-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B 107-9 all time low
- Thread starter Radioma18
- Start date
S
SeanMGilbow
Guest
If it emphasizes soft vocals like it did in its final months, I would agree to that. It would complement both Sunny and Smooth Jazz and allow for lighter AC fare from the likes of Jim Brickman, Josh Groban, Michael Buble, Anita Baker. I could go on. And they could wrestle John Tesh away from 93.3.
Straying a tad from my signal-centric focus in a different thread...re ODB I bet the signal woes are exacerbated by the awful moniker they switched to awhile back, "Big Hits." I wonder if that was researched at all? It says little about what the station provides, and worse still it probably gives the *wrong* expectations (to the extent it gives any at all). In fact, I'd wager that most people, if asked what "Big Hits" suggests to them, would answer, "today's most popuar music," e.g. Top 40 or CHR. Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to use something like "All Time Hits" or even simply "Classic Hits"? Even their former "Classic Top 40" wasn't as bad as "Big Hits."
Uh
Doubt that. Risks retaliation in other markets.
Sean Gilbow said:And they could wrestle John Tesh away from 93.3.
Doubt that. Risks retaliation in other markets.
Nu_Roo_2 said:Straying a tad from my signal-centric focus in a different thread...re ODB I bet the signal woes are exacerbated by the awful moniker they switched to awhile back, "Big Hits." I wonder if that was researched at all? It says little about what the station provides, and worse still it probably gives the *wrong* expectations (to the extent it gives any at all). In fact, I'd wager that most people, if asked what "Big Hits" suggests to them, would answer, "today's most popuar music," e.g. Top 40 or CHR. Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to use something like "All Time Hits" or even simply "Classic Hits"? Even their former "Classic Top 40" wasn't as bad as "Big Hits."
In comparison to when they first became WODB and playing oldies, it seems as if they are trying to move away from oldies. They don't play 50s songs (at least that I've heard) anymore, and they are playing some 80s tunes more often. Also in their moniker change from Oldies, to Classic, to Big Hits, it seems as if the stigma of flipping from 80s to Oldies back in 2001 has left a bad taste in their mouth and they are searching for a way out of it. Wondering if they will start playing 90s next or start focusing on 80s.
While this might not have worked a couple years ago, the 60's-70's-80's approach is doing just great in lots of markets these days -- although things like the % of songs from each era, amount of "edge," etc. vary from market to market. (It's sure not like traditional oldies, where everyone had the same 350-song list.) Unless it turns out to be a fluke, the early trends at CBS-FM in New York are a dramatic example of 60's-70's-80's potential.
I think the music is the least of WODB's problems. For instance, they'd certainly have a much better chance of generating trial (cume) with a good signal. Even though a format like this could have big potential, listeners aren't already familiar with the concept, as were the "traditional oldies" listeners who migrated over when 97.1 flipped to Hot AC.
I think the music is the least of WODB's problems. For instance, they'd certainly have a much better chance of generating trial (cume) with a good signal. Even though a format like this could have big potential, listeners aren't already familiar with the concept, as were the "traditional oldies" listeners who migrated over when 97.1 flipped to Hot AC.
I was perusing some recent trends and see that WGRR is now Cincinnati's top-rated music station 12+, and KCMO Kansas City is up to #3 (the top-rated non-Urban music station). Like ODB, both are using some variant of the 60's-70's-80's approach (of course, very much UNLIKE ODB, they don't suffer from dinky signals).
I wonder why this approach is proving so viable now in many/most markets, when only a few years ago conversion from "traditional" 60's-based oldies to an updated and edgier stance was an almost-certain route to failure?
I wonder why this approach is proving so viable now in many/most markets, when only a few years ago conversion from "traditional" 60's-based oldies to an updated and edgier stance was an almost-certain route to failure?
"Trial" = cume?
Please explain.
JbC
Please explain.
JbC
The short answer: ODB needs to get new people to at least sample the station (i.e., Trial, aka new cume) to build up the total cume (including replacing tradional oldies partisans who deserted the station when they heard Tears for Fears).
The fleshed-out explanation below goes beyond your specific "Cume=Trial?" question, but I feel I should provide full context:
Take a new product introduction, say, a new brand of toothpaste. When a consumer buys it for the first time this is considered a "trial" purchase. So if, say, 20 million people have bought the product within 12 months of rollout, its trial is 20 million. Assuming the product generates sufficient trial, the next step in determining longer-term potential is to assess whether enough of these triers were sufficiently satisfied (or otherwise incented) to come back and buy again ("repeat"). In consumer panel data, the classic analysis for judging how a new product is doing is in fact called "Trial & Repeat." There have been new products -- e.g., novelty items -- that have great sales initially, and it looks like major success, but then they quickly start tanking. The Trial & Repeat would've shown the underlying dynamic, namely that you're getting lots of people to try the item, but that few are coming back and buying again.
For a brand new radio station, its initial cume would be the "trial," although you'd probably be looking at a shorter period than a year. The same for a format change, although it's muddied a bit by retained cume (for an extreme format switch, or for a station whose cume really balloons up after the switch, the analogy is cleaner). TSL is probably the closest analogy for repeat. A brand new consumer product (as opposed to a line extension) generally needs at minimum 25-30% repeat to have a chance at long-term success. 40% is considered a solid showing. Most new products never make it to these levels, and they fail.
For an established format, the analogy would be to an established toothpaste like Crest. Cume=the number of people buying at least once in a given period (usually called penetration or reach in marketing lingo), while TSL=the amount of Crest the average Crest buyer purchases over that time period (often called "buying rate," which tends to be high when product loyalty is high). You can see that you need both to sustain a product, although without at least a reasonable amount of penetration (cume), no amount of buying rate (TSL) will be enough.
The fleshed-out explanation below goes beyond your specific "Cume=Trial?" question, but I feel I should provide full context:
Take a new product introduction, say, a new brand of toothpaste. When a consumer buys it for the first time this is considered a "trial" purchase. So if, say, 20 million people have bought the product within 12 months of rollout, its trial is 20 million. Assuming the product generates sufficient trial, the next step in determining longer-term potential is to assess whether enough of these triers were sufficiently satisfied (or otherwise incented) to come back and buy again ("repeat"). In consumer panel data, the classic analysis for judging how a new product is doing is in fact called "Trial & Repeat." There have been new products -- e.g., novelty items -- that have great sales initially, and it looks like major success, but then they quickly start tanking. The Trial & Repeat would've shown the underlying dynamic, namely that you're getting lots of people to try the item, but that few are coming back and buying again.
For a brand new radio station, its initial cume would be the "trial," although you'd probably be looking at a shorter period than a year. The same for a format change, although it's muddied a bit by retained cume (for an extreme format switch, or for a station whose cume really balloons up after the switch, the analogy is cleaner). TSL is probably the closest analogy for repeat. A brand new consumer product (as opposed to a line extension) generally needs at minimum 25-30% repeat to have a chance at long-term success. 40% is considered a solid showing. Most new products never make it to these levels, and they fail.
For an established format, the analogy would be to an established toothpaste like Crest. Cume=the number of people buying at least once in a given period (usually called penetration or reach in marketing lingo), while TSL=the amount of Crest the average Crest buyer purchases over that time period (often called "buying rate," which tends to be high when product loyalty is high). You can see that you need both to sustain a product, although without at least a reasonable amount of penetration (cume), no amount of buying rate (TSL) will be enough.
As if that explanation wasn't long enough, I left out perhaps the key part with regard to ODB:
Going back to the new toothpaste Trial and Repeat example, there's just no way to get good Trial if you can't get good distribution, i.e., enough stores stocking your product. If people can't buy it, they can't try it. For ODB, their dinky signal is analagous to poor distribution. While they need new people to give the new format a try (new cumers), these folks are a lot less likely to "run into" the station when the signal is so poor. Even after being attracted by, say, advertising, if the station won't come in well the first time they try, they may not care enough (or may not remember to) try again. Since traditional oldies was already a familiar commodity to many, traditional oldies partisans may have been more willing to "work" to find and pull in the station back when it filled the void left by 97.1's flip to Hot AC -- the same way someone who really liked a grocery product whose distribution has dwindled might make the effort to drive across town to get it if they know their neighborhood store no longer carried it.
So while I personally really like ODB's current format, I have to admit that with that signal they'd probably do better with the old format (although, as I mentioned before , a more descriptive positioner than "Big Hits" might help). That's why it's so frustrating to see these high-potential formats that are burning up the Arbitrons elsewhere end up on dinky Columbus-wannabee signals where they have minimal chance of gaining traction, while there's a nice big new signal in town that's eschewing these high-potential formats for some weird Barry Manilow AC #3 format.
Going back to the new toothpaste Trial and Repeat example, there's just no way to get good Trial if you can't get good distribution, i.e., enough stores stocking your product. If people can't buy it, they can't try it. For ODB, their dinky signal is analagous to poor distribution. While they need new people to give the new format a try (new cumers), these folks are a lot less likely to "run into" the station when the signal is so poor. Even after being attracted by, say, advertising, if the station won't come in well the first time they try, they may not care enough (or may not remember to) try again. Since traditional oldies was already a familiar commodity to many, traditional oldies partisans may have been more willing to "work" to find and pull in the station back when it filled the void left by 97.1's flip to Hot AC -- the same way someone who really liked a grocery product whose distribution has dwindled might make the effort to drive across town to get it if they know their neighborhood store no longer carried it.
So while I personally really like ODB's current format, I have to admit that with that signal they'd probably do better with the old format (although, as I mentioned before , a more descriptive positioner than "Big Hits" might help). That's why it's so frustrating to see these high-potential formats that are burning up the Arbitrons elsewhere end up on dinky Columbus-wannabee signals where they have minimal chance of gaining traction, while there's a nice big new signal in town that's eschewing these high-potential formats for some weird Barry Manilow AC #3 format.
This signal, no matter what format, will have problems. I think some form of Oldies may work on a bigger and better signal, say one of the Jazz signals that Saga owns(Maybe 104.3?). That being said, if they're focusing on 80s they might as well bring back the legendary STAR 107.9, when that signal did the best ratings it's ever done...I wonder what Jason Roberts would think of this idea? STAR was his baby virtually from day one to a few months before the Oldies flip. 8)
alans613 said:This signal, no matter what format, will have problems. I think some form of Oldies may work on a bigger and better signal, say one of the Jazz signals that Saga owns(Maybe 104.3?). That being said, if they're focusing on 80s they might as well bring back the legendary STAR 107.9, when that signal did the best ratings it's ever done...I wonder what Jason Roberts would think of this idea? STAR was his baby virtually from day one to a few months before the Oldies flip. 8)
With ODB's current approach, 80's is the spice, not the meat. OK, maybe more than spice, but still less than 1/3 of the music. But maybe by "they're focusing on 80's" you simply meant "they're playing a fair amount of 80's"??
alans613 said:This signal, no matter what format, will have problems. I think some form of Oldies may work on a bigger and better signal, say one of the Jazz signals that Saga owns(Maybe 104.3?). That being said, if they're focusing on 80s they might as well bring back the legendary STAR 107.9, when that signal did the best ratings it's ever done...I wonder what Jason Roberts would think of this idea? STAR was his baby virtually from day one to a few months before the Oldies flip. 8)
You're correct about the signal. The station is stuck where it is (when Power 107.5 came on the air, that pretty much sealed the deal). You can't move 107.9 any further south without interferring with Power, just 400 megacycles down the band. When Associated Group moved it from the WDLR tower to where it is now, (off I-71 about 8 miles north of the northern 270 beltway), that's it.
Saga bringing Star back? It would be an interesting idea. But I doubt Saga would do it, knowing the players as I do.
Remember...at the very end (some of which time was after I left), the station's big ratings boost came after we leaned it to the rock side. The Brew, last time I checked, has that area pretty much covered (they call themselves "80's hits" on some radio sites, which was the name I coined to describe the Star format.), so I'm not sure the formatic hole is there. Remember, the "Movin'" format has pretty much proven what we learned on Star...that the 80's dance and urban doesn't drive the bus. And the A/C's often divide the rest of the pie.
But, it might be fun to put together a Star 107.9 reunion. Next year marks the 10th anniversary of Star's debut.
We'll see....
Jason Roberts said:Remember...at the very end (some of which time was after I left), the station's big ratings boost came after we leaned it to the rock side. The Brew, last time I checked, has that area pretty much covered (they call themselves "80's hits" on some radio sites, which was the name I coined to describe the Star format.), so I'm not sure the formatic hole is there.
The Brew seems to have eliminated the on-air 80's references. While 80's hit-rock is still clearly their meat and potatoes, it appears they've broadened in both genre and era (more Mountain *and* more Modern English *and* more Collective Soul). It's not an "80's station" (or even "80's and More"), but still far from a rock-based Jack.
Last time I listened to the Brew (admittedly over 2 months ago), their play list was very limited. It wasn't but a couple hours before I was hearing the same songs again. I think they were straying out side the 80s back then too. Good to hear that they may be broadening the play list. I know it seemed to be a much smaller play list than what STAR played.
I heard The Brew play "Love Is On The Way" by Saigon Kick from 9/92 recently. If you guys have heard Collective Soul on The Brew, that basically is saying that they're looking for something else to expand the playlist from just 80s rock to maybe a bit of early 90s rock. Not a bad idea...Even STAR did a 90s show Fridays called "The Edge of 80s"...MAN do I miss STAR. :'(
Alan Goodman circa late 2002: "We think we can get this thing up to a 4 fairly quickly."
Al Timiter said:Alan Goodman circa late 2002: "We think we can get this thing up to a 4 fairly quickly."
And, they might have...(or at least gotten a 3) had CC not positioned 93-3 originally as a "Gold Based A/C".
107.9, shortly there after (or about the same time) ventured into the 70's...and suddenly you had a bad signal and a better signal playing a lot of the same titles. Better signal wins all the time.
Remember...(as much as I hate to admit this), the "satellite" version of 107.9, programmed by ABC radio networks prior to Saga's takeover actually got in the high 2's 12 plus...fairly decent numbers for that frequency.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.