• 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

A survey, random and nonscientific: radio is dead

> I did not represent my observations as anything other than
> my personal view, which I thought was one of the missions of
> this web site. I even put it in tyhe headline that my
> observations were nonscientific and random. Just as are
> yours of your dorm in 1975.

Au contraire. You labelled your post a "survey" (thus representing your post as same). Then, when we read your post, we find that no survey took place, just you asking questions of a very small sample of students, and then drawing your own conclusion. Opinion or not, your methodology and basis for conclusion is flawed.

954 makes the same point, from a slightly different direction.

> I was in a dorm in 1976, and all of us had stereos, and none
> of us had any records of any sort ... not to mention
> cassettes, CDs, IPODS or 8-tracks, for that matter.

And that somehow makes your conclusion valid? And my observation invalid?

> We shall see. meanwhile, an entire generation of college
> students has stopped listening to radio.

See, there you go again. You have drawn a conclusion about an entire demographic based on a very limited number of observations.

You have no future in research.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> Ten kids, aged 18-20. Not one functioning radio.

Approaching advertisers with an 18-20 demo. Not one sale.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Good grief, kids! What part of "random and nonscientific" don't you understand? Oh, wait: Both.

These personal attacks are getting out of control.

I think radio is under assault like it hasn't been before. It ain't dead. But unless it figures out a new model, like radio did in the 50's when it reinvented itself, music radio will soon be in the minority on terrestrial radio.
 
Re: radio is dead?

> Actually, it's more than 13,000 radio stations if you count
> the non-commercial stations. 13,599 as of 09/30/2005 to be
> exact. Add a bunch of FM translators and boosters, as well
> as 508 Low Power FM stations, and that total expands to
> 18,117.
>

Or the nearly one BILLION radios in the US alone.

We are going to base the livlihood of radio on some 18-20 year olds? Check back with them in a few years when they have jobs, family, kids etc. I bet those iPods etc will be gathering dust as they dont have the time to program them, plug them in, charge the ya da ya da.....

I know I had a CD player, MP3 player, Mini Disk... non e are being used now. I dont have the time.


> > You should probably inform the over 10,000 radio stations
> > across America about this. I'm sure they'll be a little
> > surprised they don't matter anymore.
> >
> >
> > > I recently picked up my daughter from her dorm room at a
>
> > > major California public university.
> > >
> > > I noticed that neither she nor her roommate had a clock
> > > radio, stereo or any radio of any sort.
> > >
> > > Being a curious sort, I asked eight other dorm residents
>
> > if
> > > they had any type of AM or FM receiver.
> > >
> > > One male (coed dorm) said he listened to baseball games
> -
> > in
> > > his car, never his room - but that was it.
> > >
> > > Ten kids, aged 18-20. Not one functioning radio.
> > >
> > > Anyone who says that radio listening is at the same
> level
> > > now as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago is severely out of
> > > touch.
> > >
> >
>
 
> > Enough with the ugliness. How is this not a personal
> > attack, violating rule one of this board? Did you see the
>
> > piling on below? You are a moderator. There should be
> some
> > responsibility that goes with that job. Which should
> > include being somewhat "moderate" in your posting.
> Opinions
> > are one thing. Throwing out nastiness is another.
>
> You don't know what we on the Los Angeles and San Diego
> boards put up with from this guy. (David Eduardo's prayer
> in this thread should give you an idea of how obnoxious we
> find him; I am simply voicing a majority view.) My remarks,
> BTW, were made before I moved the post from the L.A. board.
>

And that's supposed to make it okay? I figured moderators were supposed to stop controversies, not fuel them. But that would mean NOT abusing your position, wouldn't it?<P ID="signature">______________
What, you were expecting me to make sense for a change?</P>
 
> And that's supposed to make it okay? I figured moderators
> were supposed to stop controversies, not fuel them. But
> that would mean NOT abusing your position, wouldn't it?

Ah, another person who can't tell the difference between a moderator posting as a moderator and a moderator posting their own opinions. Thanks for helping us catgeorize you.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> > I did not represent my observations as anything other than
>
> > my personal view, which I thought was one of the missions
> of
> > this web site. I even put it in tyhe headline that my
> > observations were nonscientific and random. Just as are
> > yours of your dorm in 1975.
>
> You labelled your post a "survey" (thus
> representing your post as same). Then, when we read your
> post, we find that no survey took place, just you asking
> questions of a very small sample of students, and then
> drawing your own conclusion. Opinion or not, your
> methodology and basis for conclusion is flawed.


From the Randonm House, first definition:

noun |?s?r?v?| 1 a general view, examination, or description of someone or something : the author provides a survey of the relevant literature.
• an investigation of the opinions or experience of a group of people, based on a series of questions.

I did not say it was a scientific survey, I specifically said it was a survey, random and unscientific.


> > I was in a dorm in 1976, and all of us had stereos, and
> none
> > of us had any records of any sort ... not to mention
> > cassettes, CDs, IPODS or 8-tracks, for that matter.
>
> And that somehow makes your conclusion valid? And my
> observation invalid?

Yup. If you lived in a radioless dorm in 1976, that puts your observations into a category that I would disagree with. Politely and civilly, I disagree.


>
> > We shall see. meanwhile, an entire generation of college
> > students has stopped listening to radio.
>
> See, there you go again. You have drawn a conclusion about
> an entire demographic based on a very limited number of
> observations.

Yup. I draw that conclusion.


>
> You have no future in research.
>

Thank goodness.

But it does not mean my point is incorrect: the american radio industry is increasingly irrelevant to a large and growing demographic.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by zumahans1 on 01/05/06 09:55 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> Good grief, kids! What part of "random and nonscientific"
> don't you understand? Oh, wait: Both.
>
> These personal attacks are getting out of control.
>
From a moderator, no less. I expect better from this board: a modicum of respect and civility would be nice, but perhaps less amusing.
>
> I think radio is under assault like it hasn't been before.
> It ain't dead. But unless it figures out a new model, like
> radio did in the 50's when it reinvented itself, music radio
> will soon be in the minority on terrestrial radio.
>
Exactly.

And that is what has this investor and broadcast employee for 30 years worried.
 
>
> Maybe the word "anecdote" isn't in his vocabulary.
>
Or maybe the proper use of the word survey ("a general view, examination, or description of someone or something") isn't in yours.

The issue isn't semantics, but if you want to challenge me on proper usage of the English language, please be accurate.
 
> > And that's supposed to make it okay? I figured moderators
> > were supposed to stop controversies, not fuel them. But
> > that would mean NOT abusing your position, wouldn't it?
>
> Ah, another person who can't tell the difference between a
> moderator posting as a moderator and a moderator posting
> their own opinions. Thanks for helping us catgeorize you.
>


And where do the moderators who make personal attacks fit in?
 
> > Ten kids, aged 18-20. Not one functioning radio.
>
> Approaching advertisers with an 18-20 demo. Not one sale.
>
Wouldn't that prove my point completely? Radio cannot reach the most-important market segment: the audience of the future.

I listen to airchecks of the number one stations of the 1960s, and ALL the spots were aimed at teens.

Advertisers view teens as the hardest to reach today, because they are splintered off of mass media.

MTV spends millions on special networks for colleges, urban college-aged students, etc. Someone's buying ads there. Radio is not getting those dollars.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by zumahans1 on 01/05/06 09:52 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Personal attacks? Ha!

> And where do the moderators who make personal attacks fit
> in?

If you categorize what I have said as "personal attacks", either you are very thin skinned or you do not understand the meaning of the term.

Nothing I have said regarding your behavior is anywhere near what you said about people who disagreed with you on the Los Angeles board in the past. I recall some extremely vitriolic statements by you toward others during a discussion a little over a year ago regarding the legal rights to use the "KDAY" image on a Los Angeles station.

And, as has been pointed out many times, by many moderators, we don't answer to you. We answer to the owners of the site, who have proven to be inclined toward defending the moderators in whatever they have to do to squelch troublemakers.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: A survey of what Hans wants us to believe.

> Wouldn't that prove my point completely? Radio cannot reach
> the most-important market segment: the audience of the
> future.

There is a different take on this. The real world one.

Marketers long before iPods and satellites and stuff gave up trying to reach teens via conventional or traditional media. Focused cable, starting with "I want my MTV" going back to the 70´s... nearly 30 years ago... took the bulk of the teen money.

The teen money went away long before the current set of challenges arrived. About two decades ago, in fact. Just about the time when saying "VHS" got odd reactions of, "what the heck is that?"
>
> I listen to airchecks of the number one stations of the
> 1960s, and ALL the spots were aimed at teens.

No, I do not think they were unless you were listening at night. I ran staitns in that decade, and there was not enough acne medicine and chewing gum money to support a station.

Remember, in the 60's there was little fragmentation, with most markets having only a couple of stations serving the 12 to 34 broad demographich, so such statons were catch-alls for all kinds of younger target advertising.

It's kind of absurd to use a 60's comparison to support a conclusion in an era where every market has at least triple the number of viable stations, and when we have cable, internet and all kinds of mobility devices to contend with. Even the best of Luddites can not roll back time.
>
> Advertisers view teens as the hardest to reach today,
> because they are splintered off of mass media.

As they have been for around 30 years. If you just discovered this today, I wonder if you have been emulating Rip Van Winkle or doing a real-life "Lost" on your own island.
>
> MTV spends millions on special networks for colleges, urban
> college-aged students, etc. Someone's buying ads there.
> Radio is not getting those dollars.

And, again, has not for decades. So, the net result is that advertisers have not used radio for teens for a long time. So radio stations do not target teens. We do not appeal to them, because there is no way of making money off a teen station... you will find the successful stations that are big in teens are really after 18-34, which is a sales demo.

I have had stations that were #1 in teens, but we never made money off of that demo. So your example... and your whole case about under-21 demos is irrelvant. It seems pretty apparent you have limited or no sales experience.

Sam said it nicely, and with far fewer words than I have used. Approach an advertiser with 12 to 20 year olds, and no sale.

In my career, I have never pitched or seen a piece of teen business. I guess there still is some, but many stations try NOT to appeal to teens, as they lose the beer money, which is significant, if the teen and underage composition is too high.
 
Some antics!

> > Maybe the word "anecdote" isn't in his vocabulary.
> >
> Or maybe the proper use of the word survey ("a general view,
> examination, or description of someone or something") isn't
> in yours.
>
> The issue isn't semantics, but if you want to challenge me
> on proper usage of the English language, please be accurate.

I can understand their criticism of your Calif postings now.

It sure looks like an anecdote to me.

Survey is a misleading description. An overstatement.

I heartily agree with Dave Eduardo's comments .... Please!<P ID="signature">______________
Prairie Home Companion Coming To Miami in Feb!


South Florida Radio Pages</P>
 
> Good grief, kids! What part of "random and nonscientific"
> don't you understand? Oh, wait: Both.

What you and Zuma don't want to accept is that it is so
unscientific and with such a ridiculous sample size that it
is absolutely meaningless.

It is an anecdote. That is all.

If it was truly random it would help its credibility.

Basically, it's misusing the word survey as it is generally used.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Prairie Home Companion Coming To Miami in Feb!


South Florida Radio Pages</P>
 
> > It ain't dead. But unless it figures out a new model,
> like
> > radio did in the 50's when it reinvented itself, music
> radio
> > will soon be in the minority on terrestrial radio.
> >
> Exactly.

Not exactly. This is nowhere the rapid shift of post-freeze network radio to music radio. It is a gradual accomodation, where radio has to determine where the free and rapidly accessable model works and where it may need modification.

Just as radio does not serve 55+ and teens due to issues of advertiser support, it may have to adapt to the changes in certain segments.
>
> And that is what has this investor and broadcast employee
> for 30 years worried.

Worried about your investment in Baker? Or was it Bishop? Or Barstow? I´d be worried, too, but not for these reasons.
 
> Advertisers view teens as the hardest to reach today,
> because they are splintered off of mass media.

No, advertisers view 12-24 as fickle, disloyal pieces of crap who don't use their own money and have no expendable income.

> MTV spends millions on special networks for colleges, urban
> college-aged students, etc. Someone's buying ads there.
> Radio is not getting those dollars.

Correct. Radio is not getting those dollars. Radio is getting the BILLIONS of guaranteed dollars from targeting adult demos who have expendable income, stable jobs, loyalty and maturity.

Want to target kids? TARGET THE PARENTS since they buy the stuff for the kids.

Want to target teens? TARGET THE PARENTS since they buy stuff for the teens.

Want to target college kids? TARGET THE PARENTS who deposit money into accounts and send gifts.

There's a reason why the only thing you hear on 16-24 demo stations are night clubs, job opportunities and anti-drug PSAs. That's all they can sell.

Getting back to your original comment...

Three Mile Island in Harrisburg blows up. Where do people go? Radio and TV.

The president gets assassinated. Where do people turn? Radio and TV.

There's a tornado warning in effect. Where do people listen? Radio and TV.

Said tornado sends your satellite dish into the next county. What do you do? Turn on the radio.

The power goes out. What do people do? Turn on their radio.

...or are you too busy aligning your satellite receiver in a southern facing window or standing on your front porch to get a mobile phone radio signal to bother with terrestrial radio?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
>
> There's a reason why the only thing you hear on 16-24 demo
> stations are night clubs, job opportunities and anti-drug
> PSAs. That's all they can sell.

You forgot pawn shops.
 
> > Good grief, kids! What part of "random and nonscientific"
>
> > don't you understand? Oh, wait: Both.
>
> What you and Zuma don't want to accept is that it is so
> unscientific and with such a ridiculous sample size that it
> is absolutely meaningless.
>
> It is an anecdote. That is all.
>
> If it was truly random it would help its credibility.
>
> Basically, it's misusing the word survey as it is generally
> used.
>
> 73s from 954
>
Wow. You guys are really nitpicking.

Why don't we just discuss the bigger idea, instead of discrediting the specific words and belittling the poster?

For the record, I think Zuma was right when he called this "unscientific," and it obviously doesn't translate to "reliable data." However, the data is growing that a lot of other things are grabbing young people's attention and with each generation TSL is going down as radio corporations and programmers take the cheapest and easiest way towards content delivery, and the main source of creativity is how to get the cost of the product down to as little $$ as possible. It's the media that allow creativity that are going to stand tall in the future. Radio could be one of them. Talk radio will be, I think; there are a lot of interesting things being done there. Music radio? Not right now. I love music radio. I want it to come back. But my iPod is delivering a lot of content I can access anytime I want with a lot less effort than the people here are willing to admit. It's actually as easy to find exactly what I want there as it is to find sort-of what I want on the radio at most times of day.
 
> > And that's supposed to make it okay? I figured moderators
> > were supposed to stop controversies, not fuel them. But
> > that would mean NOT abusing your position, wouldn't it?
>
> Ah, another person who can't tell the difference between a
> moderator posting as a moderator and a moderator posting
> their own opinions. Thanks for helping us catgeorize you.
>

Well, you're quite skilled at using your 'opinions' to denigrate other posters personally. It only takes one brave person to merely point this out, and then you'll play the "You're violating R/I rules #5 and 7" card and threaten to get someone kicked off. In the countless times I've browsed these boards, you're the only moderator or administrator I've seen do this constantly (and needlessly).

If complaining about it violates said rules, so be it.

<P ID="signature">______________
What, you were expecting me to make sense for a change?</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom