Are boomers NOT a good ad target?

[davideduardo]

Re: Hey Don

I guess that you don't have kids or grandkids. When they're in the car, the radio plays what THEY want to hear. And satellite has over 100 channels, in case you haven't heard. It's music heaven for ANY age group.

I have both, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that were satellite so superior, it would have more than a couple of share points, and the two companies would not have lost $1.5 billion dollars last year.

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Hey Don

The fact is that were satellite so superior, it would have more than a couple of share points, and the two companies would not have lost $1.5 billion dollars last year.

I didn't say it was superior..............yet. How many current terrestrial radio listeners have heard satellite? They may know it's out there, but have they actually HEARD it? I didn't convert from cable TV to satellite TV until I saw the difference in picture quality at a neighbor's house. EXPOSURE is what terrestrial radio should be concerned about. As current listeners continue to "age out of the demo" and discover that there's nothing for them on terrestrial radio, some will opt for satellite. And satellite's exposure to all age groups will continue to grow.

 

[radiofriend1]

Re: Hey Don

The fact is that were satellite so superior, it would have more than a couple of share points, and the two companies would not have lost $1.5 billion dollars last year.

I didn't say it was superior..............yet. How many current terrestrial radio listeners have heard satellite? They may know it's out there, but have they actually HEARD it? I didn't convert from cable TV to satellite TV until I saw the difference in picture quality at a neighbor's house. EXPOSURE is what terrestrial radio should be concerned about. As current listeners continue to "age out of the demo" and discover that there's nothing for them on terrestrial radio, some will opt for satellite. And satellite's exposure to all age groups will continue to grow.

and by time they might get around to it they'll be too old to care or dead

 

[OldiesCat]

Satellite radio

I didn't say it was superior..............yet. How many current terrestrial radio listeners have heard satellite? They may know it's out there, but have they actually HEARD it? I didn't convert from cable TV to satellite TV until I saw the difference in picture quality at a neighbor's house. EXPOSURE is what terrestrial radio should be concerned about. As current listeners continue to "age out of the demo" and discover that there's nothing for them on terrestrial radio, some will opt for satellite. And satellite's exposure to all age groups will continue to grow.

There's no doubt satellite radio is next to nothing now and it's true what you say about needing exposure. But the spirit of what you're saying assumes consumers are so dissatisfied with terrestrial radio they'll go out of their way to find alternatives. While a case could be made with really young radio users, most adults aren't so poorly served by terrestrial radio that they're ready to chuck it all and seek out alternatives in droves.

I realize the real satellite radio fans & groupies are all wet over having such an alternative but most of the listening public is not in that category. Same goes for HD.

Face it: Oldies radio (the kind all the oldies geeks like, predominantly fifties and sixties) is gone. And, radio will survive, even if the few banging the "bring the Oldies back!" drum find alternatives.

 

[Don62]

Re: Hey Don

The fact is that were satellite so superior, it would have more than a couple of share points, and the two companies would not have lost $1.5 billion dollars last year.

I didn't say it was superior..............yet. How many current terrestrial radio listeners have heard satellite? They may know it's out there, but have they actually HEARD it? I didn't convert from cable TV to satellite TV until I saw the difference in picture quality at a neighbor's house. EXPOSURE is what terrestrial radio should be concerned about. As current listeners continue to "age out of the demo" and discover that there's nothing for them on terrestrial radio, some will opt for satellite. And satellite's exposure to all age groups will continue to grow.

and by time they might get around to it they'll be too old to care or dead

Sounds like ageism.

How old are you, BTW?

Do you treat all your customers like that? Diss them for their age?

 

[Don62]

Re: Satellite radio

There's no doubt satellite radio is next to nothing now and it's true what you say about needing exposure. But the spirit of what you're saying assumes consumers are so dissatisfied with terrestrial radio they'll go out of their way to find alternatives. While a case could be made with really young radio users, most adults aren't so poorly served by terrestrial radio that they're ready to chuck it all and seek out alternatives in droves.

I realize the real satellite radio fans & groupies are all wet over having such an alternative but most of the listening public is not in that category. Same goes for HD.

Face it: Oldies radio (the kind all the oldies geeks like, predominantly fifties and sixties) is gone. And, radio will survive, even if the few banging the "bring the Oldies back!" drum find alternatives.

For someone who spouts off a lot of facts on demos etc., the next to nothing statement sounds like a whopper to me.

15 million listeners? Next to nothing?

Rush Lim-bo doesn't have even that many listeners, so satellite radio has overtaken him.

OC, name me one radio station that has that many listeners.

There are only a handful of markets that have that listener base.

I don't have satellite - yet - but know many people who do.

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Hey Don

and by time they might get around to it they'll be too old to care or dead

And you will be just fine as long as you can convince your mortgage lender of that.

 

[OldiesCat]

Satellite radio

For someone who spouts off a lot of facts on demos etc., the next to nothing statement sounds like a whopper to me.

15 million listeners? Next to nothing?

[/quote]

I believe that number they pedal out to us is subscribers. And, just because they subscribe isn't proof they actually listen much.
If we're sharing anecdotal information, I also know a number of friends and colleagues who bought a car with satellite capability that never actually
signed-up or let their original subscritpion expire.

As for your comparison to any other market, we can also look at it this way: how many of their subs are in areas that are not within rated
markets (due to lack of available signals)? How many only use it when they're traveling between cities/markets? Take the nearly 300 Arbitron markets
and divide by listening and it's even more scant.

So, overall, satellite radio is cool and hip- AND a drop or two in a big ocean of radio listening.

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Satellite radio

I believe that number they pedal out to us is subscribers. And, just because they subscribe isn't proof they actually listen much.

Maybe. But then, how many satellite receivers have more than ONE listener? And if that receiver was purchased by someone who is not currently being served by terrestrial radio, how many listeners in the demo desired by terrestrial are being exposed to that satellite receiver?

 

[Oldbones]

Re: Satellite radio

I believe that number they pedal out to us is subscribers. And, just because they subscribe isn't proof they actually listen much.

Maybe. But then, how many satellite receivers have more than ONE listener? And if that receiver was purchased by someone who is not currently being served by terrestrial radio, how many listeners in the demo desired by terrestrial are being exposed to that satellite receiver?

Conversely, how many subscribers have more than one receiver? Each receiver counts as a separate "subscriber" thereby inflating the number of "subscribers". Also, as oldiescat mentioned, they also count all new vehicles with satellite radios installed as subscribers as well...whether they listen or not.

If a satellite radio was purchased by someone who wasn't listening to terrestrial radio in the first place, then there's no loss of listenership.

We're all glad you like your satellite radio, but don't assume your tastes are shared by everyone.

 

[amfmsw]

It's the same people making the same arguments with the same incorrect information used to make their points. You guys keep using that same stupid "55+" demo as a typical "Oldie" listener, and you've been proven wrong on many threads. Again, the "Oldie Demo" is 46-64. NOT 55+ . There are no 84 year olds in nursing homes listening to "Whiter Shade Of Pale". Got it?

Your argument is that the age of oldies listeners means they are stuck in their ways and are loyal and won't switch. Then you talk about how fast we'll switch to satellite radio and abondon our lifelong listening habits because we're not being served. We just like our music. It's that simple. It's a rediculous argument.

We, the Boomers, are at our peak earning years. We DO have the most disposable income. We DO have the highest savings amounts. We DO have the time to travel. We DO switch brokerage houses and Investment firms. We DO buy new Lexus, M-B's, Toyotas, Infinity's, Cadillacs...vehicles. We DO buy real estate. We DO buy Viking, Dacor and DCS appliances. We DO buy the latest premium electronics. We DO buy new carpeting and furniture. We DO buy tickets to Nascar events and buy RV's or fly to attend. And when the time does come to retire, (we don't have one foot in the grave, as you're trying to intimate) remember those savings? We WILL open the faucet and tap the largest reserve of cash ever spent in United States History. And we will spend it with people and business that talk to us. Get it yet?

 

[davideduardo]

It's the same people making the same arguments with the same incorrect information used to make their points. You guys keep using that same stupid "55+" demo as a typical "Oldie" listener, and you've been proven wrong on many threads. Again, the "Oldie Demo" is 46-64. NOT 55+ . There are no 84 year olds in nursing homes listening to "Whiter Shade Of Pale". Got it?

No, we don't get it. Nearly all the "dead" oldies stations and the remaining major market ones have more than 50% of their listening in 55+. And as each year goes buy, a the balance gets more and more 55+. Advertisers don't buy 45-64. They don't buy 55+. So what an oldies station has to sell is a dwindling 45-54, which is, generally, at the tail end of eny demo spec on a campaign.

Your argument is that the age of oldies listeners means they are stuck in their ways and are loyal and won't switch. Then you talk about how fast we'll switch to satellite radio and abondon our lifelong listening habits because we're not being served. We just like our music. It's that simple. It's a rediculous argument.

That is the CLIENT's position, and it has to do with ROI, not "stuck in their ways." Simply stated, radio advertising to 55+ costs more to create a sale than the profit on the sale, for which reason radio is not used to advertise to that group.

We, the Boomers, are at our peak earning years. We DO have the most disposable income. We DO have the highest savings amounts. We DO have the time to travel. We DO switch brokerage houses and Investment firms. We DO buy new Lexus, M-B's, Toyotas, Infinity's, Cadillacs...vehicles. We DO buy real estate. We DO buy Viking, Dacor and DCS appliances. We DO buy the latest premium electronics. We DO buy new carpeting and furniture. We DO buy tickets to Nascar events and buy RV's or fly to attend. And when the time does come to retire, (we don't have one foot in the grave, as you're trying to intimate) remember those savings? We WILL open the faucet and tap the largest reserve of cash ever spent in United States History. And we will spend it with people and business that talk to us. Get it yet?

But the ROI on advertising to 55+ is negative or very low, so advertisers tell their agencies not to buy against 55+. They can't make any money off of such campaigns, so they do not do them. Go and complain to P&G, as this is not a radio issue.

By the way, the most discretionary disposable income is found in 18-49, which is becoming the preferred ad demo.

 

[TheFonz]

Re: Satellite radio

We're all glad you like your satellite radio, but don't assume your tastes are shared by everyone.

It's not a "taste", it's a necessity for listeners who love radio and are no longer served by terrestrial. And that group continues to grow every day.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Satellite radio

We're all glad you like your satellite radio, but don't assume your tastes are shared by everyone.

It's not a "taste", it's a necessity for listeners who love radio and are no longer served by terrestrial. And that group continues to grow every day.

Quite simply, you are in a group that terrestrial radio can not serve as the economics do not work.

 

[OldiesCat]

boomers

It's the same people making the same arguments with the same incorrect information used to make their points. You guys keep using that same stupid "55+" demo as a typical "Oldie" listener, and you've been proven wrong on many threads. Again, the "Oldie Demo" is 46-64. NOT 55+ . There are no 84 year olds in nursing homes listening to "Whiter Shade Of Pale". Got it?

Your argument is that the age of oldies listeners means they are stuck in their ways and are loyal and won't switch. Then you talk about how fast we'll switch to satellite radio and abondon our lifelong listening habits because we're not being served. We just like our music. It's that simple. It's a rediculous argument.

We, the Boomers, are at our peak earning years. We DO have the most disposable income. We DO have the highest savings amounts. We DO have the time to travel. We DO switch brokerage houses and Investment firms. We DO buy new Lexus, M-B's, Toyotas, Infinity's, Cadillacs...vehicles. We DO buy real estate. We DO buy Viking, Dacor and DCS appliances. We DO buy the latest premium electronics. We DO buy new carpeting and furniture. We DO buy tickets to Nascar events and buy RV's or fly to attend. And when the time does come to retire, (we don't have one foot in the grave, as you're trying to intimate) remember those savings? We WILL open the faucet and tap the largest reserve of cash ever spent in United States History. And we will spend it with people and business that talk to us. Get it yet?

I'm afraid you ae arguing with the wrong people.

First, it is the ADVERTISER making this decision on who and who not to target. If advertisers will not support media aimed at 50+ consumers, is radio just supposed to say, "well, to hell with them. We'll just stay in-format for the fun of it" and forget they are also in business with a responsibility to their employees and shareholders to do everything they can to generate revenue.

Second, please tell us the most recent 45-64 time buy you've seen? I can answer that right now: none. They don't exist.

If this is all as simple as "I like my music", then please get a satellite radio receiver, burn CDs or load up your iPod. But please don't be ridiculous enough to
suggest radio simply keep Oldies stations around for some noble cause like "Oldies music should live forever and ever!" and forget that the idea of being IN radio is to fill a need/demand (via format), generate revenue and do everything we can to be profitable, just like any successful business.

Again, you got a beef, take it to advertisers and quit whining to your radio brethren. It's getting a bit old and, frankly, boring.

(by the way, if the Oldies format really is the gold mine you purport it to be, why aren't the greed-monter radio owners flocking back to the format? You bitch that it's always "about the money" but if Oldies looked that profitable, don't you think all these big radio corporations would be climbing over each other to be first into the format and not leaving it in droves? P.S.-I've never gotten an answer to this premise).

 

[amfmsw]

Dear Ed,

As Ron Regan so eloquently put it, "There you go again". Agencies DO buy 46-64. If they didn't, there would not be a single News or Talk station in any major market. Look at their demos. But again, you go on perpetuating the 55+ MYTH.

My market has FIVE stations in the format, each with a different slant. Two AM, three FM. Each is on the air, making a profit. We have two AM News/Talk, on AM Sports. All upper demos, all in the black. Because they give GREAT ROI. Their TSL is huge, so you need fewer spots.

 

[davideduardo]

Agencies DO buy 46-64. If they didn't, there would not be a single News or Talk station in any major market. Look at their demos. But again, you go on perpetuating the 55+ MYTH.

Actually, they don't buy 45-64. They buy the 25-54 (or subset delivery in the case of tighter demos) of the stations they look at. In other words, if a station has lots of 55+ but still delivers good under-55 numbers, the buy will be priced at the CPP goal for the campaign against the under-55 listenership.

There is no myth about agency accounts not requesting 55+. It is the truth. In LA last year, where total billings were about $1.05 billion, we saw zero 55+ buys... and one ouf our stations is the #1 national biller in the market, so we would know about just about every agency buy that came up (especially since they request rates against the CPP goals for each buy)

My market has FIVE stations in the format, each with a different slant. Two AM, three FM. Each is on the air, making a profit. We have two AM News/Talk, on AM Sports. All upper demos, all in the black. Because they give GREAT ROI. Their TSL is huge, so you need fewer spots.

But agency buys are still being made based on 25-54, 18-49, 18-34 and all the subdivisions of this. The 55+ is called "spillage" which is the term for delivery of a medium outside the target demo. It does not hurt, and is a nice bonus, but the advertiser does not pay for it.

Further, n/t stations, depending on how good they are, do not do significantly better in TSL than good music stations. In LA, for example, the TSL of KFI is about 14th in the market. If we take out two low rated specialty stations that get very high TSL and limit ourselves to only stations above a 1 share, they are 12th.

 

[OldiesCat]

demo

Dear Ed,

agencies DO buy 46-64.

Not to mention there is no such demo breakout as 46-64.

 

[amfmsw]

Guys, you keep proving my point and discounting your own! If "people my age" don't go with trends and "switch brands". how can you expect me to buy a satellite rqadio, ipod, or even drop my Garrard Cganger to play CD's instead of vinyl?

Yes, probably 45% of oldies listeners are 50+, all of that is 50-64! Only 5% over 64! That leaves approximately 50% 35-49 y.o. It is not a 55+ format. And, sirs, I have been doing sales for 20 years. There are MANY buys 35-64, and I get premium rates for that demo.

I laughed out loud last night, remembering the comment about 18-49 year old having the most disposable income. My 21 yo son needed another $300 for school, $20 for gas. My 19 yo asked for help in buying a car. Both boys work, the elder has 2 jobs! Who has the disposable income? Your claims are unfounded.

If either of you are in the business, you have drank the kool-aid. You have been misled. Just because Oldies Formats are being deleted, it does NOT mean it was the correct decision. Proof? The disaster, complete colapse, of WCBS-FM, the success of sister station WOGL. The sky truly is blue, and Boomers money is very, very green.

 

[OldiesCat]

Oldies audience age

This has nothing to do with "switching brands". It has to do with the audience advertisers want to target- period. And they simply do not (by and large) target 55+ consumers on a level big enough to support media as narrow as Oldies stations.

And, by the way, your statement that "45% of oldies listeners are 50+" isn't even close- as of a year ago, 40% of Oldies listeners were 60+, which is why you saw such a rush to get out of the format.

And, if you're 60 years old, it's your 30 year old son and by this time he'd better be self-sufficient.

Lastly, I'll ask this one more time: if there was so much gold in them thar hills (the Oldies format), why are radio groups LEAVING the format instead of being the money-grubbing suits you all say they are and creating new Oldies stations? Everytime I've ever asked this question, I get no answer. And why? Because there isn't all that much money to be made doing Oldies. The same people who carp and cry that radio's all bottom line know in their hearts that if Oldies was that lucrative, the people they bitch about every day would be all over the format, not dumping it.