-
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
Again, Agency - Client research is OFF
- Thread starter amfmsw
- Start date
;Di fell so much better for not having read ANY of ed [EDIT] copy/paste/copy/paste in the last week..let him ramble..just do not aknowledge his existence..read his rants if you are so inclined..but don't reply to them..he is simply looking for an argument so he can show the rest of us how ignorant we are. just skip over them and discuss what we want . i have certainly gotten a great sales education from charlie and others as all of my talents lie in programming, live music, and production. i know it's hard for real talent to ignore his self serving 12,000 plus (guiness are you watching) comments..but try it for a week..no he won't go away.. just scroll past his pasties..and pass the beer :-*
[EDIT-inflammatory]
[EDIT-inflammatory]
D
Don62
Guest
Accurate quote and well-stated.Charlie Profit said:
In the same vein as the immediate posts to this one, blah blah blah blah!
I think Charlie, AZ Joe, Delta et. al. have it right.
The man goes on and on. He doesn't want radio to improve or regain or retain its loyal listeners.
oldies76 said:
There are no major advertisers to sustain such a format aimed at 55+ in any major market that depends on ad agency revenue. None at all.
If there is no revenue, a station can not exist.
Don62 said:
I go on and on because people like you do not understand that commercial stations must have a revenue base. There is no revenue to speak of for stations that are purely 55+.
The reason that the vast majority of larger market oldies stations have moved from a 60's focus to a 70's focus and "classic hits" is that the revenue was declining severely as the oldies format became more and more 55+ so it was either change format or move the music a decade or so younger.
deltas69 said:
What part of the fact that there are essentially no ad agency buys for audiences over 55 is it that you refuse to accept? It's a fact known by every agency seller of any experience, any radio manager or sales manager or national rep. But you, who continue to actually (and amazingly) want to continue to believe that this is not so just can't accept that there is no 55+ money, and no way to make it appear.
Denying the proven truth is ignorance.
Charlie obviously has no sales experience as evidenced by his feeling that you can sell in larger markets with no ratings and many of his other reality-challenged statements. It appears he has little or no radio experience, either. His "website" is pure "wannabe."
If you were in programming in a competitive market, you should know that to make money in such a market, a station pretty much needs to target between 18 and 54 or there will be no revenue base.
C
cabradio
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
LOL...there are no advertisers? LOL...can I say it again? LOL. No advertisers? Hey, how does the 45+ crowd live? You guys/gals don't buy anything because there is nothing for you to buy! There are no advertisers.
Um. I think the point in all this is that there are advertisers, it's just that Arbitron with its "system" and Agencies with their "research" are the ones saying the audience isn't worth reaching. And you believe them without even questioning the methods used to come to that conclusion.
What's wrong with reminding the 45+ crowd that they'd like Coke to teach the world to sing? Or that Oscar Meyer has a first name?
It's reinforcement of what they heard in their youth and young adult lives. I'm 38, and clearly I need to be reminded I like Gillette razors or else I'm apt to find Schick on the shelves and change brands because they are cheaper. And when I'm 45, I'll still need to be reminded. And again at 65.
It's like David owns stock in a research company. Do you Dave? We need full disclosure here because you sure do argue like you do.
Charlie Profit said:
Geesh. I have been discussing 55+ in every post, and you change it to 45+. Try to pay attention.
Anyway, there are essentially (I use that term because there will be, in any market, a couple of senior buys on occasion... out of thousands) no agency buys for 55+. There are no agency advertisers because the agencies don't buy 55+
You fired twice and hit two innocent parties. The CLIENTS of agencies specify the demographic range for their advertising base on product design, consumer usage, advertising effectiveness studies, pantry checks, sales profiles of consumers, the competitors, etc. CLIENTS. Not agencies, not the media, not radio.
It's about over 55, not 45+. In any case, Coke likely knows that if a consumer does not prefer Coke at age 55, it is going to cost way to much to convince a lifelong consumer of something else to change and they will lose money on the deal.
No, I don't own stock in a research company. Yo are, apparently, clueless as to what I do or have done.
C
cabradio
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
Actually, you can sell without numbers in the largest of markets. But it does take special talent, talent that you don't have because you refuse to believe it's true. You've used numbers as a crutch your entire career, instead of just proving what radio can do for the client. You let the numbers take away that responsibility you had to the client. (Oh, the numbers aren't working out, let's change formats...oh the umbers aren't working out let's fire staff...oh the numbers aren't working out, but I still get my $5 million bonus)
I've been in radio for 18 years. I was a GM at a small AM station in a large market. And honestly, the experience was mostly a learning one for me. I took the position to learn. I've never claimed to know everything, and I don't project that idea in my posts like you do. But I'm not gonna roll out my resume. I have nothing to prove to you. What you or anyone else thinks of me is of no consequence. A sales guru I'm not, by my own doing, my own mistakes. I actually had a great opportunity, but blew it because I believed what you teach that you have to have numbers to sell. We didn't have numbers to sell, and I made it harder on myself because I wanted numbers to sell. I have learned many important lessons in my 18 years in radio. One that applies to sales and actually applies to all of radio, is if you live by the numbers you will die by the numbers. The best of radio sales is going directly to the client, by-pass the agency, and win over the client...then giving the client better results than the agency would have. It really is that simple, not in the execution per se, but in the concept (of course it's easy money to just take the agency dollars and pray in the Church of Arbitron if that's what you choose to do).
You should be glad you don't live in Canada David, because once you have been given a format there, it practically takes an act of Parliament to get it changed even if you aren't doing well in revenue or ratings. They regulate how many of each format (usually only ONE) are in each market. You wouldn't have survived there David, since your specialty was rolling out new formats.
I'm technically not IN RADIO anymore, by your definitions. By the newer definitions, I'm leading the way, redefining it. Your way has led to a path of destruction, the new way is a path of opportunity for anyone, not just the Mays Family et al.
There is a great divide between intuition and metrics.
I often use the analogy of watching where you're going.
When you're walking, you don't watch your feet and the floor and fixiate upon your instantaneous position and progress unless the footing is treacherous. You look where you're going.
You trust your feet to work right.
If you continuously measure and worry over progress, you'll lose sight of your goal and walk into a wall.
But that would be following intuition. Radio will not set a foot down until each next proposed footstep has been approved by
the committee as having acceptable ROI prospects.
How boring.
I understand that business will rely on metrics.
A really good business can foster "art" in its particular field.
Unless they don't care to or know that they have to spend money on talent to do so.
You don't always get what you pay for, but you hardly ever get much for free just accidentally.
I often use the analogy of watching where you're going.
When you're walking, you don't watch your feet and the floor and fixiate upon your instantaneous position and progress unless the footing is treacherous. You look where you're going.
You trust your feet to work right.
If you continuously measure and worry over progress, you'll lose sight of your goal and walk into a wall.
But that would be following intuition. Radio will not set a foot down until each next proposed footstep has been approved by
the committee as having acceptable ROI prospects.
How boring.
I understand that business will rely on metrics.
A really good business can foster "art" in its particular field.
Unless they don't care to or know that they have to spend money on talent to do so.
You don't always get what you pay for, but you hardly ever get much for free just accidentally.
Charlie Profit said:
Of course you can. Since there is no metric to establish price, you will sell to direct, non-agency accounts and you will sell for very low rates compared to the stations with high, measurable ratings. Or you will sell block time as a religious station or broker time. Or you will go after one of the very niche ethnic markets where you may be exclusive in your appeal... such as the all-Farsi station in LA.
The model for this would be Art Liu's Multicultural Broadcasting. This company has 42 mostly marginal facilities, and bills over $50 million aggregate on them by brokering time to mostly ethnic program producers who buy time and then sell spots in the Chinese or Russian or Korean or Vietnamese communities to mostly small local merchants and such.
If you did not pay much for the station, or have held it for a long time, this is a perfect model for facilities that are either defective AMs or small / Class A Fms.
I just gave you examples of how it can be true. However, I have generally worked with excellent technical facilities that have been at the top of the ratings, either overall or in a very attractive target such as 18-49 women, for eample.
I learned when I was 18 that it was a lot easier to sell a #1 radio station than an unrated or low rated one. I started with one new station with no ratings or reputation or image. The first 6 months were all direct sales with no ratings, and we barely approached covering expenses. Suddenly, I was #1 in ratings in a 42 station market and billings increased by over 1000%. That was enough to create the momentum needed to build 11 more stations in the next few years. Without ratings, it would have been a glorified salary and the responsibility for 20-some staffers... with the ratings, we grew, improved equipment and power, hired more people to contiunue growth, etc.
I have used good programming all my career. Good programming produces salable air time. Lots of listeners provides lots of potential consumers for any advertiser that is right for the station.
Yes, I have turned down accounts that I knew were bad fits. In one case, a direct advertiser wanted to sign a contract, and the station was wrong for them. I sent him to a competitor that was a perfect match, and even helped get the advertiser a good rate. What I didn't know is that the advertiser would, within the year, be elected to head the local Chamber of Commerce where he recognized me and the station as an example of business ethics. So don't lecture me on serving the client.
If the numbers are consistently low, there is something wrong with the format or the station has a limited signal and can not compete in the general market. My responsability to my clients was always to give them as large an audience of potential consumers as possible at a fair rate commensurate with what is generally paid per listener in each market. Radio is an ad medium... and "medium" means that a staiton is a conduit for a message. The message is that of the client, the station transmits it, and if the message is attractive, the client will generate sales. But radio is only responsible for getting the message out... sort of an electronic paperboy... and is not responsible for the pricing, localtion, etc. of the client.
I'm terribly sorry. I can't think of anything I would personally rather not be.
While I am skeptical of what you say of having 18 years experience, you have said nothing that indicates that you actually did that.
The error was trying to get numbers with a "small AM in large market." Today, that is virtually impossible and the mistake was not looking for a niche that will have few listeners but be salable via program sales or religious or ethnic programming.
Or, if you are competent and hire a competent staff, you will conntinue to generate good numbers. Being afraid of losing is not a reason for not trying as long as the facility and coverage allow the possibility of success.
How horribly unethical. I am proud of saying I never "jumped" an agency and never visited an agency account without the agency's permission. Doing so does enormous damage to the agency and its staff and very livlihood. It's piracy.
An agency that is "jumped" is usually not going to do business with you ever again. You have threatened its very existence. If a station values or hopes to get agency business, bypassing agencies and harming the agency-client relationship will make that impossible. Since agency staffers often come in contact with the staffs of other agencies, your call letters will achieve pariah status in no time.
But, more than anything, what you describe is unethical. It might, if the agency believes you have interfered with the client relationship, be tortuous interference.
Canada actually encourages new formats and innovation. There are lots of restrictions, but you are not required to keep a losing format... just to file for an alternative. In fact, for decades Canada' CRTC would not license a new station if its entrance in a market would negatively impact the profitability and service of the other existing stations.
Clear Channel has only about 4% of all US stations today. There are thousands of different owners today, so there is no shortage of different owners. In fact, since the 50's, only about half of US stations have made a profit... there are way too many stations that are facilities that can't make money no matter what, and many that may provide a livable income to the owner, but really nothing more than guaranteed lifetime employment.
I understand how your frustration with ratings is based on not being able to get numbers with an inferior facility so you blame the ratings company and those broadcasters that do succeed. I really can't fix that, and wouldn't want to try.
C
cabradio
Guest
David, I wish you well. I know I am not going to change your mind. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. You refuse to "color outside of the lines".
Many if not most, or even all of the worlds greatest people have colored outside of the lines at some point in their life. It's not a bad thing to do. It encourages creativity. And allows for new ideas and growth. You prefer to stay within the lines and actually only color with two crayons, black and white. That is your prerogative.
You make it sound like I should be ashamed of where I've been, what I've learned and what I've done. I'm not, never will be. Let me clarify that I was not the GM for 18 years. I was there for 5. But I don't define my life or who I am by that one experience. Not everyone can be number one. Not everyone wants to be number one. Not everyone will fire staff just so they can get a $5 million bonus. I don't want to be that person either. Do I want to make a great living? Yes, but not at the expense of others. So you can have your corporate suit and tie, and go to the Church of Arbitron. I'd rather provide opportunities, rather than take them away. Traditional radio isn't providing opportunities anymore. Obviously, sometimes it is necessary to make cuts...but not in situations like what we've seen recently. But that's a different argument. I just wanted to address what you said about me, being a GM at small AM. I'm not less of a person, or less of a radio professional than you are David.
Anyway, I concede. You win the argument. I do so only because as I said, there is no changing your mind.
Many if not most, or even all of the worlds greatest people have colored outside of the lines at some point in their life. It's not a bad thing to do. It encourages creativity. And allows for new ideas and growth. You prefer to stay within the lines and actually only color with two crayons, black and white. That is your prerogative.
You make it sound like I should be ashamed of where I've been, what I've learned and what I've done. I'm not, never will be. Let me clarify that I was not the GM for 18 years. I was there for 5. But I don't define my life or who I am by that one experience. Not everyone can be number one. Not everyone wants to be number one. Not everyone will fire staff just so they can get a $5 million bonus. I don't want to be that person either. Do I want to make a great living? Yes, but not at the expense of others. So you can have your corporate suit and tie, and go to the Church of Arbitron. I'd rather provide opportunities, rather than take them away. Traditional radio isn't providing opportunities anymore. Obviously, sometimes it is necessary to make cuts...but not in situations like what we've seen recently. But that's a different argument. I just wanted to address what you said about me, being a GM at small AM. I'm not less of a person, or less of a radio professional than you are David.
Anyway, I concede. You win the argument. I do so only because as I said, there is no changing your mind.
Charlie Profit said:
Right. At this point, I will give you a couple of examples of what is very much "outside the lines."
1. Firat Top 40 station in South America in a market with 42 AMs at the time, all block programmed and all with 25 to 30 minutes of spots an hour; my station had a limit of 10 minutes. Nobody bought it until discovering it was #1.
2. First FM in northern South America. Did not accept ads for first year and then priced 4 x the top AM station. Limited time to 6 20" spots an hour.
3. First Spanish rock station in Argentina which only played local artists, as well. #1 in a month and the local paper, Clarín (circulation 1.2 million) said, "It took a foreigner to show us that Argentinians like our own national rock."
4. First all-salsa FM in the world. Advertisers had said that the audience would be all low income; qualitative showed the station #1 in all income levels. Reached a 40 share at one point and is still, 30 years later, in the same format and in the top two or three stations in market #13.
Of course, this is not true.
You are exaggerating; I simply said that a small AM in a big market that does not do niche, religious or ethnic programming probably has no chance from the beginning and trying to do anything but that was not a good decision. As we know, Monday Morning Quarterbacking always has the answer, though.
Why do you keep saying this? No radio company has done this, particularly at the local market level. In fact, only 688 of the nearly 15,000 stations in the US even bill, gross, $5 million. Guessing at cash flow, there are only about 200 stations in the nation that could pay such a bonus from cash flow, and even fewer that would have anything left over afterwards.
[/quote] I just wanted to address what you said about me, being a GM at small AM. I'm not less of a person, or less of a radio professional than you are David. [/quote]
The difference I was focusing on is that you made the wrong decision in trying to compete in the general market with 1. an AM and 2. a small signal when the right choice was to go to brokered, religious, ethnic or some niche programming. We learn from our mistakes, not our successes... and perhaps you have benefited from that experience.
C
cabradio
Guest
DavidEduardo said:
That I have David. Enjoy your retirement (I gather you have retired. If I am mistaken, I apologize.)
C
cabradio
Guest
Incidentally, by "coloring outside the lines" I was referring to thinking out of the box in regards to ratings. You have a very colorful history, and deserve your success. But times change and so do beliefs and methodologies. I'm suggesting you take a step back and look at a bigger picture. But you don't have to. I am reminded of my mothers last husband. We debated about alternative fuels. I had not yet heard of Fuel Cells, however suggested the government must have something brewing, we just haven't been told about it yet. My moms husband said if there was, we would know about it already and that the government doesn't keep secrets. Low and behold, not two weeks later, I read an article about Fuel Cells. Of course it is not the government, but the private sector bringing it to market. I learned it is a technology that has been around for over 100 years etc. So, I brought it to his attention. It was hard for him to acknowledge I was right, and he was wrong.
What I am saying is that the science has worked for for the industry, much like fossil fuels have worked for society. It has polluted the industry much like fossil fuels have polluted the air, but in a necessary way. We've benefited from it, but now have consequences to having used it. However, now we have better technology and will move toward eliminating our reliance of the fossil fuels, so we must with Arbitron as well.
What I am saying is that the science has worked for for the industry, much like fossil fuels have worked for society. It has polluted the industry much like fossil fuels have polluted the air, but in a necessary way. We've benefited from it, but now have consequences to having used it. However, now we have better technology and will move toward eliminating our reliance of the fossil fuels, so we must with Arbitron as well.
Charlie Profit said:
Huh?
Tom Wells said:
The Argentine thing was only a couple of years back, for Emmis.
...."Auuuuhhhh, Beeeeer!" (Peter Griffin, Quohog, Rhode Island....Beer Consumption Expert).... ;D
- Status