neo11 said:
-If consultants and research are so useful and accurate, why are more and more listeners abandoning radio?
Very few listeners are abandoning radio in the demos that radio serves:18 to 54. In fact, in this demo the weekly reach of radio is less than 2% below the level it was at 10 years ago.
Radio has lost listening time, but not listeners. In the younger demos, listening time is off not due to satellite, but to gaming (125 million gaming consoles in the US) and all kinds of alternate entertainment sources, ranging from the web to new cable TV channels. In 25-54, listening span erosion is only a few percent, though.
Consultants, programmers, researchers and such can only work within the competitive atmosphere that exists today. In fact, most are ocncerned with getting as big a share of the radio pie as possible, not defending radio against outside entertainment sources (which is the area where corporate management, the NAB, the RAB, etc., go to work). A PD is not enabled, able or day-to-day concerned with total radio share or cume... their job is to make thier radio station perform well vs. all others.
[/quote]
If consultants and research are meant to make the stations only appealing to a certain niche demographic, why are so many stations having more and more of a difficult time keeping that demographic? [/quote]
That is, for the very most part, not true. But since your comment is vague and non-specific, it could mean most anything.
I understand the argument that stations try to "superserve" their target demo, but in this day and age with radio listenership receeding, isn't that a form of slow suicide?
So slow that if the rate of decline is the same as the last 10 years, radio will only be off by 10% in 18-54 cume by about 2020. By that time, the current methods of delivery will be obsolete, and it won't matter. Get off the decline thing... you are wildly exaggerating what is a very slow, gradual slippage and which is confined mostly to demos we can not servd: teens and 55+.
You're not attracting new listeners to radio,
Since over 93% of Americans listen to radio weekly and it has been near that figure forever (it was 94% in 1985) there are no new listeners to attrace. Back in 1970, about 5% of Americans did not listen, either.
you're limiting yourself to one demographic which will soon age and go the way of oldies (like it or not), and you're saying you don't even care if anyone outside that demo is listening?
You misunderstand formats. AC stations drop the older gold, progressively, year by year, and add fresher cuts and new songs. They maintain their appeal on a specific demo by moving with the demeo, not the format. 60's oldies ages as the music is only of appeal to od farts today. On the other hand, r&b renews itself every day with new songs and the played out old schoold gets killed... so it is always 18-34. Or Hot AC... adds newer stuff, slowly drops the older, stays 18-34 female appeal year after year. Only stations that play oldies of one era have an ageing demo. The rest of us move with the taste of the demo, and change all the time.
Generally, out of demo listening is hard to get, as they like other things and other stations. You can not be all things to all people in an 80 station market.
I'm sorry, but no matter what anyone says, it doesn't make sense to me.
Are you in radio? If you were, then you would understand that stations are refreshing all the time to hold the core demo.
-What are these so-called consultants doing to bring new listeners into radio? If they are doing anything, it's clearly not working.
As I said, that is not a consultant's job. A consultant does not work for "RADIO" but for one station in a market and is hired to make it get a bigger share. Period.
-If these consultants are so good at their jobs, how do you explain stations doing abysmally poor in the ratings (and not just 12+ but even in their target demo) such as Free FM, Jack, etc. How do you explain failures like Blink 102.7, like Mix 102.7, like the old FM Talk on 102.7, Jammin Oldies, and so on?
There are lots of competent programmers. Someone wins, someone loses. In some markets, Jacks are the top 25-54 in town, and raking in money. In others, they have not made it as big. Free FM seems to me a mistake in execution, but what do I know about Anglo FM talk aimed at 1|8-34 men? In any case, CBS knows talkers take years to mature, so maybe they are patient.
Everyone starts an MLB season wanting to win the pennant. Only one team does. Some finish in the cellar, but that is not due to alack of trying... they were just beaten by bewtter teams and a bit of luck. Same in radio.
Why must excuses always be made over the way radio is run when it's clear that it isn't being run correctly? Sure, some stations may be benefitting in the short-term, the successful ones like Lite FM and Z-100. But for how much longer? I don't even see many young people listening to a hit music station like Z100 anymore. Yes, I'm just one person, but I think other people would agree that it's reflective of a trend.
Poor Z-100. Only reaches 2.5 million people a week. If this is your basis for saying radio is not being run well, you need to rethink your reasoning because the idea of radio is to make money by attracting listeners. And that is what radio does.
