Thanks for your very thoughtful post, Reggie. I couldn't agree with you more. Lots of people are coming at this argument in the wrong way from both sides.
I would simply like to point out that WILD-AM consistenly pulled in strong numbers (above a 2.0 12+) relative to its very poor daytime signal prior to Radio One's purchase of 97.7 and later purchase of 1090 itself. Even with increased competition from 97.7, WILD-AM continued to consistently pull a 1.0-2.0 12+ with its classic soul format under Radio One, which is amazing considering its signal limitations.
There is a market for more R&B music on the Boston radio dial. It's just unfortunate that the way the chips have fallen, it's likely not going to happen anytime soon. The only chance I could see is possibly coming from CBS, but I think even their lower rated stations still bill pretty well.
Nonetheless, there is certainly the appetite for it as well as the demos to support it if it's done well and it's marketed well.
I would simply like to point out that WILD-AM consistenly pulled in strong numbers (above a 2.0 12+) relative to its very poor daytime signal prior to Radio One's purchase of 97.7 and later purchase of 1090 itself. Even with increased competition from 97.7, WILD-AM continued to consistently pull a 1.0-2.0 12+ with its classic soul format under Radio One, which is amazing considering its signal limitations.
There is a market for more R&B music on the Boston radio dial. It's just unfortunate that the way the chips have fallen, it's likely not going to happen anytime soon. The only chance I could see is possibly coming from CBS, but I think even their lower rated stations still bill pretty well.
Nonetheless, there is certainly the appetite for it as well as the demos to support it if it's done well and it's marketed well.
ReggieBeas said:I think everybody is right! And everybody is wrong! Boy, did I cover my bases
Yes, it is the business of radio. It is for-profit. If a company can get an audience playing church hymns and charge top dollar for spots, they will do so. So the formats that can make the most money get on-air. But with consolidation, it's not just about making money. You have to keep making more money than you made the previous year just to keep the stock price up. Before consolidation, a private owner can make a small or medium profit and be fine. Now, when your stockholders see you only made a small or medium profit, they are screaming because they are not getting a return on their investment.
What is the definition of successful? Nash Communications was not losing money with WILD-AM. But once Radio One came along, it was nearly impossible to make even a small profit when an AM daytimer is going against a FM signal, no matter how bad that signal was. Radio One was not losing money with Hot 97.7. They just were not making the type of money Jam'n or Kiss made. With losing close to $300 million dollars in value on their property in Los Angeles, Radio One had to make moves, and Entercom came in with a sweetheart deal. $30 million for the frequency and stick when they paid 10 originally? That's a no-brainer. But Radio One could have continued to make money in Boston doing Urban radio, just not goo-gobs of money.
(BTW, what did that $30 million get Entercom? WAAF has declined EVERY book since they bought 97.7 and are at their lowest ratings in recent memory.)
Urban radio does have a place, and can be successful in Boston. But none of the major players in Boston can make the type of return on their investment to keep the stock prices going up, even if they do turn a profit. Plus the top companies here either don't have a strong track record in Urban programming (Greater Media, Entercom) or they don't have an underperforming station that could benefit, with the correct business plan, to successfully bring a profitable Urban station to the market that bills more than they are now (Clear Channel, CBS).
And it's very interesting that Neanderpaul says that there is no place for "race-based" programming. Every station has demographic-based programming, and race is just one part of it. "Urban" is just a label that makes it easier for sales people to define their station to their clients, just like "Oldies," "Country," "Soft Rock," and the like. And for those that don't know, in the early 80s there was a move away from the term "Black" to "Urban" precisely because stations playing R&B, funk, soul and disco wanted advertisers to understand that more than black people listened to their stations (to little effect, unfortunately). But Urban radio was, and good stations continue to be, in that middle ground between music-based programming and language-based programming. Traditional Urban radio has been about being involved in, being a part of, and reflecting the community to which it broadcasts, which most language-based programming does. This doesn't mean it is excluding other people from listening, but those other people are not the focus of the station.
Perfect example: I am an African-American male. I listened to WBCN in the 90s because I liked the personalities. But it was clear that the station was formated for young white males, from the programming to the personalities to the types of commercials that were on the air. I would hear rock music, and the personalities would talk about Fanueil Hall and Newbury Street, Mama Kin's and Great Woods, Roger Clemens, Drew Bledsoe, Larry Bird and Cam Neely, and I appreciated their takes (that includes Nik Carter, an African-American DJ on BCN who understood who his target audience was… and was not). But when I wanted to hear about Mattapan Square and Washington Park, The Paramount and Wally's, Mo Vaughn, Willie McGinest, Robert Parish and Anson Carter, plus listen to some good R&B and Hip-Hop, I went to WILD-AM.
This has nothing to do with racism! It has everything to do with knowing what to expect when you turn to a radio station. It's like going to Burger King and asking for a Big Mac. Burger King caters to people who like flame-broiled burgers. Urban stations cater to people who like R&B and Hip-Hop. Every station has a target demographic that its programming, personalities and promotions caters to. Show me a station that is all things to all people, and I'll show you a failed station that is nothing to nobody!
Now after writing all of this… LOL maybe the choice of words was wrong. Would it be more palatable if, instead of saying "Boston... Only Top 10 Market with No Full-Power Minority FMs," it reads instead "Boston... Only Top 10 Market with No Full-Power FMs that cater to people who want to listen to a wider range of R&B, Hip-Hop and Dancehall Reggae music than Jam'n 94.5 provides?"
