Buffalo & Rochester July trends

[ckg279]

As per **************** and RadioInsight.com . Go to those sites to get the full list; I'm only giving the top 5 12+ in each market. The July trend encompasses May through July.

Buffalo first...

1. WBLK/93.7 9.5(down .5)
2. WYRK/106.5 9.4(down .4)
3. WGRF/96.9 8.1(up a full point..and 1.5 points since the May trend)
4. WBEN/930 7.6(up .5)
5. WHTT/104.1 7.1(up 1.1; right back to where it was in the May trend)

On to Rochester....

1. WBEE/92.5 9.7(down .1)
2. WCMF/96.5 7.5(up .7)
3. WDKX/103.9 6.7(down .1)
WHAM/1180 6.7(down 1.3)
5. WRMM/101.3 5.6(up 1.1; Warm 101.3 has shot up nearly 2 points since the May trend)

The floor is now open.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Check out all of the Buffalo ratings here:

https://ratings.****************/content/arb037

And all the available Rochester ratings here:

https://ratings.****************/content/arb079

There seems to be some confusion. WTSS is listed under the Educational Media Foundation, not Townsquare Media and WMSX ratings are not available. WTSS moved up from a 3.4 to a 3.9.

WBLK and WYRK are down a little. 97-Rock's 8.1 is their best book 8 months. WBEN had their best book in a long time with a 7.6. WHTT is back up to a 7.0, making last month's trend look like a wobble.

Elsewhere, WECK remains in the mid-3s and and WLKK breaks a 2-share for the first time.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Messed up attribution with WTSS listed as Hot AC owned by EMF, but WMSX listed as AC at the bottom of the page owned by Townsquare showing N/A for the last month. Most likely the WTSS line ascribing a 3.9 for July is correct as it applies to the format heard on 96.1, yet incorrect as to ownership.

About WHTT. April must have been a weak month for Classic Hits considering the June (April-May-June) number was 5.9. In this rolling average (May-June-July), with April was dropped the the format is back up.

Once again, it's Shares, Persons 12+ ... a mere slice of the big pie ... not AQH Persons, not Cume ... No Wagering, Please.

 

[davideduardo]

Messed up attribution with WTSS listed as Hot AC owned by EMF, but WMSX listed as AC at the bottom of the page owned by Townsquare showing N/A for the last month. Most likely the WTSS line ascribing a 3.9 for July is correct as it applies to the format heard on 96.1, yet incorrect as to ownership.

Nielsen provides data by call letters. It's up to the sites and publications that give ratings results to add / verify the owner, format and anything else they want to add. So your assumption about "calls being right, owner being wrong" sounds correct

Once again, it's Shares, Persons 12+ ... a mere slice of the big pie ... not AQH Persons, not Cume ... No Wagering, Please.

Cume not used generally for sales. And AQH persons, rating and share are all the same number, just expressed in different ways.

 

[spt87]

And at the bottom of the rankings WLVL is giving KB a run for its money

 

[SirRoxalot]

And at the bottom of the rankings WLVL is giving KB a run for its money

It's notable that since the FM translator was given to WEBR, their ratings haven't changed, but WLVL's have gone down. It's a pretty small sample, but it still makes you wonder.

 

[ckg279]

To follow up on Sir Rox's post: Radio Insight's are a touch more detailed(Radio-Online mentions who owns what; R-I doesn't), and it will mention exactly what time period each trend covers. (Admittedly, this has tripped me up more than once.)

 

[MarkW]

LMAO @ WBUF.

How long before the lame morning show from Michigan gets cancelled?

Not only have they helped to ruin WBUF's ratings, they've also helped ruin the ratings of the iconic WMMQ in Lansing, MI (just one hour away from their home base) - albeit not as severely. Still, that station just scored its lowest share of the past 25 years.

 

[tbolt909]

LMAO @ WBUF.

How long before the lame morning show from Michigan gets cancelled?

Not only have they helped to ruin WBUF's ratings, they've also helped ruin the ratings of the iconic WMMQ in Lansing, MI (just one hour away from their home base) - albeit not as severely. Still, that station just scored its lowest share of the past 25 years.

Steve Harvey is not in Buffalo and he does just fine for WBLK.

The problem with WBUF is that the music mix sucks and the morning show is bad. A local morning show won't necessarily fix their problem. The format is a mess. They were better off with JACK. It's amusing that JACK used to run sweepers mocking the exact type of Morning Show that WBUF has now...

 

[MarkW]

A replacement morning show doesn't necessarily need to be local, it just needs to be BETTER.

92.9's air talent from top to bottom is very weak. Too much reliance on unremarkable out of market talent. Buffalo is TSQ's biggest market by revenue (Monmouth-Ocean, where TSQ's stations command maybe 12 percent of total recorded audio listening share, is slightly bigger in terms of population rank). Where possible, air talent should be based in Buffalo and used to track the dinky markets, not the other way around.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Steve Harvey is not in Buffalo and he does just fine for WBLK. The problem with WBUF is that the music mix sucks and the morning show is weak. A local morning show won't necessarily fix their problem. The format is a mess. They were better off with JACK...

There's a case to be made for Jack-FM being a "better" or "stronger" brand than what now occupies the 92.9 frequency. As to the issue of music, the present format boils down to the fact that it's neither fish now fowl. Classic Rock cannot be re-defined. It's a known, accepted, and well-defined brand. Attempting to take that brand and make it the new generation of Classic Rock (or similar iteration), especially in the face of a legacy Classic Rock station, is like swimming upstream against the Niagara River.

Jack-FM, as a brand, has elasticity. In some markets, the format is programmed as pop-rock to flank Classic Hits formats; in others it leans classic, to flank Classic Rock formats. It's often positioned to straddle both Classic Hits and Classic Rock.

Stations may put a format together, but once it's on the air, listeners have an equal role in defining the format. It's arguably symbiotic. They embrace ("love it") it or reject ("meh") it. WBUF as presently presented may be doing what its management wants it to do (perhaps whittling away some Edge listeners), but as to being embraced by a significant number of listeners, it appears to be a "meh." 97 Rock is kicking its dupa.

 

[tbolt909]

92.9's air talent from top to bottom is very weak. Too much reliance on unremarkable out of market talent. Buffalo is TSQ's biggest market by revenue (Monmouth-Ocean, where TSQ's stations command maybe 12 percent of total recorded audio listening share, is slightly bigger in terms of population rank). Where possible, air talent should be based in Buffalo and used to track the dinky markets, not the other way around.

Why must they be based in Buffalo? I've heard that the elderly woman on the KISS morning show hasn't lived in Buffalo for many years.

Buffalo is market #59. That's only a medium market. Anyway location doesn't matter. I've heard some awful jocks in top 10 markets who sound like they have no experience at all...

 

[TheBigA]

There seems to be some confusion. WTSS is listed under the Educational Media Foundation, not Townsquare Media and WMSX ratings are not available. WTSS moved up from a 3.4 to a 3.9.

Also if you click on the WTSS hyperlink, it takes you to the MyStar1025,com streaming page owned by Audacy. What a mess.

 

[MarkW]

I've heard some awful jocks in top 10 markets who sound like they have no experience at all...

You and I agree on that point!

 

[ckg279]

Steve Harvey is not in Buffalo and he does just fine for WBLK.

The problem with WBUF is that the music mix sucks and the morning show is bad. A local morning show won't necessarily fix their problem. The format is a mess. They were better off with JACK. It's amusing that JACK used to run sweepers mocking the exact type of Morning Show that WBUF has now...

If you want to hear what WBUF SHOULD have sounded like, just give a listen to CHTZ(97.7 HTZ FM)out of St. Catharines. They've been doing AOR for over 30 years. Their airstaff is local from AM drive to PM drive.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

If you want to hear what WBUF SHOULD have sounded like, just give a listen to CHTZ(97.7 HTZ FM)out of St. Catharines. They've been doing AOR for over 30 years. Their airstaff is local from AM drive to PM drive.

And to hear what classic hits should sound like, listen to CHBM BOOM 97.3

 

[four4rock]

How do these "ratings" compare and trend relative to the same period(s) of the past, say, three years; five years; 10 years? Where is that information published?

 

[SirRoxalot]

How do these "ratings" compare and trend relative to the same period(s) of the past, say, three years; five years; 10 years? Where is that information published?

Nielsen subscribers have access to that information, along with a host of demographic breakdowns and tools to compare stations and audiences. If you want historic data, you'd likely need to subscribe or compile it on your own as you get the 12+ ratings over time. You might be able to search some of it in past issues of trade publications, but generally they don't go back more than a few books.

 

[four4rock]

Nielsen subscribers have access to that information, along with a host of demographic breakdowns and tools to compare stations and audiences. If you want historic data, you'd likely need to subscribe or compile it on your own as you get the 12+ ratings over time. You might be able to search some of it in past issues of trade publications, but generally they don't go back more than a few books.

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks. Seems odd, though... as noted, the period-by-period and relevant monthly variance information is made "public". So, certainly, longer term comparative data points are in the public sphere... but omitted from these types of reports. To me, it seems that year-over-year (same period, prior year) performance would be of equal (if not greater) interest to would-be/prospective subscribers... y'know, to convert them into actual subscribers.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks. Seems odd, though... as noted, the period-by-period and relevant monthly variance information is made "public". So, certainly, longer term comparative data points are in the public sphere... but omitted from these types of reports. To me, it seems that year-over-year (same period, prior year) performance would be of equal (if not greater) interest to would-be/prospective subscribers... y'know, to convert them into actual subscribers.

Canada stopped publishing even the "beauty pageant" 12+ numbers in 2022. Numeris, their primary provider of ratings info, determined that the information has value and must be paid for. The information is of greater interest to ad buyers, account execs, and programmers than the general public. Essentially, Nielsen provides limited information in order to get a little publicity for its brand and allow local broadcasters and commentators to use the very broad information that's of very limited utility.