Alt 105.3 Flips to Adult Hits "105.3 Dave FM"

[adradio]

The end of Live 105 represents the last vestige of a rock station in the Bay Area that played current rock music, supported active rock artists, promoted live concerts and appealed to active music fans. It was part of a continuum which started back in the mid-'60s when KMPX provided an intelligent alternative to Top 40. Times change and music trends change with it. Live 105, being part of Audacy, could care less about anything other than the bottom-line. They became, in effect, a sort of '90s Alt Rock Top 40 with some new stuff sprinkled in that appealed to no one. With this approach, a flip was inevitable.

As one of the earlier posts suggests, active music fans now source their listening from streaming. Sadly, Bay Area commercial radio is now just for the passive listener and primarily functions as background noise.

I'm hoping the Bay Area can find a way to pull together a non-commercial rock station similar to KCSN in LA or WXPN in Philadelphia. At those stations, intelligent rock listeners are fed interesting new music, spliced with an occasional chestnut from the past and served by caring, informed DJs. Classical and Jazz formats have gone this way. Why not something similar with rock? Maybe one of the Bay Area college stations could be convinced to follow this path.

 

[davideduardo]

As one of the earlier posts suggests, active music fans now source their listening from streaming. Sadly, Bay Area commercial radio is now just for the passive listener and primarily functions as background noise.

There are two issues here. First, with current based formats appealing mostly to younger demographics we hit the biggest wall: in 18-34 and even 25-44, the metro is even more composed of Blacks, Latinos and Asians and other immigrant groups than the 12+ total is because first generation immigrants tend to be young adults and don't tend to have any interest in, prior exposure to or cultural affinity with Alt.

Second, Alt is fragmented. Every music test I have seen shows several (three or more) subsets that like some of the same songs but where one group hates the faves of another and just tolerates the favorites of a second group... and so on. There is very limited commonality, which is why Alt stations seem to stay away from most currents as they are so polarized and divisional.

BigA nailed it when he said the groups are "tribal". Warring tribes, to be sure.

 

[MarioMania]

I'm hoping the Bay Area can find a way to pull together a non-commercial rock station similar to KCSN in LA or WXPN in Philadelphia. At those stations, intelligent rock listeners are fed interesting new music, spliced with an occasional chestnut from the past and served by caring, informed DJs. Classical and Jazz formats have gone this way. Why not something similar with rock? Maybe one of the Bay Area college stations could be convinced to follow this path.

Would it even work?

 

[CTListener]

Would it even work?

The concept sounds like a satellite radio niche channel rather than a viable radio station. SiriusXM had one called The Loft that was much as adradio describes, but it apparently attracted so few listeners that it was banished to online-only, where it remains today, running jockless most of the time. The Spectrum remains on the satellites, but that's a tight-playlist version of "quality rock," adding only a few new albums a week and cherry picking only a couple of tracks from each.

 

[chrocket87]

No idea. But that’s probably the only way any variant of Alternative/ Modern Rock returns to the Bay Area. WXPN, KEXP/Seattle, and KCMP in the Twin Cities all get pretty good numbers for being non-NPR non-comms. Do the listeners donate? No idea.

 

[MarkW]

Regarding Bonneville, weren't they the company that decided to ditch CHR/Top 40 from 95.7 FM years ago?

I always felt that was a foolish move.

When CBS brought the format back to what was then Movin' 99.7, it posted healthy ratings almost immediately.

Bonneville is too small from a scale standpoint to make a comparison to the big ownership groups worthwhile. When it was a larger owner of stations years ago, a number of its stations outside of its home market of Salt Lake City seemed to underperform from a power ratio standpoint, which perhaps explains its decision to downsize its radio holdings.

 

[Least]

They are the #1, 2 and 4 billers. #3 is KFI, also owned by that "horrible demon" iHeart.

The petulant child in me always makes fun of the name "iHeart," but most of the stations I listen to are either now owned by them or are available on their app. I'm just the cranky old man who likes the name "Clear Channel" better than iHeart.

 

[davideduardo]

Bonneville is too small from a scale standpoint to make a comparison to the big ownership groups worthwhile. When it was a larger owner of stations years ago, a number of its stations outside of its home market of Salt Lake City seemed to underperform from a power ratio standpoint, which perhaps explains its decision to downsize its radio holdings.

The Bonneville stations were amazingly well run, going back to the era of Arch Madsden, the head of the radio division. They paid well, and did quality installations. They may not have had the highest profit margins, but that was because they were good employers and conscientious members of their community. They had much longer range goals and projections and did not panic over little ratings or revenue lapses.

They also had ad policies that excluded some major revenue categories, but they compensated with good client services and a very honest attitude.

 

[CTListener]

The petulant child in me always makes fun of the name "iHeart," but most of the stations I listen to are either now owned by them or are available on their app. I'm just the cranky old man who likes the name "Clear Channel" better than iHeart.

So "iHeart" and "iHate" are history? Good. But are "Cumeless" and "Audacity" still OK?

 

[TheBigA]

I'm hoping the Bay Area can find a way to pull together a non-commercial rock station similar to KCSN in LA or WXPN in Philadelphia.

Both of those stations appeal primarily to senior citizens. WXPN was one of the few stations in the country that did a 50th anniversary celebration of Woodstock. Had they been in San Francisco, a similar station might have done a remembrance of the summer of love. That's what such a station could be. WXPN and KCSN are each owned by colleges, and are supported primarily by listener donations. So look around and see if such a license exists that might be approached for a similar station in the Bay Area.

The idea of starting a currents-based rock station in San Francisco is a wonderful idea. There was a lot of talk about that when KFOG was still around. Perhaps reviving the BAMMIES and similar events that radio used to promote. I don't see it happening. The current rock audience is locked in their own individual cocoons and not seeking a shared experience the way they did 30 years ago.

You say you're hoping "the Bay Area can find a way..." That's not how things happen. PEOPLE make them happen. The history of rock radio in San Francisco is built on the actions of specific people. Tom Donohue grew tired of playing Top 40 songs at KYA and started KMPX. Tom did that. He went to the owner and made a deal. He hired the talent. He programmed the station. When the owner became difficult, he picked the whole thing up and moved it to KSAN. That's how rock radio happened. Could it happen again? Sure. But it takes people to make it happen. Otherwise, you'll get another corporate station.

 

[Least]

So "iHeart" and "iHate" are history? Good. But are "Cumeless" and "Audacity" still OK?

I still use the "iHeart" name. Names like that remind me of trying to be hip for the current generation. The whole "i..." thing will become cliche and over-used. Everytime I hear it, I think of taking from Apple. When I first heard the app's name, all I could say was "do they have any originality to come up with a name that doesn't leach off the Apple ecosystem (iPad, iPod, iTunes, iWork, iOS)?" Then when they changed the name of the radio side of the company, I swore that I would never call them iHeart. After all, if the name "Clear Channel" is losing relevancy in radio, it is less relevant to billboards. Those should have dawned the "iHeart" brand in my opinion at the time. Eventually, I let go of my irrational disdain for the name and moved on.

I blame Verizon for names like "Audicy" and "Xfinity (Comcast completely leached off Verizon for that one)." I prefer the name Entercom more than Audicy, but I still don't have as much distaste for Audicy as I did for iHeart.

Honestly, if they are that foolish to change their name to something to which it is easy for people to apply a 1st grade level joke name, then it is what it is.

 

[Delete My Account]

I think we all do.

Not when it comes to the talk format. KMBZ (FM) and WWL are far better imaged and programmed contemporary talk stations than many of iHeart's ideologically cloned talkers.

 

[adradio]

Both of those stations appeal primarily to senior citizens. WXPN was one of the few stations in the country that did a 50th anniversary celebration of Woodstock. Had they been in San Francisco, a similar station might have done a remembrance of the summer of love. That's what such a station could be. WXPN and KCSN are each owned by colleges, and are supported primarily by listener donations. So look around and see if such a license exists that might be approached for a similar station in the Bay Area.

The idea of starting a currents-based rock station in San Francisco is a wonderful idea. There was a lot of talk about that when KFOG was still around. Perhaps reviving the BAMMIES and similar events that radio used to promote. I don't see it happening. The current rock audience is locked in their own individual cocoons and not seeking a shared experience the way they did 30 years ago.

You say you're hoping "the Bay Area can find a way..." That's not how things happen. PEOPLE make them happen. The history of rock radio in San Francisco is built on the actions of specific people. Tom Donohue grew tired of playing Top 40 songs at KYA and started KMPX. Tom did that. He went to the owner and made a deal. He hired the talent. He programmed the station. When the owner became difficult, he picked the whole thing up and moved it to KSAN. That's how rock radio happened. Could it happen again? Sure. But it takes people to make it happen. Otherwise, you'll get another corporate station.

I don't doubt that KCSN appeals to 'senior' citizens (hey, I'd be considered one of those), but their playlist is overwhelmingly new artists with new music. It's an interesting mix...older, rock based listeners being served eclectic rock music played by mostly young, new artists.

Completely agree on the people making it happen. Just surprised there has never been any momentum here in the Bay Area.

 

[bsr92336]

From what I understand, the two alternative stations in Los Angeles are doing reasonably well in revenues. If LA can support TWO alternative rock stations, I don't understand why San Francisco can't support just one. The demographics are similar and both cities have a long history of having at least one commercial alternative rock station. I'm really curious what others have to say about this.

I'm thinking that a rim shot signal might pick it up. If the format can get out of it's slump and produce a lot of good new music, perhaps a full signal will pick it up in the future.

 

[MVB13]

WXRT and KBCO are really the only commercial AAA stations that exist

WXPK outside NYC is AAA.

 

[leethalweapon]

Given that 105.3 flipped, I also have to wonder what this means for other alternative radio stations across the country. Is this a reflection about the longevity of alternative radio in the future and the changing tastes of audiences?

I think it says more about the operational model of the format. There is little local identity in almost any of the in the presentation, outside NYC or LA. Granted there has been very little (locally) in any market to promote due to the pandemic, until recently, Speaking of local happenings in general, gives the audience a connection. Look at stations that are hyper local, and their ratings reflect it, even without events to promote.

 

[davideduardo]

From what I understand, the two alternative stations in Los Angeles are doing reasonably well in revenues. If LA can support TWO alternative rock stations, I don't understand why San Francisco can't support just one. The demographics are similar and both cities have a long history of having at least one commercial alternative rock station. I'm really curious what others have to say about this.

The mindset of the two markets is very different, and even the ethnic composition has significant variants.

And one of the two Alt stations in LA had a billing collapse after the morning show fell apart and later ended. I've heard that as much as 80% of their revenue depended on mornings, as the rest of the day the lost badly for the last four years or so to the "new kid on the block".

Both markets have a rapidly shrinking Alt core as in 18-34 and 25-44 the markets are now more than 70% ethnic or immigrant. None of those groups has a significant usage of alternative.

I'm thinking that a rim shot signal might pick it up. If the format can get out of it's slump and produce a lot of good new music, perhaps a full signal will pick it up in the future.

The problem with San Francisco is that the market goes from Campbell all the way up to Santa Rosa and the audience for that type of format is going to be scattered at the periphery of the market, requiring a better signal.

 

[davideduardo]

WXPK outside NYC is AAA.

And it has a 1.6 share in 12+, and a 0.8 in 25-54. The majority of the listeners are over 55.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I prefer the name Entercom more than Audicy

Some say it was to expand their image beyond radio but it's hard to explain how Audacy works better in that respect than ENTERtainment COMpany. People can't even spell it right.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Both markets have a rapidly shrinking Alt core as in 18-34 and 25-44 the markets are now more than 70% ethnic or immigrant.

So the future of FM is ethnic and religion, got it. Sounds a little like what happened on AM to me. And shortwave before that. I've been saying that on these forums for a while now.