the WOLF [ 104.7 ] fm " claims" on a television ad
60 in a Row, every hour
what does this even mean ???
60 in a Row, every hour
what does this even mean ???
-
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
60 in a Row
- Thread starter Radio-Bored-Op
- Start date
60 minutes of excruciating redneck noise every hour 24/7...
That's a horrible, mean statement. Just because you don't like a kind of music does not mean it is bad music. And it does not mean that the listeners are lesser people than thou.
Only radio people count songs. Listeners aren't impressed with such things.
Perhaps they're talking about minutes?
I won't call the slogan stupid -- yet -- but an explanation (or a reveal, if it's part of a tease for a giveaway or contest) is definitely necessary. Even running commercial-free and jockless, no station could play anything close to 60 normal-length (2:30-4:00) songs an hour. Even the thickest listener would realize that.
The slogan ostensibly refers to "minutes." Regardless of what one might think of the format, the music or the company, the slogan is a prime example of the hackneyed, meaningless tripe that radio needs to excise if it's to survive as an OTA or competitive digital portal. It recalls the days of worn out slogans such as "turn it up and rip the knobs off," and "the most music allowed by law." These days we mock those caricatures.
"Sixty in a row every hour" actually sounds like an imaging liner that might be heard on a Jack-FM type station, snarkly delivered to demonstrate how laughably "radio" it really is. It begs the question "who's buying" such a liner or positioning statement? It's obviously BS, and these days younger people especially are apt to call BS on such blatant ... BS.
"Sixty in a row every hour" actually sounds like an imaging liner that might be heard on a Jack-FM type station, snarkly delivered to demonstrate how laughably "radio" it really is. It begs the question "who's buying" such a liner or positioning statement? It's obviously BS, and these days younger people especially are apt to call BS on such blatant ... BS.
Soon they'll be using "Five Nines for you!" 99.999% uptime is coin of the realm in the digital world.
It's marketing, not brain surgery. People will find any reason to complain.
What's completely overlooked here is that Audacy has bought TV ads! I saw that, and thought how often does that happen today? Is this a regular feature in Buffalo? I don't think so. It's happening at a time when Sirius is also buying TV ads. When The Wolf was launched, people wondered if Audacy would invest in a marketing campaign for the station. The answer is yes.
It's not a complaint, it's an analysis based on observation and experience. As to the TV ads, they're boilerplate and easy to fast forward through. Audacy also reportedly bought a spot on the scoreboard at Highmark Stadium. Fans who attend the games say it usually runs at the end of a quarter when fans are on their way to the loo or to get another beer. "Timing," it's said...
A radio station can place a truckload of ads, especially TV ads, but it doesn't guarantee anything if the product is unrefined or, as Dave Eduardo has noted in previous threads regarding the 107.7 signal, inaccessible to one third of the market.
One man's analysis is another's complaint. To you, it's "meaningless tripe." But it's not aimed at you. You're not in the demo.
That's MY analysis based on observation & experience.
They don't need to reach everyone. They just need a 3 share. They can do that with this signal.
The product is as "refined" as it can be given the music. They're not selling quality, just cheap & easy music.
Damn right they're not selling Quality. As for reaching a 3 share, it will never happen. There's no demand for a second Country format.
Listeners to Country formats aren't necessarily imbeciles, but David E. will know what percentage are. What kind of marketing is the "60 in a Row" ad? It's vapid. Cheap & Easy music (as you suggested) would be more accurate...
How do you know? What they're selling is uninterrupted music. The competition is running 16 minutes of spots. The minute WYRK starts a break, would you sit through it or change to non-stop music? You tell me. If they can get 25% of the listeners to switch, they've won.
That's OK. There's an audience for that. You don't have to pass an IQ test to be a Nielsen reporter.
You and I don't know that. Apparently the station owner believes that there will be enough churn during stopsets that many people will try the station during the pure music commercial free period to give them a button in the car or to remember the name to ask Alexa for it if at home. Once they establish a habit, they will share cume.
So, they can establish usage without there being demand.
There are two national brand gas station a block away from each other where I live. Yesterday, the first one was jammed full, so I went to the other one. That is what can happen on the radio dial, too.
They are doing just what Summit is working on in Knoxville: if they bring down the market leader by a couple of points, they reduce the "must buy" nature of it, and the Summit cluster can better sell its group of stations. A lot of format decision making is based on the cluster, not just the one station.
The saga of 107.7 should be memorialized at some point. Maybe a plaque outside the transmitter site, commemorating how 107.7 came to represent the excesses of the post-Telecom consolidation mania.
Wouldn't you want to reserve that for something done by Clear Channel?
While Entercom massively overpaid for 107.7 it is a far cry from “representing the excesses”. Citadel & Cumulus are the poster children for that award.
If you live in Buffalo, or actually spent some time here, you know that there really isn’t a need for a second country station. The wolf is simply a flanker to pull numbers from WYRK.
When programming, one has to recognize that there is no "need" for any station. Usage is created by convenience and opportunity. So, if one broadcast group wants to bring down a market leader by a bit, they counter program to slice away shares from the competitor. The result is that the competitive group has fewer shares and the creator of the strategy enhances their own relative rank positions.
When I owned 9 stations in a market, I knew that one of them would always be in play to counter a move or format variation of a competitor. It did not matter if each station individually made money as I had taken the example from business textbooks of supermarkets where some products were loss leaders to bring traffic that would buy profitable things.
Listeners will have an array of stations they use; the PPM shows us that the average person uses 6 stations in a 7 day period. And even in the past we knew that even the early push button car radios could be set for five or six stations. Anything that fragments a competitor will bring benefits to us.
Programming decisions are based as much or more on advertiser needs as on listener tastes.
These days those two different “national brand” gas stations could actually have the same owner, so if business shifts from one to the other there is no financial loss. Same thing for “competing” radio stations.
- Status