airstaff out at 95.7 MAX FM

[KMRichards]

Re: Research...

> > For that, you need a cristal ball.
>
> And a spell checker!

David is well-known for being dyslexic. He has announced it many times on just about every board here. Those of us who remember that fact forgive his typos. Perhaps you could do likewise.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[LKellerIII]

Re: Research...

> 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.

Now you've touched on one of my sore subjects. We've been told recently that 60s Oldies formats no longer bill well because the demo skews too old, and that alt rock radio stations are going away because the audience skews too young. Remember "Beautiful Music" stations (i.e.: the original KABL, KFOG and KOIT)? These stations were very profitable, yet they had an older audience than Oldies stations do today, and a smaller audience since their demo (the generation that grew up before or during World War II) was smaller. On top of that, they ran a low commercial load compared to today. Baby Boomers are a HUGE affluent generation, yet advertisers don't want to sell to them. I still don't get it...
>

 

[DyingMedium]

Re: Research...

Sorry...didn't know that...Just being a smart ass.

> > > For that, you need a cristal ball.
> >
> > And a spell checker!
>
> David is well-known for being dyslexic. He has announced it
> many times on just about every board here. Those of us who
> remember that fact forgive his typos. Perhaps you could do
> likewise.
>

 

[davideduardo]

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.

I did not say it was not researched... I am saying that research can not predict future behaviour, only today's reactions. Interpretation is 80% of any format search. If they did or did not do research does not change the fact that talk shows and morning shows are hard to get conslusive results on, and research only goes so far.
>
> >
> > 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!

As you probably know, English is my second langauge. That spelling is perfectly correct... in Spanish.
>
> >
> > 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.

I never have. In fact, I have never heard of a focus group being used for song based research. Those who use focus groups (I do not, as they are nasty little things), will use them to test reaction to blends and formats and such, but not individual songs.

By the way, an AMT is not a focus group. A focus group is 8 to 12 people conversing about subjects and questions a moderator brings into play... and, except with the best recruits and best moderators, is pretty much a free for all.
>
> > >
> > 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.

Here we go again. San Francisco is a transactional market, meaning almost all business is done based on cost per point and other quantitative evaluations of a medium.

A station that does not have the demos an ad agency is after will not get bought, no matter how hard they sell. This is because the agency is following the client dictate, and no agency is going to purposely piss off the client.

In Q1 of this year, there were no significant 55+ radio buys in SF.
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Research...

> > 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.
>
> Now you've touched on one of my sore subjects. We've been
> told recently that 60s Oldies formats no longer bill well
> because the demo skews too old, and that alt rock radio
> stations are going away because the audience skews too
> young. Remember "Beautiful Music" stations (i.e.: the
> original KABL, KFOG and KOIT)? These stations were very
> profitable, yet they had an older audience than Oldies
> stations do today, and a smaller audience since their demo
> (the generation that grew up before or during World War II)
> was smaller. On top of that, they ran a low commercial load
> compared to today. Baby Boomers are a HUGE affluent
> generation, yet advertisers don't want to sell to them. I
> still don't get it...

Cost of sale: how much advertising does it take to sell a 55+? Usually, there is no profit afgterwards. Add to that the fact that most goods and services are designed, packaged and sold to under-55 and you have the reasons.
> >
>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Research...

> Sorry...didn't know that...Just being a smart ass.

That's OK. I am used to it (the spelling issues, not you being a smart ass... although I will settle into an accomodation with that, too.)

In this case, I thought the Spanish spelling looked fine. ;-)

 

[davideduardo]

Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

>
> 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...

I am not currently a consultant, but the phone might ring tomorrow.

I work with a group of 70 stations in a management position overseeing programming, and keeping American Airlines from going broke.

As a consultant, something I am proud of, I have been calle don to help kisck off stations or to improve existing ones. In every case, I worked with fine local staffs who simply needed some outside perspective to avoid the Motorola Syndrome from setting in.

Usually, radio consultants who survive are very good at what they do, and are spontaneously offered the opportunity to assist in other markets because they are the best at what they do and can give focus and energy to a station that needs some additional help.
>
> 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.

Maybe I see it differently because I am in my 43rd year of working with clusters of stations in a single market. I interned with a 5 station cluster in the Hemisphere's largest market in 1963, and soon realized that programming each station had impact on each other station to some extent. I applied this when I built my own cluster starting the next year, and found that any discussion of progrmming in a cluster environment requires a cluster strategy as well as a station focus.

Add in alternate distribution methods, and an overall cluster approach is essential.

> > 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.

I have not lost that contact. I talk with perhaps 10 thousand listeners myself every year, and oversee a few hundred thousand contacts as well. And we develop 24/7 live programming that is market based, full of personality and customized to each market. While some stations may have lost this does not mean it is dead... I think I am working with more entertaining, engaging and 2connective" programming than I ever did in the 60's or 70's.

 

[DyingMedium]

Re: make the speaker vibrate, man.

> >
>> Maybe I see it differently because I am in my 43rd year of
> working with clusters of stations in a single market. I
> interned with a 5 station cluster in the Hemisphere's
> largest market in 1963, and soon realized that programming
> each station had impact on each other station to some
> extent. I applied this when I built my own cluster starting
> the next year, and found that any discussion of progrmming
> in a cluster environment requires a cluster strategy as well
> as a station focus.

I see your point, but I think that kind of thinking has been over expanded to the point of blandness. Maybe you don't operate that way, but I've seen many other examples of it.


> > I have not lost that contact. I talk with perhaps 10
> thousand listeners myself every year, and oversee a few
> hundred thousand contacts as well. And we develop 24/7 live
> programming that is market based, full of personality and
> customized to each market. While some stations may have lost
> this does not mean it is dead... I think I am working with
> more entertaining, engaging and 2connective" programming
> than I ever did in the 60's or 70's.

I'm glad you feel that way...I hope, in your case, you're right.

 

[DyingMedium]

Re: Research...

Yeah...I'm guilty...definite smart ass.;-)


> > Sorry...didn't know that...Just being a smart ass.
>
> That's OK. I am used to it (the spelling issues, not you
> being a smart ass... although I will settle into an
> accomodation with that, too.)
>
> In this case, I thought the Spanish spelling looked fine.
> ;-)
>

 

[Tom_KYA1260]

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. Of course everything depends on the questioning of this "research". If you ask a certain way you can draw any conclusion you want just to fit one's own agenda. They're "jockless" all right.... Keep an eye on the letters to the pink section in Sunday's Chronicle.