Plain English, please.
> All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44" and
> are asked to submit rates.
>
NOthing exists in a vacuum! A savvy and smart radio station can and should explore and point out the vagaries of ratings; simply saying that "we have all the men 25/49" is simplistic and serves none of the parties...station, agency, advertiser or consumer. Target-specific requests should be met with an in-depth analysis of the whys of that request; marketers/radio stations become simple order-takers rather than pro-active marketers when they accede blindly to that order.
> There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell their
> agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not part
> of the process and are not consulted.
>
What a load of horsesh*t! Radio stations are always a part of any buy! Passive stations that sit back and take placement orders from agencies are missing perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of potential business. The stations that are making money in a down-market are those that are pro-active, that actively solicit business from agencies and who go after advertisers personally to encourage them to direct their agencies to place dollars on their station(s).
You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
> In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy
> are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or
> fall in demand.
Oh good grief! We DO know why: market research, testing, focus groups, call-out research, test-marketing, projections and pro-active consumers. Add savvy marketing campaigns that CREATE a demand for a product where none existed before and a demo-need is born. Taking the data from ratings, plus the buying power for those demos, and you have a placement need on a station that most closely matches the demos sought. Period.
> Most of the demo specfications come as part
> of product design, so it is proprietary with the advertiser.
Meaningless prattle, bushwa and blather. Plain English, please.
> All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44" and
> are asked to submit rates.
>
NOthing exists in a vacuum! A savvy and smart radio station can and should explore and point out the vagaries of ratings; simply saying that "we have all the men 25/49" is simplistic and serves none of the parties...station, agency, advertiser or consumer. Target-specific requests should be met with an in-depth analysis of the whys of that request; marketers/radio stations become simple order-takers rather than pro-active marketers when they accede blindly to that order.
> There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell their
> agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not part
> of the process and are not consulted.
>
What a load of horsesh*t! Radio stations are always a part of any buy! Passive stations that sit back and take placement orders from agencies are missing perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of potential business. The stations that are making money in a down-market are those that are pro-active, that actively solicit business from agencies and who go after advertisers personally to encourage them to direct their agencies to place dollars on their station(s).
You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
Re: No understanding of radio sales.
> Your unsubstantiated blather about demos, buying patterns
> and ethnicities might be better received without the snide
> attitude.
I can substantiate buying patterns by looking at the lists of upcoming campaigns that every rep sends its clients. As mentioned, in Q1 of 2006, there were zero 55+ buys in LA, the largest ad market in the us. The same is true in the remaining markets I have access to.
The ethnic data (median age, etc.) is even on the US census website.
>
> > In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy
>
> > are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or
> > fall in demand.
>
> Oh good grief! We DO know why: market research, testing,
> focus groups, call-out research, test-marketing, projections
> and pro-active consumers.
That data is proprietary for each product and campaign, so we do not know how each one is determined. As I said, we do not know "how the demos for each buy are determined." Period. We don't. We can guess, but we DO NOT KNOW.
> Add savvy marketing campaigns that
> CREATE a demand for a product where none existed before and
> a demo-need is born. Taking the data from ratings, plus the
> buying power for those demos, and you have a placement need
> on a station that most closely matches the demos sought.
> Period.
Which seldom happens with the kind of product advertised on radio. The products coming out today are driven by companies that are in the marketing mode, not in the old manufacturing mode. The product is created with its consumer in mind, and they promoted among that segment.
Radio is nearly always considered a support medium, and the cases of brands developed only by radio can be counted on the fingers of the hands.
>
> > Most of the demo specfications come as part
> > of product design, so it is proprietary with the
> advertiser.
>
> Meaningless prattle, bushwa and blather. Plain English,
> please.
The product is designed using a variety of research techniques. It is designed to appeal to a specific age group, and even that packaging is designed to reinforce that appeal. Then the advertising is created with that group in mind and placed where that group will hear or see it.
>
> > All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44"
> and
> > are asked to submit rates.
> >
>
> NOthing exists in a vacuum! A savvy and smart radio station
> can and should explore and point out the vagaries of
> ratings; simply saying that "we have all the men 25/49" is
> simplistic and serves none of the parties...station, agency,
> advertiser or consumer.
Stations do not submit ratings... agencies already have them. Generally, buys are made with a combination of cost per point (CPP) efficiency in the desired demo. reach and frequency goals, and service, support and good avails on the part of the station.
Agencies complain that radio is so hard to buy, since it is local and there are so many stations. So they try to keep the costs low by buying based on efficient delivery, both on r&f and CPP. There is little else the agency wants to know.
> Target-specific requests should be
> met with an in-depth analysis of the whys of that request;
> marketers/radio stations become simple order-takers rather
> than pro-active marketers when they accede blindly to that
> order.
Radio buys come from media buyers who have one instruction: keep the CPP in line. Stations seldom get to the planners, even at local or nearby agencies, and very seldom with regional or national where the station itself does not even see the buyers.
>
> > There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell
> their
> > agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not
> part
> > of the process and are not consulted.
> >
>
> What a load of horsesh*t!
You are obviously not in the business, or are in a position far removed from sales.
> Radio stations are always a part
> of any buy!
The only radio folks who see agency clients are committees from the RAB, etc., who go to see major national clients to get them to buy radio, the medium. Stations do not see clients, even at lower levels. In fact, it is pretty unethical for a station to call on an agency client unless it is with the agency and to work on some kind of promotion or special event.
> Passive stations that sit back and take
> placement orders from agencies are missing perhaps 1/3 to
> 1/2 of potential business.
First, national and regional agencies are not called on by stations. They are called on by the rep firm. The rep presents the station, including additional services, rates, emphasizes as much about the station as they can in a brief meeting. But agency business is transactional, and based on ratings. Most negotiation is about rates.
> The stations that are making
> money in a down-market are those that are pro-active, that
> actively solicit business from agencies and who go after
> advertisers personally to encourage them to direct their
> agencies to place dollars on their station(s).
The best way to get NO business from an agency for years is to mess with the agency client relationship. You sure do not understand the client > agency > media relationships, do you?
>
> You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
No, actually, you do. Your understanding of agency selling is woefully deficient, and using cuss words and ad hominems does nothing to enhance your lack of knowledge or your credibility.
I have been GM, GSM and NSM for some major stations and have enviable growth rates in each case. I did it by selling aggressively but within the structure and system which I could not change.
> Your unsubstantiated blather about demos, buying patterns
> and ethnicities might be better received without the snide
> attitude.
I can substantiate buying patterns by looking at the lists of upcoming campaigns that every rep sends its clients. As mentioned, in Q1 of 2006, there were zero 55+ buys in LA, the largest ad market in the us. The same is true in the remaining markets I have access to.
The ethnic data (median age, etc.) is even on the US census website.
>
> > In radio, we really do not know how the demos for each buy
>
> > are determined, nor do we know why certain demos rise or
> > fall in demand.
>
> Oh good grief! We DO know why: market research, testing,
> focus groups, call-out research, test-marketing, projections
> and pro-active consumers.
That data is proprietary for each product and campaign, so we do not know how each one is determined. As I said, we do not know "how the demos for each buy are determined." Period. We don't. We can guess, but we DO NOT KNOW.
> Add savvy marketing campaigns that
> CREATE a demand for a product where none existed before and
> a demo-need is born. Taking the data from ratings, plus the
> buying power for those demos, and you have a placement need
> on a station that most closely matches the demos sought.
> Period.
Which seldom happens with the kind of product advertised on radio. The products coming out today are driven by companies that are in the marketing mode, not in the old manufacturing mode. The product is created with its consumer in mind, and they promoted among that segment.
Radio is nearly always considered a support medium, and the cases of brands developed only by radio can be counted on the fingers of the hands.
>
> > Most of the demo specfications come as part
> > of product design, so it is proprietary with the
> advertiser.
>
> Meaningless prattle, bushwa and blather. Plain English,
> please.
The product is designed using a variety of research techniques. It is designed to appeal to a specific age group, and even that packaging is designed to reinforce that appeal. Then the advertising is created with that group in mind and placed where that group will hear or see it.
>
> > All we know is that there is a buy "against women 35-44"
> and
> > are asked to submit rates.
> >
>
> NOthing exists in a vacuum! A savvy and smart radio station
> can and should explore and point out the vagaries of
> ratings; simply saying that "we have all the men 25/49" is
> simplistic and serves none of the parties...station, agency,
> advertiser or consumer.
Stations do not submit ratings... agencies already have them. Generally, buys are made with a combination of cost per point (CPP) efficiency in the desired demo. reach and frequency goals, and service, support and good avails on the part of the station.
Agencies complain that radio is so hard to buy, since it is local and there are so many stations. So they try to keep the costs low by buying based on efficient delivery, both on r&f and CPP. There is little else the agency wants to know.
> Target-specific requests should be
> met with an in-depth analysis of the whys of that request;
> marketers/radio stations become simple order-takers rather
> than pro-active marketers when they accede blindly to that
> order.
Radio buys come from media buyers who have one instruction: keep the CPP in line. Stations seldom get to the planners, even at local or nearby agencies, and very seldom with regional or national where the station itself does not even see the buyers.
>
> > There can be a lot of reasons for advertisers to tell
> their
> > agencies what demos to buy, but radio stations are not
> part
> > of the process and are not consulted.
> >
>
> What a load of horsesh*t!
You are obviously not in the business, or are in a position far removed from sales.
> Radio stations are always a part
> of any buy!
The only radio folks who see agency clients are committees from the RAB, etc., who go to see major national clients to get them to buy radio, the medium. Stations do not see clients, even at lower levels. In fact, it is pretty unethical for a station to call on an agency client unless it is with the agency and to work on some kind of promotion or special event.
> Passive stations that sit back and take
> placement orders from agencies are missing perhaps 1/3 to
> 1/2 of potential business.
First, national and regional agencies are not called on by stations. They are called on by the rep firm. The rep presents the station, including additional services, rates, emphasizes as much about the station as they can in a brief meeting. But agency business is transactional, and based on ratings. Most negotiation is about rates.
> The stations that are making
> money in a down-market are those that are pro-active, that
> actively solicit business from agencies and who go after
> advertisers personally to encourage them to direct their
> agencies to place dollars on their station(s).
The best way to get NO business from an agency for years is to mess with the agency client relationship. You sure do not understand the client > agency > media relationships, do you?
>
> You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
No, actually, you do. Your understanding of agency selling is woefully deficient, and using cuss words and ad hominems does nothing to enhance your lack of knowledge or your credibility.
I have been GM, GSM and NSM for some major stations and have enviable growth rates in each case. I did it by selling aggressively but within the structure and system which I could not change.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Few people on this board have a better understanding than David.
The problem might really be that you simply don't agree with him- and that's OK, just be careful when questioning credentials or credibility.
>
> You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
>
The problem might really be that you simply don't agree with him- and that's OK, just be careful when questioning credentials or credibility.
>
> You really do need to study the subject more before posting.
>
Attitude
> > You really do need to study the subject more before
> posting.
>
> No, actually, you do. Your understanding of agency selling
> is woefully deficient, and using cuss words and ad hominems
> does nothing to enhance your lack of knowledge or your
> credibility.
>
> I have been GM, GSM and NSM for some major stations and have
> enviable growth rates in each case. I did it by selling
> aggressively but within the structure and system which I
> could not change.
>
After reading this thread and several below, it appears that you have some marginal knowledge of the subject matter. But, after reading your responses to several people above and below, you also have an incredible arrogance and dismissive attitude to those who don't share your point of view. Right when I was starting to see your argument, your argumentativeness got in the way.
Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such as you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers were happy to see you depart.
> > You really do need to study the subject more before
> posting.
>
> No, actually, you do. Your understanding of agency selling
> is woefully deficient, and using cuss words and ad hominems
> does nothing to enhance your lack of knowledge or your
> credibility.
>
> I have been GM, GSM and NSM for some major stations and have
> enviable growth rates in each case. I did it by selling
> aggressively but within the structure and system which I
> could not change.
>
After reading this thread and several below, it appears that you have some marginal knowledge of the subject matter. But, after reading your responses to several people above and below, you also have an incredible arrogance and dismissive attitude to those who don't share your point of view. Right when I was starting to see your argument, your argumentativeness got in the way.
Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such as you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers were happy to see you depart.
Re: Attitude
>
> After reading this thread and several below, it appears that
> you have some marginal knowledge of the subject matter.
I have more than a marginal knowedge, having spent about 30 years of my carreer as a GM or GSM or COO.
> But,
> after reading your responses to several people above and
> below, you also have an incredible arrogance and dismissive
> attitude to those who don't share your point of view.
There is no "point of view" about how radio sales are done at the agency level. The posters you refer to are, simply, wrong.
> Right
> when I was starting to see your argument, your
> argumentativeness got in the way.
I do not suffer fools gladly. And this foolish argument you are defendin comes up about every 60 days here... the idea that oldies stations fail because they don't know how to sell... or that agencies will change the client-imposed demo specs just to make an oldies or old demo station happy... or that radio ownership is lazy... etc.
>
> Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have
> owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such as
> you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers
> were happy to see you depart.
I once owned nearly 20 stations, including a 9 station cluster in one single market. I have managed in Puerto Rico (market 13), group manager for PR, and 4 Norht Florida stations, manager in Miami, DC and Richmond among other places.
I have had entire staff's follow me from one station to another because the people I hire like to win (#1 32 of last 36 years in Puerto Rico, for example). I did not acheive that by pandering to morons.
>
> After reading this thread and several below, it appears that
> you have some marginal knowledge of the subject matter.
I have more than a marginal knowedge, having spent about 30 years of my carreer as a GM or GSM or COO.
> But,
> after reading your responses to several people above and
> below, you also have an incredible arrogance and dismissive
> attitude to those who don't share your point of view.
There is no "point of view" about how radio sales are done at the agency level. The posters you refer to are, simply, wrong.
> Right
> when I was starting to see your argument, your
> argumentativeness got in the way.
I do not suffer fools gladly. And this foolish argument you are defendin comes up about every 60 days here... the idea that oldies stations fail because they don't know how to sell... or that agencies will change the client-imposed demo specs just to make an oldies or old demo station happy... or that radio ownership is lazy... etc.
>
> Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have
> owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such as
> you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers
> were happy to see you depart.
I once owned nearly 20 stations, including a 9 station cluster in one single market. I have managed in Puerto Rico (market 13), group manager for PR, and 4 Norht Florida stations, manager in Miami, DC and Richmond among other places.
I have had entire staff's follow me from one station to another because the people I hire like to win (#1 32 of last 36 years in Puerto Rico, for example). I did not acheive that by pandering to morons.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Attitude
"When you're right, it ain't braggin'".
(To previous poster): David was not being arrogant- he knows what he's talking about and is articulate about it. THAT in itself drives the most insecure and paranoid in our biz nuts.
Deal with it.
>
> > But, after reading your responses to several people above and
> > below, you also have an incredible arrogance and
> dismissive attitude to those who don't share your point of view.
>
> There is no "point of view" about how radio sales are done
> at the agency level. The posters you refer to are, simply,
> wrong.
>
> > Right
> > when I was starting to see your argument, your
> > argumentativeness got in the way.
>
> I do not suffer fools gladly. And this foolish argument you
> are defendin comes up about every 60 days here... the idea
> that oldies stations fail because they don't know how to
> sell... or that agencies will change the client-imposed demo
> specs just to make an oldies or old demo station happy... or
> that radio ownership is lazy... etc.
> >
> > Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have
> > owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such
> as
> > you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers
> > were happy to see you depart.
>
> I once owned nearly 20 stations, including a 9 station
> cluster in one single market. I have managed in Puerto Rico
> (market 13), group manager for PR, and 4 Norht Florida
> stations, manager in Miami, DC and Richmond among other
> places.
>
> I have had entire staff's follow me from one station to
> another because the people I hire like to win (#1 32 of last
> 36 years in Puerto Rico, for example). I did not acheive
> that by pandering to morons.
>
"When you're right, it ain't braggin'".
(To previous poster): David was not being arrogant- he knows what he's talking about and is articulate about it. THAT in itself drives the most insecure and paranoid in our biz nuts.
Deal with it.
>
> > But, after reading your responses to several people above and
> > below, you also have an incredible arrogance and
> dismissive attitude to those who don't share your point of view.
>
> There is no "point of view" about how radio sales are done
> at the agency level. The posters you refer to are, simply,
> wrong.
>
> > Right
> > when I was starting to see your argument, your
> > argumentativeness got in the way.
>
> I do not suffer fools gladly. And this foolish argument you
> are defendin comes up about every 60 days here... the idea
> that oldies stations fail because they don't know how to
> sell... or that agencies will change the client-imposed demo
> specs just to make an oldies or old demo station happy... or
> that radio ownership is lazy... etc.
> >
> > Peripherally, where you have been GM, GSM and NSM, I have
> > owned two stations; people with a smug superiority, such
> as
> > you, are poison in a radio station. I bet your coworkers
> > were happy to see you depart.
>
> I once owned nearly 20 stations, including a 9 station
> cluster in one single market. I have managed in Puerto Rico
> (market 13), group manager for PR, and 4 Norht Florida
> stations, manager in Miami, DC and Richmond among other
> places.
>
> I have had entire staff's follow me from one station to
> another because the people I hire like to win (#1 32 of last
> 36 years in Puerto Rico, for example). I did not acheive
> that by pandering to morons.
>
Re: Attitude
> "When you're right, it ain't braggin'".
>
> (To previous poster): David was not being arrogant- he
> knows what he's talking about and is articulate about it.
> THAT in itself drives the most insecure and paranoid in our
> biz nuts.
>
> Deal with it.
Do I owe you an agent's commission?
ROFL.
> "When you're right, it ain't braggin'".
>
> (To previous poster): David was not being arrogant- he
> knows what he's talking about and is articulate about it.
> THAT in itself drives the most insecure and paranoid in our
> biz nuts.
>
> Deal with it.
Do I owe you an agent's commission?
ROFL.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Attitude
(my bill's in the mail)
LOL
>
> Do I owe you an agent's commission?
>
> ROFL.
>
(my bill's in the mail)
LOL
>
> Do I owe you an agent's commission?
>
> ROFL.
>
A
am-fm
Guest
Danger! Danger!
Email is good for talking to individuals who you dont see eye to eye with.....
David had credibility(sp?) on here, even though I disagree with him at times, he is usually right.
Email him if you have problems with him...<P ID="signature">______________
AOL IM: wnjoldies
HyLitRadio.com
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
Email is good for talking to individuals who you dont see eye to eye with.....
David had credibility(sp?) on here, even though I disagree with him at times, he is usually right.
Email him if you have problems with him...<P ID="signature">______________
AOL IM: wnjoldies
HyLitRadio.com
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
B
bigwoody
Guest
> > In Black and Hispanic, almost all buys are 18-49, as well.
>
> >
>
> I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and
> especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of
> age in the US; the Caucasian population of the US has
> stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking. Estimates are
> that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be
> Hispanic; Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind
> Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
>
Current Census has Hispanics now outnumbering Blacks. <P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
>
> >
>
> I believe that most of the population(s) of Blacks, and
> especially Hispanics, are predominantly under 25 years of
> age in the US; the Caucasian population of the US has
> stagnated and, in some cases, is shrinking. Estimates are
> that by 2050, the majority race/ethnicity in the US will be
> Hispanic; Blacks will be the #3 ethnicity, behind
> Caucasians, in a drop from #2.
>
Current Census has Hispanics now outnumbering Blacks. <P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
- Status