• 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

airstaff out at 95.7 MAX FM

B

boatrocker

Guest
Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is JOCKLESS.

You can draw your own conclusions.

By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The Buzz?
 
> Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is JOCKLESS.
>
> You can draw your own conclusions.
>
> By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The Buzz?


Wow ... now *that's* interesting.

As far as the thread disappearing, I think I was throwing too many mudballs at you, and our Benevolent Moderator decided to board it up.

Sorry.

D.J.
<P ID="signature">______________
<center>

</center></P>
 
> > Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is
> JOCKLESS.
> >
> > You can draw your own conclusions.
> >
> > By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The Buzz?
>
>
> Wow ... now *that's* interesting.
>
> As far as the thread disappearing, I think I was throwing
> too many mudballs at you, and our Benevolent Moderator
> decided to board it up.
>
> Sorry.
>
> D.J.
>
They took off all there air staff off the website too, it seems to me they are just trying to go jockless or that something is up<P ID="signature">______________
http://natedoggairchecks.6x.to/
sfradio (at) gmail (dot) com</P>
 
Re: Also

> > > Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is
> > JOCKLESS.
> > >
> > > You can draw your own conclusions.
> > >
> > > By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The
> Buzz?
> >
> >
> > Wow ... now *that's* interesting.
> >
> > As far as the thread disappearing, I think I was throwing
> > too many mudballs at you, and our Benevolent Moderator
> > decided to board it up.
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > D.J.
> >
> They took off all there air staff off the website too, it
> seems to me they are just trying to go jockless or that
> something is up
>
The last hour of songs on the website is not working, stay tuned at 5pm to see what might happen<P ID="signature">______________
http://natedoggairchecks.6x.to/
sfradio (at) gmail (dot) com</P>
 
Re: Also

No flipping...other max stations in the company and other BOB stations have gone jockless.

I'll bet research shows that listeners for those stations don't care about the jocks because they aren't really that important to the format.



> > > > Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is
> > > JOCKLESS.
> > > >
> > > > You can draw your own conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The
> > Buzz?
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow ... now *that's* interesting.
> > >
> > > As far as the thread disappearing, I think I was
> throwing
> > > too many mudballs at you, and our Benevolent Moderator
> > > decided to board it up.
> > >
> > > Sorry.
> > >
> > > D.J.
> > >
> > They took off all there air staff off the website too, it
> > seems to me they are just trying to go jockless or that
> > something is up
> >
> The last hour of songs on the website is not working, stay
> tuned at 5pm to see what might happen
>
 
> > Not trying to start any nasty rumors, but, MAX is
> JOCKLESS.
> >
> > You can draw your own conclusions.
> >
> > By the way, what happened to the thread on 95.7 The Buzz?
>
>
> Wow ... now *that's* interesting.
>
> As far as the thread disappearing, I think I was throwing
> too many mudballs at you, and our Benevolent Moderator
> decided to board it up.
>
> Sorry.

It wasn't a problem to me, I was enjoying it. It was better than the "me too"s and "we'll see"s that pass for discussion on this board most of the time. I'd like to see the thread reinstated.
 
Re: Research...

> I'll bet research shows that listeners for those stations
> don't care about the jocks because they aren't really that
> important to the format.


...Does the research show how important *listeners* are to the stations? By the look of things, not really.

For some reason, radio survived for nearly eighty years with local programming that included human announcers.

Now, research says that jocks don't matter -- people simply want a random jukebox playing any assortment of songs whatsoever. Thank god for research.

Horse poop.

EDIT: I'm going to add this in: when the new NHL hockey team was being organized for the Bay Area in the late 1980s, the team sought out HOCKEY FANS and sat them down in focus groups and drilled them for information. They did it (mostly) right, and were rewarded with a sold-out arena every night, passionate and loyal fans and merchandise sales that were unmatched in sports.

Radio stations, meanwhile, appear to *avoid* RADIO FANS and instead use for their research random people off the street who don't necessarily like radio. You may notice that the local stations that have in-house "listener advisory panels" tend to do better in the ratings.

D.J.
 
Moderator Response

> It wasn't a problem to me, I was enjoying it. It was better
> than the "me too"s and "we'll see"s that pass for discussion
> on this board most of the time. I'd like to see the thread
> reinstated.

Three words: Rule Number Five.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Research...

Oh, I agree with you...I was just guessing on the research. But, more and more we're hearing the word "content" used to describe programming. And, I think that's how programming is now being viewed by many in management, with no real feeling whatsover. In other words, "it puts the lotion on or it gets the hose"...



> > I'll bet research shows that listeners for those stations
> > don't care about the jocks because they aren't really that
>
> > important to the format.
>
>
> ...Does the research show how important *listeners* are to
> the stations? By the look of things, not really.
>
> For some reason, radio survived for nearly eighty years with
> local programming that included human announcers.
>
> Now, research says that jocks don't matter -- people simply
> want a random jukebox playing any assortment of songs
> whatsoever. Thank god for research.
>
> Horse poop.
>
> EDIT: I'm going to add this in: when the new NHL hockey team
> was being organized for the Bay Area in the late 1980s, the
> team sought out HOCKEY FANS and sat them down in focus
> groups and drilled them for information. They did it
> (mostly) right, and were rewarded with a sold-out arena
> every night, passionate and loyal fans and merchandise sales
> that were unmatched in sports.
>
> Radio stations, meanwhile, appear to *avoid* RADIO FANS and
> instead use for their research random people off the street
> who don't necessarily like radio. You may notice that the
> local stations that have in-house "listener advisory panels"
> tend to do better in the ratings.
>
> D.J.
>
 
Research

You couldn't be more wrong. Why in the world would radio stations spending tens of thousands of dollars on research intentially "avoid radio fans"? Where do you get your information?

Think about it.


>
> Radio stations, meanwhile, appear to *avoid* RADIO FANS and
> instead use for their research random people off the street
> who don't necessarily like radio. You may notice that the
> local stations that have in-house "listener advisory panels"
> tend to do better in the ratings.
>
> D.J.
>
 
Re: Research...

>
> Radio stations, meanwhile, appear to *avoid* RADIO FANS and
> instead use for their research random people off the street
> who don't necessarily like radio. You may notice that the
> local stations that have in-house "listener advisory panels"
> tend to do better in the ratings.

Radio stations do not do forma research. They hire companies that know how. The first thing is to determine objectives and who will be spoken to. Usually people researched are heavier users of radio, as trying to find people who will increase usage "if a new staitons comes to town" is futile.

Research companies do not grab folks off the street. They carefully recruit to get a proportional sample of the groups that will give 75% to 80% of the listening. A recruit questionnaire often takes weeks to finalize.

Listener panels have a purpose, mostly PR. I have never seen a station that was not great already benefit from having one.
 
Re: Research

> You couldn't be more wrong. Why in the world would radio
> stations spending tens of thousands of dollars on research
> intentially "avoid radio fans"? Where do you get your
> information?

I second that.

Consider that a competitive current based station in a market like LA might do 4 AMTs a year and ongoing callout and one to two perceptuals, you are talking of an investment of perhaps $300 to $400 thousand on programming research alone. You can be sure they pick the right respondants and ask the right questions...

Look at the trending of the current #1 station in LA and tell me that such researh does not work! ;-)

Where does this wrong imformation come from?

(By the way, I have had, in specific cases, listeners overwhelmingly ask for a station where there are no annoying announcers and where they "just play the music.")
 
Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

> Oh, I agree with you...I was just guessing on the research.
> But, more and more we're hearing the word "content" used to
> describe programming. And, I think that's how programming
> is now being viewed by many in management, with no real
> feeling whatsover. In other words, "it puts the lotion on or
> it gets the hose"...

English, please.

I guess you are quiibbling about the current change in terminology to describe programming as "content." Did I guess right?

The REASON for this distinction is that the methods of delivery of programming have expanded radically in the last years. No longer is it a transmitter on a hill or one in a marsh. It is the Internet, the iPod using podcasts, it is satellite, it is WiFi, it is cellular phones, it is cable radio, etc.

The one common thing is that, irrespective of the deliver channel, what is important to the listener is the content, the programming, the sounds coming from the box. Delivery may change radically in the next two decades, but the kind of things people like to hear will change barely a bit... they will be a progression, not a radical change. And that is all that "content" means... the stuff that makes the speakers and earbuds vibrate.
 
Re: Research

> (By the way, I have had, in specific cases, listeners
> overwhelmingly ask for a station where there are no annoying
> announcers and where they "just play the music.")

The only trouble for radio is, those listeners include commercials in the "annoying announcers" category ...
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Research...

> Research companies do not grab folks off the street. They carefully recruit to get a proportional sample of the groups that will give 75% to 80% of the listening. A recruit questionnaire often takes weeks to finalize.

So what you're telling me is that CBS' hired researchers sat down with a group of avid radio fans to plot out what they'd be doing on Free FM 106.9 in order to optimize the launch?

...That they had a focus group filled to the brim with radio-loving '70s and '80s music fans when they changed KFRC's direction?

...That Bonneville's researchers had an auditorium in some San Francisco hotel chock full of hard-core radio aficianados just clamoring for "whatever" when they rolled out 95.7 Max FM?

If so, I stand corrected. And the radio fans that participated in those groups sure pulled a fast one on *those* researchers!

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

</center></P>
 
Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

Obviously, you are not a 'Silence of the Lambs' fan...

Anyway, I don't know who you are...but, my guess would be someone in sales and/or management. And even though you are obviously intelligent and know a lot about the business I must say you partially proved my point in your response. Words like "delivery" and "content" have only popped up in those long boring meetings I've had with Market Managers. I never hear them near a studio or in PROGRAMMING meetings.



>In other words, "it puts the lotion on
> or
> > it gets the hose"...
>
> English, please.
>
> I guess you are quiibbling about the current change in
> terminology to describe programming as "content." Did I
> guess right?
>
> The REASON for this distinction is that the methods of
> delivery of programming have expanded radically in the last
> years. No longer is it a transmitter on a hill or one in a
> marsh. It is the Internet, the iPod using podcasts, it is
> satellite, it is WiFi, it is cellular phones, it is cable
> radio, etc.
>
> The one common thing is that, irrespective of the deliver
> channel, what is important to the listener is the content,
> the programming, the sounds coming from the box. Delivery
> may change radically in the next two decades, but the kind
> of things people like to hear will change barely a bit...
> they will be a progression, not a radical change. And that
> is all that "content" means... the stuff that makes the
> speakers and earbuds vibrate.
>
 
Re: Research...

>
> So what you're telling me is that CBS' hired researchers sat
> down with a group of avid radio fans to plot out what they'd
> be doing on Free FM 106.9 in order to optimize the launch?

Most radio research is not focus group based. And Free may not have been researached at all... talk formats are hard to do predictive research on. What they may have done is determine that a certain demo di dnot like AM talk, and that there was an opportunity.

Research tells you what listeners think at any particular time. It does not tell you what they will do in the future. For that, you need a cristal ball.
>
> ...That they had a focus group filled to the brim with
> radio-loving '70s and '80s music fans when they changed
> KFRC's direction?

Again, focus groups are NEVER used for song-based research. And the chage in KFRC was dictated by demos: KFRC was losing 25-54 and had to move younger. They probably did an AMT with 45-54 users, and determined what songs would work in that demo.
>
> ...That Bonneville's researchers had an auditorium in some
> San Francisco hotel chock full of hard-core radio
> aficianados just clamoring for "whatever" when they rolled
> out 95.7 Max FM?

The Max decisions were likely based on perceptuals (usually 400 to 600 in 25 minute phone interviews) and then an AMT. The perceptual probably showed a large group taht did not want "obnoxious announcers" and who had agreement on certain music pods used to define music styles or types.
>
> If so, I stand corrected. And the radio fans that
> participated in those groups sure pulled a fast one on
> *those* researchers!

How do you know? I'll bet KFRC billing goe sup, even if the 12+ number go down. And there very definitely is a group that does not want announcers... whether it is big enough within one music style is a different matter.
 
Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

> Obviously, you are not a 'Silence of the Lambs' fan...

Whatever that means.
>
> Anyway, I don't know who you are...but, my guess would be
> someone in sales and/or management.

Amusing. Odd. Droll. Strange. Confused.

(Click on the profile)

> And even though you are
> obviously intelligent and know a lot about the business I
> must say you partially proved my point in your response.
> Words like "delivery" and "content" have only popped up in
> those long boring meetings I've had with Market Managers. I
> never hear them near a studio or in PROGRAMMING meetings.

You must not go to too many programming meetings that deal with cluster strategy (AM, FM, swtreaming, HD, podcasting, future technologies) as "content" is the word we use to differentiate the audio from the carrier.

When we are discussing putting all our morning shows on the web for podcasting downloads, we are in the content world... taking a sepcific piece of audio and distributing it in different ways. We are not discussing "radio" as we have departed the realm of the local transmitter on AM or FM and are discussing multiple platforms.

If you are not discussing this type of thing, you are going to be left behind. Terrestrial radio is changing, and will die without change.
 
Re: Research...

> >
> >> Most radio research is not focus group based. And Free may
> not have been researached at all... talk formats are hard to
> do predictive research on. What they may have done is
> determine that a certain demo di dnot like AM talk, and that
> there was an opportunity.

Uh...Free was DEFINITELY researched.

>
> Research tells you what listeners think at any particular
> time. It does not tell you what they will do in the future.
> For that, you need a cristal ball.

And a spell checker!

>
> Again, focus groups are NEVER used for song-based research.
> And the chage in KFRC was dictated by demos: KFRC was losing
> 25-54 and had to move younger. They probably did an AMT with
> 45-54 users, and determined what songs would work in that
> demo.

I don't know where you've worked, but Focus groups are FREQUENTLY used for song based research. I've seen it myself.

> >
> How do you know? I'll bet KFRC billing goe sup, even if the
> 12+ number go down. And there very definitely is a group
> that does not want announcers... whether it is big enough
> within one music style is a different matter.

Yes, the billing will go up because of the demo. Although it has always been my contention that older skewing stations just don't know how to sell it.
 
Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

> > Obviously, you are not a 'Silence of the Lambs' fan...
>
> Whatever that means.

It's a line from the movie...oh nevermind.

> >
> > Anyway, I don't know who you are...but, my guess would be
> > someone in sales and/or management.
>
> Amusing. Odd. Droll. Strange. Confused.

Checked your website...so what? I'm not so sure being a Consultant is something to crow about. But, seriously, hats off to you for a long career in radio. That's definitely something to crow about. We're just not going to agree on this issue...

>> You must not go to too many programming meetings that deal
> with cluster strategy (AM, FM, swtreaming, HD, podcasting,
> future technologies) as "content" is the word we use to
> differentiate the audio from the carrier.

Again, I've been to many cluster meetings...that's the problem. If it's really just a programming meeting, there is no need for the "cluster" to attend. There's too many cooks in the kitchen already. Progamming meetings are not programming meetings anymore.

>
> When we are discussing putting all our morning shows on the
> web for podcasting downloads, we are in the content world...
> taking a sepcific piece of audio and distributing it in
> different ways. We are not discussing "radio" as we have
> departed the realm of the local transmitter on AM or FM and
> are discussing multiple platforms.
>
> If you are not discussing this type of thing, you are going
> to be left behind. Terrestrial radio is changing, and will
> die without change.

Now there's something we agree on....sort of. I think Terrestrial radio is well on the way to a big dirt nap because, in part, everyone is so damn busy looking for the next big thing. While we've gained "content" for cell phones, Ipods and the web, we have also lost the personal connection to the listener (remember them?) that made radio what it really was...and drove up the rate.


>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom