95.7 MAX-FM

[e-dawg]

Whats up with that station? It seems they hit rock bottom on the ratings in the SF & SJO book? IS Adult Hits format doesn't work in SF b/c of KIOI, KLLC, and KFOG? IF they decided to change format, maybe they can go back to country or CHR/POP.

 

[KMRichards]

> Whats up with that station? It seems they hit rock bottom
> on the ratings in the SF & SJO book?

Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value" Mon-Sun 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?

Unless someone who has access to the demographic breakouts who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[simonsays]

Ah yes, our esteemed moderator once again on the absolute irrelevance of 12+ numbers. And I'm sure Bonneville and Flying Blind are ecstatic over the performance in their targeted demos.

Any station that has the 28th ranked 12+ in the market (KZBR) and or the 35th ranked 12+ in the market (KNGY) doesn't have enough AQH to register a more than a blip in any attractive targeted demo.

But as long as you insist on beating this horse, the 25-54 numbers mirror the 12+ numbers. In Bonneville's case, MAX's 25-54 is down more than 50% from the Bear's last 25-54... the same as the 12+ drop. But naaahhh, 12+ is irrelevant.




> Whats up with that station? It seems they hit rock bottom
>
> > on the ratings in the SF & SJO book?
>
> Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are
> failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value" Mon-Sun
> 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?
>
> Unless someone who has access to the demographic breakouts
> who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target
> demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

I do have access to that information- and they barely crack a 1-share 25-54.
That's #24 rank in the latest trend. They're #32 in the 18-34 cell.

I think that qualifies the station as a dog.

>
> Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are
> failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value" Mon-Sun
> 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?
>
> Unless someone who has access to the demographic breakouts
> who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target
> demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

MAX-FM

But he is right- 12+ are useless, other than for a big-picture indicator on industry website ratings overviews.


> Ah yes, our esteemed moderator once again on the absolute
> irrelevance of 12+ numbers. And I'm sure Bonneville and
> Flying Blind are ecstatic over the performance in their
> targeted demos.
>
> Any station that has the 28th ranked 12+ in the market
> (KZBR) and or the 35th ranked 12+ in the market (KNGY)
> doesn't have enough AQH to register a more than a blip in
> any attractive targeted demo.
>
> But as long as you insist on beating this horse, the 25-54
> numbers mirror the 12+ numbers. In Bonneville's case, MAX's
> 25-54 is down more than 50% from the Bear's last 25-54...
> the same as the 12+ drop. But naaahhh, 12+ is irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> > Whats up with that station? It seems they hit rock bottom
>
> >
> > > on the ratings in the SF & SJO book?
> >
> > Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are
> > failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value" Mon-Sun
>
> > 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?
> >
> > Unless someone who has access to the demographic breakouts
>
> > who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target
> > demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
> >
>

 

[DyingMedium]

Re: MAX-FM

12+ numbers are not useless. I don't care how the station is being sold...if it's number 28 12+, then there is no demo that can make that look good.


> But he is right- 12+ are useless, other than for a
> big-picture indicator on industry website ratings overviews.
>
>
>
> > Ah yes, our esteemed moderator once again on the absolute
> > irrelevance of 12+ numbers. And I'm sure Bonneville and
> > Flying Blind are ecstatic over the performance in their
> > targeted demos.
> >
> > Any station that has the 28th ranked 12+ in the market
> > (KZBR) and or the 35th ranked 12+ in the market (KNGY)
> > doesn't have enough AQH to register a more than a blip in
> > any attractive targeted demo.
> >
> > But as long as you insist on beating this horse, the 25-54
>
> > numbers mirror the 12+ numbers. In Bonneville's case,
> MAX's
> > 25-54 is down more than 50% from the Bear's last 25-54...
> > the same as the 12+ drop. But naaahhh, 12+ is irrelevant.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Whats up with that station? It seems they hit rock
> bottom
> >
> > >
> > > > on the ratings in the SF & SJO book?
> > >
> > > Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are
> > > failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value"
> Mon-Sun
> >
> > > 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?
> > >
> > > Unless someone who has access to the demographic
> breakouts
> >
> > > who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target
>
> > > demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
> > >
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

MAX-FM

Well, of course.

But nobody in radio today (or for the past 30 years) makes strategic or tactical decisions based on 12+ ratings.



> 12+ numbers are not useless. I don't care how the station
> is being sold...if it's number 28 12+, then there is no demo
> that can make that look good.

 

[BossRadioDJ]

Re: MAX-FM

> 12+ numbers are not useless. I don't care how the station
> is being sold...if it's number 28 12+, then there is no demo
> that can make that look good.

Agreed. Ratings are ratings. If you're #25 in the 12+, but you're #3 among left-handed white males who drive Fords, who cares?

What happened to the days when a station tried to go after the entire listening audience with quality programming, rather than making constant knee-jerk decisions?

Oooh, Limbaugh's hot -- we need to go All Ultra-Right Wing! Oooh, people love the iPod -- we have to throw out the jocks and play any crap we can find in no particular order! Ooooh, baby boomers are getting old and don't have any money, we need to get rid of Oldies!

(Yeah, I'm a bitter, bitter man.)

DJ<P ID="signature">______________
<center>

</center></P>

 

[BossRadioDJ]

Re: "Tactical Decisions"

> But nobody in radio today (or for the past 30 years) makes
> strategic or tactical decisions based on 12+ ratings.

What are they basing the decisions on, then? Bay Area radio once had a distinctive sound and feel. Now you can listen to radio here and it doesn't sound any different than any third-tier market in the country because everything is based on bottom-line thinking by corporate analysts.

The Clear Channelization of local radio markets is that you can open a box, pour out some pre-packaged, sterile product (selected by a management team in some far-off headquarters building) and to assume that what works in Topeka will work in Boise and Reno and (dare I say) San Francisco.

There were bad stations around here run by cheap, unimaginative owners back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but they were usually local owners -- or owners that only owned a handful of stations. Now it's so homogenized that I really think that radio may be smothering itself to death.

DJ<P ID="signature">______________
<center>

</center></P>

 

[shooty]

I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
> >
Then don't open the thread!

 

[allisonmarie]

Re: "Tactical Decisions"

> > But nobody in radio today (or for the past 30 years) makes
>
> > strategic or tactical decisions based on 12+ ratings.
>
> What are they basing the decisions on, then? Bay Area radio
> once had a distinctive sound and feel. Now you can listen to
> radio here and it doesn't sound any different than any
> third-tier market in the country because everything is based
> on bottom-line thinking by corporate analysts.
>
> The Clear Channelization of local radio markets is that you
> can open a box, pour out some pre-packaged, sterile product
> (selected by a management team in some far-off headquarters
> building) and to assume that what works in Topeka will work
> in Boise and Reno and (dare I say) San Francisco.
>
> There were bad stations around here run by cheap,
> unimaginative owners back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but
> they were usually local owners -- or owners that only owned
> a handful of stations. Now it's so homogenized that I really
> think that radio may be smothering itself to death.
>
> DJ
>
Amen to that!!!!

 

[kinetic]

Re: "Tactical Decisions"

> > > But nobody in radio today (or for the past 30 years)
> > makes strategic or tactical decisions based on 12+ ratings.
> > What are they basing the decisions on, then? Bay Area
> > radio once had a distinctive sound and feel. Now you can listen
> > to radio here and it doesn't sound any different than any
> > third-tier market in the country because everything is
> > based on bottom-line thinking by corporate analysts.
> > The Clear Channelization of local radio markets is that
> > you can open a box, pour out some pre-packaged, sterile
> > product (selected by a management team in some far-off
> > headquarters building) and to assume that what works in Topeka will
> > work in Boise and Reno and (dare I say) San Francisco.
> > There were bad stations around here run by cheap,
> > unimaginative owners back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s,
> > but they were usually local owners -- or owners that only
> > owned a handful of stations. Now it's so homogenized that I
> > really think that radio may be smothering itself to death.
> >
> > DJ
> >
> Amen to that!!!!
>

No, more like Rest in Peace. These criticisms are appealing to radio fans and people in radio programming people but while this exercise in nostalgia makes us feel good for the nice trip down memory lane, it is academic because it ignores the reality.

This is a risk-benefit equation. Local ownership is a far riskier, cost-prohibitive proposition; homogenized radio runs the risk of being bland but costs less to operate, thereby yielding a profit regardless of quality. From which can we derive the greater benefit? The answer to Clear Channel is obvious.

These sentiments remind me of discussions about the good old days when baseball players were loyal and stayed with one team, or when television didn't dictate terms to the NFL. Those days are over.

Clear Channel doesn't care that you don't like their product. They only care if you can make them money. And as long as they continue to make money with an inferior product, you can't blame them anymore; you can only blame their consumers.

 

[OldiesCat]

MAX-FM

I did not say that- please don't try and make it appear I did.

> Then don't open the thread!
>

> I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.
> > >

 

[OldiesCat]

Strategy, tactics, etc.

My point is that no operators get together and say, "gee, guys- what do we do to get that 12+ number cranked up?". Because there's no benefit in working a plan around increasing 12+ ratings. If you decide, let's say, as an Oldies staion that you want to be more competitive 25-54, you may change your target from what's been 35-64 to 45-54, narrow it down so your number within 25-54 goes up. If you're a CHR station, you sure don't say "hey, if we can just get that 12+ number from a 4 to a 5, we'll be successful"- you're more likely to look at what you are, see that while you do OK 18-34 almost all of it is 18-34, then come up with a plan to beef up 25-34 to get on more adult buys.

Pretty basic thinking, really.

>
> What are they basing the decisions on, then? Bay Area radio
> once had a distinctive sound and feel. Now you can listen to
> radio here and it doesn't sound any different than any
> third-tier market in the country because everything is based
> on bottom-line thinking by corporate analysts.
>
> The Clear Channelization of local radio markets is that you
> can open a box, pour out some pre-packaged, sterile product
> (selected by a management team in some far-off headquarters
> building) and to assume that what works in Topeka will work
> in Boise and Reno and (dare I say) San Francisco.
>
> There were bad stations around here run by cheap,
> unimaginative owners back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but
> they were usually local owners -- or owners that only owned
> a handful of stations. Now it's so homogenized that I really
> think that radio may be smothering itself to death.
>
> DJ
>

 

[OldiesCat]

"Tactical Decisions"

Right- and they only make money if the consumer likes the product.

>
> Clear Channel doesn't care that you don't like their
> product. They only care if you can make them money. And as
> long as they continue to make money with an inferior
> product, you can't blame them anymore; you can only blame
> their consumers.
>

 

[LKellerIII]

Re: "Tactical Decisions"

>
Right- and they only make money if the consumer likes the
> product.
>
> Yes - and I think that lately Clear Channel has made some interesting programming decisions, and has taken some chances. For example - the "Will & Willie" morning show on KQKE. The safe...and cheap thing for them to do would have been to continue running syndicated programming. If they're doing it to create buzz about the Quake, and make more money in the long run, who cares? Regarding those who were looking fondly back to local ownership, I can only give you my feelings as a longtime radio fan, and somebody with no inside industry knowledge, except what I read here. But in my humble opinion - Bay Area radio in the 15 or so years before de-regulation generally sucked...especially FM. There were fewer music formats than now, and there was a lot of format duplication. For example, at various times, there were identical "Bill Drake" sounding oldies formats on both KFRC and KYA; KMEL/KYUU/KITS all doing CHR; 2 or 3 soft rock stations almost identical to KOIT, etc). Yes - there were a few short-lived money-losing gems like "The City" and KFAT, but they either self destructed, or were bought out by "corporate interests" long before Clear Channel. That kind of innovative radio will probably never happen again, and that's sad -but I think that we have more variety to chose from now. Remember back to the 70s - those "free form" rock stations we older Boomers all revered (KSAN, KMPX) really only had true "underground" formats for a few short years. It didn't take long before the corporate owners (Metromedia, etc.) decided they could make some real money with these stations if they homogenized things by hiring consultants, installing playlists, limiting DJ talk, etc. I really think we have more variety now.

I still remember DJs sharing their war stories of working for local owners who were often NOT radio professionals, but generally owned other businesses - didn't care about the music - capriciously censored the jocks, made their lazy spoiled sons the PD, etc. etc. However, I realize I'm saying this from a fan's perspective, not as somebody who has been "downsized" or voice-tracked out of a job by Clear Channel. But if we really believe local owners today would be less tight with a buck, or would have ignored all that hot voice-tracking technology, I think we're being naive. Pardon the long screed, I'm done now.

 

[OldiesCat]

voicetrackin'

on the whole issue of voicetracking, everybody does it (some would suggest Cox, Cumulus and some of the smaller operators are worse than CC).

And, maybe we could look at it this way: television has been doing something similar for decades. If you're in a smaller or medium size market, you'd be silly not to want bigger market, more talented personalities on your music station than some local stiff who's either burned out or too inexperienced to make your station sound good. Almost nothing is live on TV anymore and only now is radio finally catching up, understanding that having a great sounding product should be THE goal (as noble as it may seem to think we should be live & local round the clock in all markets).
>
> I still remember DJs sharing their war stories of working
> for local owners who were often NOT radio professionals, but
> generally owned other businesses - didn't care about the
> music - capriciously censored the jocks, made their lazy
> spoiled sons the PD, etc. etc. However, I realize I'm saying
> this from a fan's perspective, not as somebody who has been
> "downsized" or voice-tracked out of a job by Clear Channel.
> But if we really believe local owners today would be less
> tight with a buck, or would have ignored all that hot
> voice-tracking technology, I think we're being naive. Pardon
> the long screed, I'm done now.
>

 

[Mark_Roberts]

> Are we going to have ANOTHER thread on how stations are
> failing, based on the "tells you nothing of value" Mon-Sun
> 6am-Mid 12+ numbers?
>
> Unless someone who has access to the demographic breakouts
> who can thus tell how stations are doing in their target
> demos, I don't want to hear any worthless speculation.

Well, there would go 90% of the posts to this board.

 

[Mark_Roberts]

Re: MAX-FM

> What happened to the days when a station tried to go after
> the entire listening audience with quality programming,
> rather than making constant knee-jerk decisions?

Did those days ever exist? True, the knees seem to be jerking faster these days, but it's awfully easy to think that things were better 20 or 30 years ago. They might not have been. I remember plenty of awful radio, but the basic questions remain: what really is awful? What is good radio? A valid answer isn't, "radio that I like" because what I like may be, and probably is, different from what you like, what the neighbors like, what the co-workers like, etc.

For example, I really can't stand KGO. But it's been a phenomenally successful station. I have to respect that, even if I have a low opinion of it.

Really, the only definition of "good" or "best" that exists is whether a station makes money or not, and how much money it makes. That's the most objective measure you could get. Of course, we the public don't see THOSE numbers. But I digress.

As for MAX FM - I do end up listening to it occasionally. It's not my top choice, but it's not awful. I like having personalities being far, far in the background, where I think they belong. You may not agree, of course.

> Ooooh,
> baby boomers are getting old and don't have any money, we
> need to get rid of Oldies!

They probably have more money than folks trying to pay off big student loans.

 

[kinetic]

Re: "Tactical Decisions"

> Right- and they only make money if the consumer likes the
> product.
>

Nearly every FM product in this market is beatable. Programming in this market is mediocre not because it's bad, but because it doesn't have to be good.