S
spilot113
Guest
Re: Entercom?
> > Talk radio has more outlets in Boston than it did when RKO
> > > was the only show in town. Of course there's going to be
> > > attrition. But, again It doesn't suit your argument, so
> > you
> > > choose to ignore that fact.
> >
> > Maybe cuz it's not true?
> >
> > At that time, Boston had WRKO....but WHDH as well...and
> WBZ
> > was doing more talk....so your argument is faulty (Not to
>
> > mention 590AM, WITS & 1060AM was talk.)
>
> Honestly, neither WRKO, nor WHDH were committed to "talk" as
> a format.
Add all the hours of talk on WBZ and WHDH (and others)at that time. It equals more than what WTKK brought to the market.
> Talk radio as a format has evolved. It's different, and the
> culture has become more interested since those days.
It's evolved, with WRKO's help into a 2.0 share.
> Your OPINION is that it's a cruddy company. But, you have
> yet to provide a shred of fact to back up any legitimate
> claim. You just opine, and expect everyone to accept it.
I provided the reasons for my opinion.
You just don't like them.
> What's the point? You proclaimed TKK's success in Boston.
The point is (again) that you said Bostonians were 'slow to change', etc. And the fact that WTKK has gone from a 0 share to what they are today, shows that Boston is not any more stubborn or reluctant to embrace change, and will go to where the good programnming is.
>I
> provided proof contrary to that assertion. Men in Boston
> aged 18-49 have shown no definitive preference in what
> station over a period of time for any station to claim
> superiority.
WTKK doesn't target M 18-49
> And that bolsters my defense of Entercom's choice to flip
> Star to Mike. TKK didn't succeed overnight. And yet on the
> one hand you want to tout TKK's success over time,
I am not touting their sucess...I could care less....
I just stated the ratings facts to debunk your original assertion that Bostonians are reluctant to change, etc.
> and
> prohibit the company I'm employed by the same opportunity to
> prove its decision wise. You cannot have it both ways.
They can prove whaetver they want. They haven't proved it yet....but they keep changing formats.
> > Secondly, who cares about 18-49?
>
> Hm...Men aged 18-49? that includes 18-34, 25-34, 35-44. None
> of which are desireable demos right?
No, it's just that RKO TKK and Star, etc....all target 25-54.
> > And Mike is losing to all of them.
>
> It's been on the air since April. Just barely six months.
And most of the other Jack formatted stations have gone up.
Why hasn't Entercoms?
Usually the horse is running fastest when he first comes out of the gate.
> And Entercom has little patience?
>
> > While those incarnations may have "lost" to ZLX, Mix, and
> > whatever....considering it is an "out of town"
> > signal.....they have shown little patience for those
> > formats...and were quick to jump on the "next big thing".
> >
> > Again, short-sighted.
>
> Ah the "out of town signal" argument. Now, you're just
> flingin' poop in hopes something will stick.
I'm not flinging anything...it's just a fact.
> > > So, you damn a company for changing a format that's
> losing
> > > money rather than continuing to let the flood gates flow
> > > wide open?
> >
> > I'd damn a company (and executives) for making a decision
> to
> > lose even MORE money.
>
> Yet you have shown absolutely zero evidence of such. You're
> just proclaiming it with zero basis in fact.
Take a look at the Hungerfords report.
BTW...You haven't posted any evidence of your claims that they are doing so much better since the change.
> > > > > > Three, they don't believe in advertisin
> > > > > Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and
> > > > adding
> > > > > another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts
> that
> > > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.
> > > > None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.
> > >
> > > So, you want people to see ads for a radio station while
> > > they're watching TV. I personally think TV spots are
> > > overrated. But. This does fit your complaint.
> >
> > If you can't see the correlation between TV ads and the
> more
> > sucessful stations, you need to look again.
>
> Show me. Show evidence that a TV campaign directly worked.
> WEEI doesn't do TV and guess what? It wins.
Again, nothing to do with the World Series or Superbowl, huh?
Show me that they would do as well without the World Series and Superbowl.
> > > WRKO has print ads, and has had billboards.
> >
> > Cheap.
>
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
My original assertion is that they are cheap....too cheap to spend any real money on TV spots.
> > > WEEI has print
> > > ads.
> >
> > Cheap.
>
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
My original assertion is that they are cheap....too cheap to spend any real money on TV spots.
> > > and has an amazing broadcast studio on Lansdowne.
> >
> > Thats a capital expenditure....not promotional dollars.
>
> Is it really? How so? Entercom doesn't need that studio.
> They put it there as a fishbowl for the public to SEE.
> That's promotional.
Still a capital expenditure. Talk to your business manager/accountant.
> > > > I'm not sure what the 25k is for.
> > >
> > > Contesting. You know getting people to listen by
> promising
> >
> > > them money. It's called "word-of-mouth", or perhaps
> > "viral"
> > > works for you?
> >
> > Whatever.. 25k is about 25 days worth of an ad budget.
>
> And yet they're getting SO much more out of it.
Not in my opinion.
> Thats called
> spending wisely.
Or cheap, depending on your perspective.
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
The best "reach" for outside marketing is TV.
Companies like entercom don't like to do it because it's expensive.
> > > It's not how much you spend. It's how
> > > you spend it.
> >
> > Case in point...all those "Leeza" spots that didn't do
> > anything for them.
>
> So then does TV work? or not? Uh oh...think before you type.
It works when you have compelling programming that people want.
> But you damn a company for managing it's budgets properly to
> maximize profits. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, is
> exactly what a successful business aims to achieve.
I damn a company for being run badly.
Entercom in Boston...they are the worst performing company.
They have the worst properties.
> > (It's a stupid analogy.)
>
> Ah...now we attack the debating tactics of yours truly
> because you're frustrated at your repeated inability to
> establish your points due to my repeated factual refuting of
> all of your statements.
Refuting a point with a sub shop analogy? Laughable!
Again, a stupid analogy.
> > They jumped the gun, made a knee-jerk decsiion without any
> > research to back it up.
>
> Really? And you know this how?
Can you prove otherwise?
> And how many ratings books
> have been issued since the flip?
7 montlies....ALL down.
> Look...you have a hair
> across your ass for Entercom.
Nope. I don't have a dog in this fight.
I am just posting my observations.
Look, you have a hard-on for Entercom....I understand it.
When they are paying your grocery bill, you can't help but think highly of them.
> > > Do
> > > you have any idea how Arbitron works?
> >
> > More than you could imagine.
>
> So should I now bow to your omnipotent knowledge?
No, not at all. Just don't assume my level of knowledge.
> Or are you
> going to provide some shred of credibility to this debate
> other than "I know more than Entercom's braintrust"?
Arte you going to provide some shred of independent thought other than, "I am a stooge of Entercom"?
> > > Do you have any idea
> > > how long it takes to achieve 100% market awareness?
> >
> > Especially with badly formatted stations!
>
> Your opinion. And yet to be determined by the listeners of
> Boston.
This whole board is made up of opinions!
And you are typing your opinion too....
> > > You just
> > > want to bang Entercom's nuts around. I get it. But,
> you're
> > > not really doing an efficient job.
> >
> > I have nothing against Entercom, except the observation
> that
> > they are a opretty poor broadcaster...for the reasons I've
> > stated above.
>
> But you haven't stated any facts. Just an opinion.
My professional observations....and the opinions of others in the market.
> There's been no evidence of short-sighted practice. You're
> pissed they flip stations that don't turn a profit.
How many formats have they had?
How many PD's at WRKO?
How long since WAAF was a sucess?
All proof of the short-sightedness.
> They haven't dumped WVEI. They've
> acquired WEEI-FM. Seems like they're in it for the long haul
> there.
Yes, they have one sucessful franchise. I give them credit for that. (As well as for VEI and FM in RI)
> You call good cost-to-profit ratio being cheap. I call it
> good business.
In Boston what is their cost/profit ratio?
They perform below all of their peers.
> See how many agree with either point and get
> back to me. I've shown you examples of minimal spending with
> maximum promotional results. You call that "no promotional
> dollars".
All opinion. It doesn't matter if their little K-cards give you a thrill.
Dollars are what matter.
> Revolving door of talent? So, is it safe to assume you're an
> ex-employee?
Nope...just counting how many people have worked at 93-7. How many at WRKO?
Never worked at Entercom. Again, I have no dog in this fight. Just observations.
> > It appears you are too close to the "inside" to see whats
> in
> > front of you.
>
> You know what's in front of me? I made an agreement to work
> for Entercom for X amount of dollars for X period of time.
Point made.
> > I'm glad they are treating you well...but that doesn't
> erase
> > their bad business decisions.
Again, whats the profit ratio at Entercom Boston?
Again, worse than their peers.
How much did the advertising revenue grow for the Boston Market?
How did Entercom grow comapred to that? Again, it couldn't match the growth.
> > The facts and observations are above. Are you blind?
>
> WHAT FACT? You think they're losing money on Mike.
Did they match the ad dollar growth in Boston? Fact: Nope!
Whats the profit ratio for Entercom in Boston? Fact: Worse than their peers.
> But, you
> don't really know.
See above.
> And you've seen one bad book. And you're
> ready to knee-jerk and claim failure.
9 monthlies for Star/Mike, whatever.
Years for WRKO.
Years for WAAF.
> > Well, now your down to just insulting me...without
> anything
> > to backup your arguments. You lose.
>
> You might want to look up a few paragraphs where you call my
> analogy "stupid".
I called the analogy stupid. Not you.
Are you going to try to defend a "sub shop" analogy?
> And I didn't insult you. You have shown the inability to
> comprehend the discussion multiple times.
I comprehend the discussion just fine. You just don't like the answers.
> You have
> miscontrued, and misinterpreted my statements. Please take a
> few minutes to re-read my original assertions. I believe
> you'll find that you're in error with regard to what I've
> said.
Please, I don't need to read the sub-shop analogy again.
> > Didn't he leave to work for a record label/promo group?
>
> No. He did not. He left to sign on WAXQ in New York.
>
> > Second, if they money was there at Entercom Boston, he
> > wouldn't have left.
> Again. Factually incorrect.
Well, he left Entercom's 93-7 to work for the record rep/promo outfit, no?
Thats what I was referring to. Am I factually incorrect in that?
> > I diss Entercom, for losing a good programmer....with
> > short-sighted descions.
>
> You diss Entercom. With no knowledge of how they do
> business.
I can see how they do business. It's visible everywhere.
> > > As usual, if you did any real research you would know
> > these
> > > things before slamming the business practices of a radio
> > > station.
> >
> > You have not pointed out any new facts.
>
> I've just recently pointed out that WAAF wasn't owned by
> Entercom when Ron left.
I thought we were talking about research.
> > > > I'm talking about GM's and VP's.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm. If the GMs and VPs are so untalented, why does
> > > Entercom post such nice profit? Why are the shareholders
> > > happy? Why is it a good stock buy?
> >
> > Cuz they are cheap....and tight with a penny...that
> doesn't
> > make them good broadcasters. (Just look at Clear
> Channel.)
>
> Hmmm. Broadcasting is a business. Success in business is
> good. Success in business is measured by profit. Entercom is
> profitable.
Almost ALL radio companies are profitable.
But they perform below their peers investmentwise.
> > I would say that you, as an employee...have an agenda.
>
> Yes I do. To keep the check coming in.
Point made.
> Who knows? In a month I could be gone too. Maybe my opinion
> of my employer will differ then.
We'll see how you feel when you are not getting you meal ticket paid for by them.
> > Well, since they can't do the same at WRKO, WAAF and
> > Mike-FM.....then no, they don't get the credit.
>
> WAAF is very profitable. With its "out of town signal" and
> everything. I cannot speak for WRKO or WMKK. And neither can
> you. You don't see the books. You just don't like what they
> do personally.
They report their billing to Hungerford, etc....don't they?
> And you're more than entitled.
>
> > The credit belongs to the talented programmer.
>
> Right. Management has no foresight to hire the "talented
> programmer".
>
> Meet Ron Valeri.
Ron, meet Mike Elder, meet Carberry, meet Falconi.
> > > I've made my point. Negated yours. And, I fart in your
> > > general direction.
> >
> > Wow, such intelligence!
> > Talk radio has more outlets in Boston than it did when RKO
> > > was the only show in town. Of course there's going to be
> > > attrition. But, again It doesn't suit your argument, so
> > you
> > > choose to ignore that fact.
> >
> > Maybe cuz it's not true?
> >
> > At that time, Boston had WRKO....but WHDH as well...and
> WBZ
> > was doing more talk....so your argument is faulty (Not to
>
> > mention 590AM, WITS & 1060AM was talk.)
>
> Honestly, neither WRKO, nor WHDH were committed to "talk" as
> a format.
Add all the hours of talk on WBZ and WHDH (and others)at that time. It equals more than what WTKK brought to the market.
> Talk radio as a format has evolved. It's different, and the
> culture has become more interested since those days.
It's evolved, with WRKO's help into a 2.0 share.
> Your OPINION is that it's a cruddy company. But, you have
> yet to provide a shred of fact to back up any legitimate
> claim. You just opine, and expect everyone to accept it.
I provided the reasons for my opinion.
You just don't like them.
> What's the point? You proclaimed TKK's success in Boston.
The point is (again) that you said Bostonians were 'slow to change', etc. And the fact that WTKK has gone from a 0 share to what they are today, shows that Boston is not any more stubborn or reluctant to embrace change, and will go to where the good programnming is.
>I
> provided proof contrary to that assertion. Men in Boston
> aged 18-49 have shown no definitive preference in what
> station over a period of time for any station to claim
> superiority.
WTKK doesn't target M 18-49
> And that bolsters my defense of Entercom's choice to flip
> Star to Mike. TKK didn't succeed overnight. And yet on the
> one hand you want to tout TKK's success over time,
I am not touting their sucess...I could care less....
I just stated the ratings facts to debunk your original assertion that Bostonians are reluctant to change, etc.
> and
> prohibit the company I'm employed by the same opportunity to
> prove its decision wise. You cannot have it both ways.
They can prove whaetver they want. They haven't proved it yet....but they keep changing formats.
> > Secondly, who cares about 18-49?
>
> Hm...Men aged 18-49? that includes 18-34, 25-34, 35-44. None
> of which are desireable demos right?
No, it's just that RKO TKK and Star, etc....all target 25-54.
> > And Mike is losing to all of them.
>
> It's been on the air since April. Just barely six months.
And most of the other Jack formatted stations have gone up.
Why hasn't Entercoms?
Usually the horse is running fastest when he first comes out of the gate.
> And Entercom has little patience?
>
> > While those incarnations may have "lost" to ZLX, Mix, and
> > whatever....considering it is an "out of town"
> > signal.....they have shown little patience for those
> > formats...and were quick to jump on the "next big thing".
> >
> > Again, short-sighted.
>
> Ah the "out of town signal" argument. Now, you're just
> flingin' poop in hopes something will stick.
I'm not flinging anything...it's just a fact.
> > > So, you damn a company for changing a format that's
> losing
> > > money rather than continuing to let the flood gates flow
> > > wide open?
> >
> > I'd damn a company (and executives) for making a decision
> to
> > lose even MORE money.
>
> Yet you have shown absolutely zero evidence of such. You're
> just proclaiming it with zero basis in fact.
Take a look at the Hungerfords report.
BTW...You haven't posted any evidence of your claims that they are doing so much better since the change.
> > > > > > Three, they don't believe in advertisin
> > > > > Spending what they have on the Mike TV campaign, and
> > > > adding
> > > > > another $25k on top of that, kind of contradicts
> that
> > > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > Mike seems to be the only one that gets any TV spots.
> > > > None for WRKO, WEEI, WAAF.
> > >
> > > So, you want people to see ads for a radio station while
> > > they're watching TV. I personally think TV spots are
> > > overrated. But. This does fit your complaint.
> >
> > If you can't see the correlation between TV ads and the
> more
> > sucessful stations, you need to look again.
>
> Show me. Show evidence that a TV campaign directly worked.
> WEEI doesn't do TV and guess what? It wins.
Again, nothing to do with the World Series or Superbowl, huh?
Show me that they would do as well without the World Series and Superbowl.
> > > WRKO has print ads, and has had billboards.
> >
> > Cheap.
>
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
My original assertion is that they are cheap....too cheap to spend any real money on TV spots.
> > > WEEI has print
> > > ads.
> >
> > Cheap.
>
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
My original assertion is that they are cheap....too cheap to spend any real money on TV spots.
> > > and has an amazing broadcast studio on Lansdowne.
> >
> > Thats a capital expenditure....not promotional dollars.
>
> Is it really? How so? Entercom doesn't need that studio.
> They put it there as a fishbowl for the public to SEE.
> That's promotional.
Still a capital expenditure. Talk to your business manager/accountant.
> > > > I'm not sure what the 25k is for.
> > >
> > > Contesting. You know getting people to listen by
> promising
> >
> > > them money. It's called "word-of-mouth", or perhaps
> > "viral"
> > > works for you?
> >
> > Whatever.. 25k is about 25 days worth of an ad budget.
>
> And yet they're getting SO much more out of it.
Not in my opinion.
> Thats called
> spending wisely.
Or cheap, depending on your perspective.
> Your original assertion "Three, they don't believe in
> advertising"
The best "reach" for outside marketing is TV.
Companies like entercom don't like to do it because it's expensive.
> > > It's not how much you spend. It's how
> > > you spend it.
> >
> > Case in point...all those "Leeza" spots that didn't do
> > anything for them.
>
> So then does TV work? or not? Uh oh...think before you type.
It works when you have compelling programming that people want.
> But you damn a company for managing it's budgets properly to
> maximize profits. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, is
> exactly what a successful business aims to achieve.
I damn a company for being run badly.
Entercom in Boston...they are the worst performing company.
They have the worst properties.
> > (It's a stupid analogy.)
>
> Ah...now we attack the debating tactics of yours truly
> because you're frustrated at your repeated inability to
> establish your points due to my repeated factual refuting of
> all of your statements.
Refuting a point with a sub shop analogy? Laughable!
Again, a stupid analogy.
> > They jumped the gun, made a knee-jerk decsiion without any
> > research to back it up.
>
> Really? And you know this how?
Can you prove otherwise?
> And how many ratings books
> have been issued since the flip?
7 montlies....ALL down.
> Look...you have a hair
> across your ass for Entercom.
Nope. I don't have a dog in this fight.
I am just posting my observations.
Look, you have a hard-on for Entercom....I understand it.
When they are paying your grocery bill, you can't help but think highly of them.
> > > Do
> > > you have any idea how Arbitron works?
> >
> > More than you could imagine.
>
> So should I now bow to your omnipotent knowledge?
No, not at all. Just don't assume my level of knowledge.
> Or are you
> going to provide some shred of credibility to this debate
> other than "I know more than Entercom's braintrust"?
Arte you going to provide some shred of independent thought other than, "I am a stooge of Entercom"?
> > > Do you have any idea
> > > how long it takes to achieve 100% market awareness?
> >
> > Especially with badly formatted stations!
>
> Your opinion. And yet to be determined by the listeners of
> Boston.
This whole board is made up of opinions!
And you are typing your opinion too....
> > > You just
> > > want to bang Entercom's nuts around. I get it. But,
> you're
> > > not really doing an efficient job.
> >
> > I have nothing against Entercom, except the observation
> that
> > they are a opretty poor broadcaster...for the reasons I've
> > stated above.
>
> But you haven't stated any facts. Just an opinion.
My professional observations....and the opinions of others in the market.
> There's been no evidence of short-sighted practice. You're
> pissed they flip stations that don't turn a profit.
How many formats have they had?
How many PD's at WRKO?
How long since WAAF was a sucess?
All proof of the short-sightedness.
> They haven't dumped WVEI. They've
> acquired WEEI-FM. Seems like they're in it for the long haul
> there.
Yes, they have one sucessful franchise. I give them credit for that. (As well as for VEI and FM in RI)
> You call good cost-to-profit ratio being cheap. I call it
> good business.
In Boston what is their cost/profit ratio?
They perform below all of their peers.
> See how many agree with either point and get
> back to me. I've shown you examples of minimal spending with
> maximum promotional results. You call that "no promotional
> dollars".
All opinion. It doesn't matter if their little K-cards give you a thrill.
Dollars are what matter.
> Revolving door of talent? So, is it safe to assume you're an
> ex-employee?
Nope...just counting how many people have worked at 93-7. How many at WRKO?
Never worked at Entercom. Again, I have no dog in this fight. Just observations.
> > It appears you are too close to the "inside" to see whats
> in
> > front of you.
>
> You know what's in front of me? I made an agreement to work
> for Entercom for X amount of dollars for X period of time.
Point made.
> > I'm glad they are treating you well...but that doesn't
> erase
> > their bad business decisions.
Again, whats the profit ratio at Entercom Boston?
Again, worse than their peers.
How much did the advertising revenue grow for the Boston Market?
How did Entercom grow comapred to that? Again, it couldn't match the growth.
> > The facts and observations are above. Are you blind?
>
> WHAT FACT? You think they're losing money on Mike.
Did they match the ad dollar growth in Boston? Fact: Nope!
Whats the profit ratio for Entercom in Boston? Fact: Worse than their peers.
> But, you
> don't really know.
See above.
> And you've seen one bad book. And you're
> ready to knee-jerk and claim failure.
9 monthlies for Star/Mike, whatever.
Years for WRKO.
Years for WAAF.
> > Well, now your down to just insulting me...without
> anything
> > to backup your arguments. You lose.
>
> You might want to look up a few paragraphs where you call my
> analogy "stupid".
I called the analogy stupid. Not you.
Are you going to try to defend a "sub shop" analogy?
> And I didn't insult you. You have shown the inability to
> comprehend the discussion multiple times.
I comprehend the discussion just fine. You just don't like the answers.
> You have
> miscontrued, and misinterpreted my statements. Please take a
> few minutes to re-read my original assertions. I believe
> you'll find that you're in error with regard to what I've
> said.
Please, I don't need to read the sub-shop analogy again.
> > Didn't he leave to work for a record label/promo group?
>
> No. He did not. He left to sign on WAXQ in New York.
>
> > Second, if they money was there at Entercom Boston, he
> > wouldn't have left.
> Again. Factually incorrect.
Well, he left Entercom's 93-7 to work for the record rep/promo outfit, no?
Thats what I was referring to. Am I factually incorrect in that?
> > I diss Entercom, for losing a good programmer....with
> > short-sighted descions.
>
> You diss Entercom. With no knowledge of how they do
> business.
I can see how they do business. It's visible everywhere.
> > > As usual, if you did any real research you would know
> > these
> > > things before slamming the business practices of a radio
> > > station.
> >
> > You have not pointed out any new facts.
>
> I've just recently pointed out that WAAF wasn't owned by
> Entercom when Ron left.
I thought we were talking about research.
> > > > I'm talking about GM's and VP's.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm. If the GMs and VPs are so untalented, why does
> > > Entercom post such nice profit? Why are the shareholders
> > > happy? Why is it a good stock buy?
> >
> > Cuz they are cheap....and tight with a penny...that
> doesn't
> > make them good broadcasters. (Just look at Clear
> Channel.)
>
> Hmmm. Broadcasting is a business. Success in business is
> good. Success in business is measured by profit. Entercom is
> profitable.
Almost ALL radio companies are profitable.
But they perform below their peers investmentwise.
> > I would say that you, as an employee...have an agenda.
>
> Yes I do. To keep the check coming in.
Point made.
> Who knows? In a month I could be gone too. Maybe my opinion
> of my employer will differ then.
We'll see how you feel when you are not getting you meal ticket paid for by them.
> > Well, since they can't do the same at WRKO, WAAF and
> > Mike-FM.....then no, they don't get the credit.
>
> WAAF is very profitable. With its "out of town signal" and
> everything. I cannot speak for WRKO or WMKK. And neither can
> you. You don't see the books. You just don't like what they
> do personally.
They report their billing to Hungerford, etc....don't they?
> And you're more than entitled.
>
> > The credit belongs to the talented programmer.
>
> Right. Management has no foresight to hire the "talented
> programmer".
>
> Meet Ron Valeri.
Ron, meet Mike Elder, meet Carberry, meet Falconi.
> > > I've made my point. Negated yours. And, I fart in your
> > > general direction.
> >
> > Wow, such intelligence!