I'll occasionally get some mail from them if I'm part of their "sample size" Check out https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/about-us/panels/
-
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
Alt 92.3
- Thread starter BJSteigner
- Start date
As in, they ask if you want to be a reporter? I get a package from them every few years.
Interestingly, WFUV doesn't play Olivia Rodrigo. Or Fuel for that matter.
I can't imagine WUMB Boston touching either of those acts either. Of course, that's an Americana-leaning AAA with deep folk roots that's still trying to keep its old fans tuned in and donating.
And it's not like WFUV is allergic to mainstream acts, either. They even played Madonna, on a few occasions. Also, they played Barry Manilow's Tryin' to Get the Feeling Again during the beginning of the pandemic.
But, WFUV isn't fond of emo, post-grunge, or heavy metal.
It's official: The two minute promise is over:
www.insideradio.com
Audacy Ends ‘2-Minute Promise’ On Its Alternative Stations.
Just over 14 months after instituting a “Two-Minute Promise” that limited spot breaks to no more than two minutes on all its alternative stations, Audacy has abandoned the practice. The
I could not agree with you more. Instead of trying to be like a jukebox or like Spotify, why can't radio offer a compelling reason for the listener to tune in? Why not try to offer something that can't be found on a jukebox or on Spotify?
You mean like exclusive talk show hosts and sports play by play? That's being done already. Anything related to music has to be sellable to advertisers, and that is becoming more difficult. If hiring live & local DJs was all radio needed to do to become #1 in the ratings, they'd do it. But that's not what radio listeners want.
The fact is Spotify and streaming services offer personalization that FM radio can't offer. People can program their own stations.
On the radio side, radio is free and easy, with no subscription or personal information required, and no user name or password.
I understand that advertisers rule the business, The BigA, but how about some outside-the-box thinking? With rare exception today, music radio is an even more boring version of Pandora or a jukebox. And with radio revenue down, things need to change in order for radio to survive. I am not saying that I have the answers, but I hope that some new ideas are implemented.
Who would pay for it? What radio companies are doing now is what gets them the most listeners. You may find it boring, but they do it because it works.
Outside the box thinking works in non-commercial radio. The catch is the listeners have to be willing to subscribe.
On top of that, listeners that have considerable income are attractive to advertisers.
94.7 and 92.3 both had similar ratings as country and alternative, respectively, but 94.7 flipped because its billing was worse than many AM stations, even the likes of WLIB and WADO.
It all starts with money. The current advertising model has topped out. Radio companies are looking to create some non-traditional revenue sources to pay for the on-air product.
My take is a combination from everywhere. I go to college radio and satellite for songs that are unknown or from artists not signed to a major label. I used to also go to FM in my home market (Boston) for new Rock and Alternative songs that were on commercial stations. However, Boston's FM dial doesn't cover much of my interests anymore. It now serves as a Jukebox for much music that I don't like and some music that I do like but not enough to have bought. For example, although I like some songs by Adelle, she isn't in my regular personal playlist. So, I leave it to when her music might pop up on FM.
With that music I really like, I then pay for digital singles that I then add to be my android phone and online cloud. Usually going just outside Boston and New York (northern New England and Connecticut/Rhode Island area, I find stations that play more of a rotation of what I like.
As for being boring, talk programming outside of Sports and Political Talk stations, took a dive in the decade after Stern left. The idea is that male orientated stations need male orientated programming. For the 90s and early 00s, that was left to "shock jocks." The problem is that doesn't resonate in today's society. People mostly don't want it on FM. Those who do want it can get it uncensored through either satellite and Podcasts. So, that leaves radio to mostly play music.
With that music I really like, I then pay for digital singles that I then add to be my android phone and online cloud. Usually going just outside Boston and New York (northern New England and Connecticut/Rhode Island area, I find stations that play more of a rotation of what I like.
As for being boring, talk programming outside of Sports and Political Talk stations, took a dive in the decade after Stern left. The idea is that male orientated stations need male orientated programming. For the 90s and early 00s, that was left to "shock jocks." The problem is that doesn't resonate in today's society. People mostly don't want it on FM. Those who do want it can get it uncensored through either satellite and Podcasts. So, that leaves radio to mostly play music.
That's a good point that some don't know. The fact that broadcast radio can't air uncensored talk or music is another limitation. If the FCC would lighten the obscenity rules, maybe for certain times, that would be a huge boost. As it is, some alternative songs have potentially obscene language.
I see an added limitation to be not necessarily the FCC. Being a commercial product that relies on advertising, some programming might not violate the FCC rules; however, it might anger listeners who then will try to get advertising to pull spots from the station.
If not one hand, both are tied behind your back when it comes to more controversial content.
That situation already exists. But because conservative talk mainly appeals to over 55, there aren't many agency ads involved. They already have DNB notations against airing in controversial talk programming. Those talk stations mainly live on 1-800, drug company ads, and infomercials.
I wasn't even thinking of conservative talk, although you're correct. I'm thinking back to general talk that was controversial under the "guy talk" mindset, and resulted with religious groups or certain activist groups boycotting advertisers on specific programming or whole stations. As our society shifted to its current form, many of said shows were removed from the air, or whole stations were flipped. I'm thinking specifically the station in (if I'm right) San Diego who went from a Sports/Hot Talk hybrid to full Sports Talk after some things that were said on air.
That's what Sports Hub is doing in Boston, and WFAN is evolving into that in NYC. Most of it is airing at night.
It's a bit of an American phenomenon. In most of Europe those lyrics aren't censored. They laugh at us for it (I've been a frequent traveler to Europe and have experienced the ribbing over it in person).
Good old American conservative values -- the people who thump their chest about freedom of speech, and have no problem spreading lies and driving hate over the air under its cover, are the same ones who advocate censoring lyrics and cuss words that hurt their tender ears. Double standards, as usual.
- Status