I wanted to ask something...Why is the Alt brand struggling?
I thought it was going to hit 3.0 just like the former K-Rock (WXRK)
I thought it was going to hit 3.0 just like the former K-Rock (WXRK)
-
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
My best guess--two things:
1. Alt 92.3 is not a hyper-local NYC-focused station. Its playlist nearly identically matches the other Audacy "ALT" branded stations, and its jocks are piped in to/from multiple markets. They're playing to a national audience, not a New York audience.
2. The audience just isn't there anymore. Most listeners in Alt's demo are finding their new music elsewhere. Gone are the days of keeping your radio locked on K-Rock or WLIR or WHTG to hear the brand-new Bush song.
Jacko
1. Alt 92.3 is not a hyper-local NYC-focused station. Its playlist nearly identically matches the other Audacy "ALT" branded stations, and its jocks are piped in to/from multiple markets. They're playing to a national audience, not a New York audience.
2. The audience just isn't there anymore. Most listeners in Alt's demo are finding their new music elsewhere. Gone are the days of keeping your radio locked on K-Rock or WLIR or WHTG to hear the brand-new Bush song.
Jacko
However, most of those jocks and the playlist originate in NYC. That excuse might work in San Diego, but not NY.
The alternative format is suffering from a real lack of core artists and music right now. It's just a hodge podge.
It depends...the format is #1 18-34 in LA. It does well in Seattle and Philadelphia. But people aren't just going to tune in unless there's a good reason. For the most part, Audacy hasn't come up with a reason for people to listen. iHeart has.
Maybe it's also years of radio programming execs chasing middle aged housewives and ignoring young listeners. Then by the time those alienated young listeners started reaching the "money" demo age, they'd already migrated to Spotify etc. and it was too late for radio to lure them back.
Radio has a long history of not investing in the future.
Radio has a long history of not investing in the future.
Keep in mind the companies that own AC stations aimed at housewives also own CHR stations aimed at 18-34.
Companies have been doing both. It's not just a one-or-the-other thing. Nobody is "ignoring young listeners."
People migrate to Spotify to replace buying CDs, not for hosted and curated radio programming.
Not sure what you mean. Radio is constantly investing in new formats. Back in the 90s, radio companies invested in satellite radio, HD-Radio, and other technologies. Radio companies attempted to invest in activating FM chips in phones, primarily because the phone manufacturers wanted to be bought off and wouldn't do it for free. Several radio companies have invested in their own streaming services. Would you like more examples?
That would explain all-sports stations, Regional Mexican stations, Reggaeton, Urban, Churban, CHR and Country formats as well as Hot AC and other niche alternatives, now wouldn't it.
They are not alienated. 90% of 18-34's use radio, but they just don't use it as much as before there were all the new media options. Radio is, though, a well-used part of younger people's array of audio entertainment options.
In other words, you can't lure back those who have not left. The challenge is to keep them using radio as one of their chocies.
I've been in the industry for 62 years. I don't know what you are talking about.
The irony is one of the biggest complaints I read on these boards is that radio companies are devoting too much of their attention towards investing in the future. The older listeners would prefer them to invest in status quo. Which means investing in them.
They need to play more local bands music.
Yet it is precisely those older listeners who are buying easy to use devices like the Amazon "Echo" (most people think the device itself is called "Alexa", myself included) and find them using them instead of a radio. So stations have to make sure they are available on all that newfangled new stuff.
We have an older relative who got an Echo from her grandchildren. Reaction: "I didn't know there were so many radio stations I could listen to".
In the Internet era, the word "local" has either lost its meaning or changed in importance.
In the pandemic era, "local" means going from one room at home to another.
In some ways smart speakers are a better experience than dedicated am/fm radios. For example, I have an Echo in my kitchen and the voice commands make it super easy to change stations while your hands are in a sink washing dishes or preparing a meal.
However, in addition to being easier (in some specific cases) and being all-digital s(o reception is predictable), smart speakers are also the most common "radios" available at retail today. By far! In many cases they are basically the only "radios" available.
I was in a Best Buy a week or two ago and looked around to see what radios they had in stock. I specifically wanted to see if they had any table radios with HD Radio. I couldn't find anything that had am/fm except for a karaoke boombox, and of course the radio part was not the main feature there. The smart speakers practically have their own aisles of various products.
The last time I looked at Walmart they had one "walkman" style radio and some clock radios in stock, if I remember correctly.
It's pretty dire out there and it is hard to see the situation improving.
I ended up ordering a Sangean HDR-14 from Amazon. I should have ordered it using Alexa.
I agree, and the reason is because of the consumer electronics industry. I think it's interesting that it took a retail company like Amazon to build and market the Echo, rather than a traditional electronics company. Where were they when this idea was being discussed?
I recently replaced the HD clock radio in my bedroom with an Echo Dot. I have an Echo in every room of the house, and I've set up multi-room groups to listen to the radio all over the house. The station I listen to the most doesn't come in very well inside the house, so it's a better listening experience and the Echo devices take up less space, so I just don't have a need for a house filled with radios anymore. (For that matter, the big home theater setup in my house has been replaced with a wall mounted TV and Atmos sound bar. It's like I gained 10 extra square feet in my living room.)
People don't listen to the radio because it's AM or FM, they listen to the radio because they like the programming. Does it really matter if they stream?
Depends who you ask. The streaming signal quite often gets its own line in the Nielsens, and the streaming signal often has different spots from the on air signal.
+1
In WNYL's case, I would also add the morning show is weak, and the Two Minute Promise is just plain stupid. I say that because listeners are treated to 3 to 4 minutes of on-air clutter hourly touting the "Two Minute Promise," which partially defeats the purpose of the Two Minute Promise in the first place!
It would be nice to hear even a couple dry segues from one song to the next song each hour. The Audacy-owned alternative stations are just plagued with on-air clutter.
And that is why such streams are listed separately. Only "pure" simulcasts are allowed to have single line reporting, although there is a small exception made to cover sporting events where the station does not own streaming rights and must separate for the play-by-play segment. Otherwise, if the stream deviates from the over the air product, it must be led separately.
The fault in your logic is pretty simple - it might originate in NYC, however, it's not necessarily TARGETED to NYC, but rather to a national audience. Radio (as a general rule) has always performed best when super-serving the local market.
Last edited:
So you're saying Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern weren't successful?
Did you know that Steve Harvey has one of the most popular morning shows in the country? It's not local.
Back to WNYL for a minute, were the ratings substantially higher before their local talent became "national?"
(and I put the "national" in quotes because they're not in fact national, but regional in several major east coast markets)
Did I say that? You have a tendency to put words in other people's mouths (or posts).
I won't argue with you. If you can't comprehend the difference between two EXTREMELY RARE talent who accomplished something precious few ever will, and a niche music format then you really don't understand this business at all.
I understand the business very well. That's how I stay employed. I'm simply responding to what you say.
I repeat my question: Was WNYL performing better when it was strictly a local station?
As I always say, the goal isn't ratings, it's revenue. So if they can improve revenue for a niche music format, then it's worth doing.
Let me add that you can "super-serve the local market" and also utilize national programming. The way to do that is OFF THE AIR. The key difference between successful stations that use syndication and stations that simply program off the satellite is how the stations market and promote themselves to the local audience. Are they doing outreach in the community? Do they have a presence in the local music community? From what I've been seeing, Audacy has a goal of increasing and expanding the local presence of their alternative stations with live events.
Last edited:
- Status