Re: Misunderstanding of radio.
> > >
> > > I happen to read the Arbitron ratings as a subscriber,
> and
> > > have access to Arbitrends, Maximiser and PD Advantages
> as
> > > well as Tapscan, X-Trends and a number of analytical
> > tools.
> >
> > >Radio (or any other business) is NOT all analytical, it
> is
> > also personal as well. You have to know what your
> listening
> > audience wants rather than hide behind general data.
>
> You asked where I got the quantitative data, and I told you.
>
>
> Stations also do extensive perceptual research, which means
> talking to listeners with either open ended questions (focus
> groups, intercepts, one on ones, etc) or in highly
> structured half-hour interviews that usually cover 400 to
> 600 listeners or potential listeners based on a screener.
>
> > That
> > is too much of the problem with radio nowdays. Since a
> few
> > companies have a monopoly over a lot of the industry, they
>
> > don't listen to the average listener anymore.
>
> Sure they do. Clear Channel owns tow research companies, and
> very good ones. Alan Kepler's Broadcast Architecture and
> Carolyn Gilbert's Critical Mass Media are fine companies,
> and do everything from focus groups to perceptuals to music
> testing.
>Focus Groups are not always effective. They tend to be limited in scope. I am sorry if these companies were really doing their homework, they would know a lot of people are not happy with the state of radio today.
> Major stat
ions do not remain major if they do not test the
> listener reactions to their offerings frequently. The major
> step of marketing is product design, and that is what
> research is part of... satisfying listener needs.
>
> > They have to
> > realize there is competition not necessarily from just
> other
> > general market stations. You also have competition with
> > devices like IPOD, Music Choice cable and satellite, as
> well
> > as XM and Sirius Satellite Radio.
>
> We know this, but most radio stations are first interested
> in holding or increasing the share of audience, as
> advertising is bought by medium, and we compete for radio
> dollars.
>
> Everyone in the industry is aware of outside competition for
> leisure time. We have been since the 78 rpm record was
> invented.
>If that is the case, then the industry needs to get with it. I understand full well that the industry has to satisfy advertisers, but what good are the ads when you don't have listeners? Nobody turns on the radio to hear radio ads. You have to have a balance of music and radio ads. You don't want to have too much music because the station will not make money, but at the same time you don't want to bombard your audience with commericals because then they will switch or turn the radio off altogether.
> > Whenever I am riding the
> > EL train or the bus, what do most people have as the
> > musicial preference, it ISN'T radio, it is IPOD. People
> have
> > more choices now than ever to hear what they want, they
> > don't have to depend on a general market station. I think
>
> > corporate radio needs to realize that. But I guess you
> will
> > try to say I am wrong about that as well.
>
> Radio is radio, and is advertiser supported. Our job is to
> satisfy two clients with different interests... listeners
> and advertisers. We can not directly compete with a personal
> iPod. We have to do the best with our product to make it a
> viable choice for people, but can not compete with
> non-commercial media directly. Radio will depend more and
> more on entertainment, and iPods are music storage devices
> fundamentally. Sure there are podcasts, but many are just
> delayed radio shows. Radio will become more involved here as
> the new media becomes commercially viable.
>But the point is, IPODs and other musicial sources are STILL competition.
> > > If radio research was not good and effective, stations
> > would
> > > not spend tens and tens of millions a year on it.
> >
> > >That isn't necessarily true either. Corporations tend to
>
> > spend millions of dollars on ideas or products that don't
> > work. The most current example would be Ford Motor
> Company
> > and their layoff situation. One of the reasons why they
> are
> > having to layoff so many workers is because of a bad idea,
>
> > too much SUV production.
>
> The main reason for layoffs is competitive challenges from
> Asian car makers, and a cost structure that is much higher
> than competitors. We have been through evolutionary changes
Okay, that is PART of the reason!!! But the other part is because of automakers focusing too much on SUV production. That is why the Ford Plant in St. Louis is closing because that is what it primarily built. Please don't tell me that isn't true because I am originally from STL and I think I know a little bit more about there than you.
> in the auto industry since the 20's. Ford has high expenses
> and cars that do not meet the price/value expectations of
> consumers. They also have had a quality issue for decades.
>
> > They spent so much time on that
> > one aspect of automaking, they didn't look at other ideas
> of
> > cars they could promote. Now since the gas has gone sky
> > high, no one really wants a gas guzzling SUV. I know what
>
> > you are probably going to say and that is they were just
> > suppling a demanded item, which is true. BUT Ford knows
> > that the U.S. virtually depends on oil from one source and
>
> > if something happens to it, gas goes up.
>
> Your analogy fails because Ford sells cars to consumers.
That is NOT my point!!!!!
> Radio gives its products to consumers, and sells it to
> advertisers, called bimodal marketing.
>The point you are missing is, COMPANIES MAKE BAD DECISIONS AND AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!!! That is what I am trying to get you to see.
> Further, most imported petroleum in the US comes from
> Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. It does not come from the
> Middle east.
> I don't know what area of the country you live in, but since when have we ever gotten any type of oil from any of these places? That's news to me. If it does, it certainly isn't being used for gasoline for automobiles or heating homes. You are the first person, I have ever heard say such a thing. If we are getting oil from all of these places, then why has gas been so expensive over the last few years, BESIDES HURRICANE KATRINA? Even if they (United States) are getting petro from other places, the U.S. isn't using it. I am sorry, I don't think you are accurate on this one. I have never heard ANY news report stating that we get petro from these places and I keep up on the news a lot. Besides, if you had competition on where you could buy petro from, then gasoline prices wouldn't be so expensive since you don't have to settle for the one price Joe or Jill is offering you.
A few years ago, when gas prices went up dramatically the highest city for gas was here in Chicago. Before you say anything David, I am talking around 2000 or 2001.
Mayor Daley knew that Chicagoans were getting hammered at the pump, so he held a press conference asking the government to tap into the Alaskan pipelines so that Americans don't have to depend so much on oil from one source. Now if the U.S. was getting oil from all these other sources like you say, why would the mayor say something like this? He is a public official so I think he knows a little bit more about government.
Are you going to say now David that you know more than the mayor of Chicago?
> > My whole point is,
> > companies don't ALWAYS get things right.
>
> As Randy Michaels said at a seminar I attended a couple of
> years ago, I would rather try 100 new ideas and fail at 97
> of them than to never try any new ideas.
>
> Even genius marketers like Proctor and Gamble know that they
> have to throw out many new products to find the ones that
> are blockbusters. They research, they try products in test
> markets, and they fail often. But they pull the home runs
> because they go to bat so often.
>Yes, it is nothing wrong with trying new things, but if you see it isn't working, you need to get rid of the idea. That is what I am trying to tell you about companies and sometimes bad decisions.
> > I don't care how many millions of dollars these radio
> people
> > are spending on these so-called "researchers", it is
> obvious
> > some of it isn't working.
>
> Just like P&G. Take the research, design a product, and you
> take a risk. But do it without research, and you seldom win.
>
>
> > > > All
> > > > "research" is the corporate suits.
> > >
> > > That sentence does not make sense.
> >
> > >Why doesn't that sentence make sense? Maybe it is the
> way
> > you are interpreting it. What I meant was all these
> > corporations do is hire these so-called research groups to
>
> > tell them what they want to hear.
>
> Wrong. Stations hire researchers for either insurance for a
> successful stations or to rebuild a failing one. Stations
> want to get the holy grail from research sometimes, ignoring
> the fact that the art and implementation are critical, and
> many programmers do not know how to interpret research.
>
> > How come I have never
> > been asked my opinion on a radio station?
>
> Reserch is based on a sample of the universe, not a census.
> Just like a blood test does not drain all the blood out of
> your body, a poll gets a balanced croiss section of the
> universe you wish to study. This is why Arbitron can measure
> LA, 12+ population of nearly 11 million, with 7,500 diaries
> per survey.
>
> All polls begin with a screener, where only "parties of
> interest" are allowed in, meaning people who listen or might
> listen.
>Okay, but how would the screeners know who the "parties of interest" are?
> > Most people I
> > know or have met have NEVER been in these research studies
>
> > you talk about.
>
> That is to be expected. I work with three of the top 6 25-54
> stations in LA, and the cume of the three is over 2 million.
> We have talked with maybe 3000 listeners or potential
> lsiteners in the last year, and our ratings in all three
> cases are up because we used a valid sample designe to poll
> our listeners.
>But sampling only 3,000 listeners out of 2 million possible to me is not effective enough.
> > I mean come on David, I have even been
> > involved in studies when television networks want to test
> a
> > new sitcom or drama and people give their feedback on
> that.
> > I never hear anything about radio stations offering people
>
> > the opportunity to give their feedback about what they
> like
> > or dislike about their favorite station.
>
> Most radio research is not branded. No one says, "I am
> calling from B-96." They say they are form "Chicagoland
> Radio Associates" or something like that and only ask
> questions if you are in the demo they want.
>I am not saying they have to say that, but they need to figure out what people in that particular demo want. I just think the current method isn't effective.
> Your chances of being surveyed by Arbitron are something
> like once every 82 years if you never move, never chnge your
> phone and never change your name.
>See, that right there shows that surveys cannot always be accurate. People move quite a bit from city to city, specifically young professionals between the ages about 23-35 who are relocating for job opps. I myself between 1998 and 2002 moved twice within my own hometown. Then I moved out west, then I moved back to Chicago. This is only within the period of about a year. How can you accurately measure a market when outdated data is used and not updated? Demos change all of the time in cities, maybe not drastically, but they do change. If Arbitron is doing research based on your method, I think it will fail.
> > > > Rhythmic radio with one sort of demo SHOULDN'T sound
> > > exactly
> > > > like Rhythmic radio (with a different demo) in
> Chicago.
> >
> > >
> > > That makes no sense.
> >
> > Maybe to you it doesn't, but to me it makes no sense that
> > you think all Rhythmics in EVERY city should sound the
> same.
>
> I do not think that. What I disagree with is that you think
> you know. Actually, nobody knows untill you poll a
> representative sample of listeners.
>So what are you saying, radio in St. Louis should sound like radio in Chicago? You are talking about two different cities with two different lifestyles. Of course, you are going to have your staple hits, but are some things played in Chicago that wouldn't hit in St. Louis and vice versa.
> > > But with a totally different listener group. What you
> are
> > > saying is that because WGCI is often close to WGN, WGCI
> is
> >
> > > therefore giving WGN a run for its money.
> >
> > Once again you are missing the point. I was not comparing
>
> > two stations of OPPOSITE formats. I was comparing those
> of
> > somewhat similiar formats.
>
> B-96 and WGCI are light years apart in age, demographics and
> format. Playing a few of the same songs does not make a
> station similar. It means some songs are crossovers.
>I don't fully agree with that. There are a lot of people (maybe not so much anymore) who are African-American and go from GCI to B-96 and there are non-blacks who go from B-96 to Kiss, to GCI. They don't ALL have to be rhythmic or Urban not to garner the same (or simliar) audience.
> > For most of the 90's the two
> > biggest contemporary music stations in Chicago were B-96
> and
> > WGCI. You don't think GCI is going to compete with a
> > contemporary music that is on their heels, PLEASE.
>
>
> In 1998, less than a quarter of B-96's listeners also
> listened to WGCI... and nearly all of them were Hispanic or
> Black.
>
> In 2005, the duplication is still under 30%, but it
> represents the same number of people because the WBBM FM
> cume in Hispanics is down. Stations like WNUA, WPWX and WVAZ
> duplicate more. WKSC is the big sharer with WBBM FM.
>
> They are different stations, only overlapping on the higer
> ages of WBBM FM and the younger for WGCI.
>
> I don't
> > care if the station is another Urban or a Rhythmic, it is
> > still a threat. Why do you think B-96 started to get more
>
> > rhythmic in the first place back in 1989? WBMX had
> > disappeared the year before and WGCI was pretty much the
> > only younger skewing Urban left in Chicago.
>
> B 96 started getting more rhythmic because they found out
> the hits their listeners wanted to hear were rhythmic.
Which means Urban or Dance!!! You are just repeating what I said.
Of
> course, the near 40% growth in Hisanics in Chicago MSA from
> 1990 to 2000 may have had something to do with that.
>It is not all about just Hisapnics.
> > B-96 began to
> > realize a lot of the audience they used to have began
> going
> > to GCI. With House and Hip-Hop beginning to get more and
> > more popular in larger circles, it wasn't an accident that
>
> > B-96 began redesigning their billboards, bumper stickers
> and
> > monikers. When they even first started doing mixes, where
>
> > did the mixers come from, WGCI and WBMX. So please don't
> > play me for stupid.
>
> They did what every CHR has done since 1952 when KOWH went
> on the air has done... they found out what the hits were and
> played them.
>B-96 was one of the few stations that actually went that deep. You have to remember in certain cities there was STILL a stigma for some CHR's to play music which was deemed too ethnic. I know someone who was a radio Dj said the industry was like this, even sometime in the late 80's.
> > > > Why do you think GCI was rotating certain
> > > > House songs on their playlist?
> I clipped the whole specialty show thing. Saturday and
> Sunday nights are throw away dayparts. So if there is a
> niche program that will attract a bunch of partisans, go for
> it. In LA, a Spanish AC has a Salsa dance show Saturday
> nights. It is #1 or #2 in the market. But if you do salsa
> all week, you get a 0.5 share, which is what the one
> unfortunate try proved.
>
> Specialty shows are cume magnets for people who are
> avaialble in bad dayparts on weekends. They don't affect
> theoveral station ratings, and they do not indicate that the
> music is anything more than a once a week curiosity.
>
> > > > >News flash David, House Music is NOT necessarily only
>
> > "black" music, it is for ALL people who like to party.
> That
> > is one of the themes of House Music. If you know Chicago,
>
> > House Music is THE soundtrack of the streets, I don't care
>
> > what race or color you are.
>
> Which is why the show would be great on a Saturday night,
> and disaster elsewhere. Good decision. But no ratings
> impact.
>
> > > Again, let me see if I get yur point... to get back
> > 100,000
> > > in cume, you drive away 750,000 non Hisppanic listeners?
>
> > > that is senseless.
> >
> > >Well it is also senseless for you to say that B96 is
> losing
> > all of these listeners to WVIV, but they shouldn't find
> any
> > way to compete against them? You are contradicting
> > yourself. If you think it is such a bad idea, then what
> is
> > your suggestion?
>
> B-96 may not have a solution. They certainly can not win
> back the bilingual Hispanics as there is a cultural identity
> factor there that can not be overcome with a general market
> radio station. They need to look more at what the
> assimilated Hispanics and non-Hisapnic whites want, as this
> is going to be their core in the future.
> >
> > > > >But for every one person that doesn't like it, there
> > are probably three that do.
> > Besides David, in all fairness, you say you grew up in
> Latin
> > America, correct. So how can you say you know so much
> about
> > Chicago? Do you even live here?
>
> My family is from south of Chicago, from a town named after
> my great grandfather. I have been involved with Spanish
> radio there since 1983, when I did work for WOJO. Obviously,
> I have been involved with several stations there for the
> last 7 or 8 years, too.
>
> > I just moved back to
> > Chicago, but I have spent close to twenty years visting
> > here. I even had a brief living stint here fifteen years
> > ago. My point is, I KNOW this city like the back of my
> > hand. I know the culture, the likes, the dislikes and of
> > course, the radio stations.
>
> The biggest mistake a programmer makes is when they say, "I
> know the market" or, worse, "I know what people want." They
> NEVER do. Never. The listneers know what they want. You have
> to do good listener research to know what the market wants.
>That is what I was trying to tell you earlier.
>
> > I think you are judging what
> > people want in Chicago radio as an outsider. That is
> > another thing too many stations do, they hire PD's and
> MD's
> > who have know working knowledge of the market. They think
>
> > they can do the same thing in the current market like they
>
> > did in the previous one that they were in. It doesn't
> work
> > that way.
>
> Most PDs use reserch to take the pulse of the market. Those
> who do not lose. I had a recent project in a country (not
> city) where I had never lived, never worked. I changed the
> format of an FM in a city of 17 million and it went to #1 in
> 30 days. It is still there, 6 years after. So much for
> knowing the makret.
>
> When I was 17, I built the first CHR in South America. I was
> told it would not work, but I researched kids at schools
> where my school played soccer competitons with. I dropped
> out and built the station, and it was #1 in less than 3
> months. Did I say I had moved to that country 7 months
> before?
>
> >> >
> > > I would bet that B-96 does a ton of research. And if
> there
> >
> > > were more potential with what you want, they would do
> it.
> > > However, they don't. And I think they are pretty smart
> > folks
> > > there, and they are not going to go against what the
> > > audience wants.
> >
> > >But they are and that is why they are slipping. There
> have
> > been quite a few people who have e-mailed, called, or
> > written B96 about this and it hasn't worked.
>
> I suspect that quality, professional research is better than
> an unsolicited listener e-mail.
> > >Why would that necessarily be better? You said yourself that you went to a school to do research about a station and the station was successful. That is all I have talking about doing for the last few posts, but you have shot me down. I have talking about going to the people and getting their vibe. You are contradicting yourself.
> > > If I had a week, I could describe how research is done
> to
> > > see how to get P2 listeners to become P1, how to protect
>
> > > P1's, how to increase cume, how to defend a hill, etc.
> > That
> > > would assume you had a degree in statistics and had
> worked
> >
> > > in radio research for a decade or two.... oet me know if
>
> > you
> > > qualify.
> >
> > >You know what, I don't have a degreee in statisitcs, but
> I
> > DO have one in Media Communications (BA). It is obvious
> my
> > university wouldn't give me a degree if I didn't
> understand
> > radio.
>
> University media degrees are pretty useless, as some of your
> responses suggest.
EXCUSE ME DAVID, I HAVE NOT INSULTED YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!!! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY CREDIBILITY!!! JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T AGREE HOW A RADIO STATION SHOULD BE EXECUTED, DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY MY OUTLOOK IS INCORRECT!!!! I JUST THOUGHT THAT WE COULD DEBATE WITHOUT YOU BEING AN EGO-MANIAC TOWARDS MY RESPONSES. I WORKED VERY HARD FOR MY FOUR-YEAR DEGREE, I DIDN'T GET IT OUT OF A CEREAL BOX LIKE YOU THINK I DID. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I HAVE BEEN TAKING MEDIA COURSES SINCE HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL. YOU HAVE REALLY PISSED ME OFF. I CAN'T SAY WHAT I REALLY WANT TO CALL YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY POST DELETED. (NOW I AM YELLING!!!!!)
I SURE HOPE YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF THAT YOU HAD TO TRY TO TEAR DOWN MY INTELLIGENCE LEVEL!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!! HOW DARE YOU IMPLY I AM DUMB!!!
I look for marketing experience or
> degrees, followed by sociology and psychology minors.
ONE MORE THING, A LOT OF PEOPLE TOLD SAM WALTON (THE LATE FOUNDER OF WAL-MART) THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BUSINESS AND ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WAS J.C. PENNEY, WHO HE USED TO WORK FOR. PENNEY TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T HAVE A "KNACK" FOR SELLING SO HE FIRED WALTON. wELL DAVID, WE BOTH KNOW HOW THAT STORY ENDED UP. GRANTED J.C. PENNEY IS DOING WELL, BUT WHO IS DOING BETTER AND IS THE LARGER RETAILER, WAL-MART!!!! DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY MORE OF MY POSTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TRULY PISSED ME OFF!!!!
As my
> prior employer siad, "I never hire a communications
> graduate. They think I am doing a bad job of managing the
> station yet they have never been in a real station in their
> life." This is a guy who took a $75,000 FM he bought in the
> 70's to a $200 million dollar company.
>
