CBS selling radio division, Houston impact?

[rbrucecarter5]

The facts don't lie.

Population: 5,546,400
Black: 962,500 (17%)
Hispanic: 1,878,200 (34%)

That means that half of the population is either Black or Hispanic. That has an effect on radio formats. BTW Blacks and Hispanics are huge users of OTA radio.

The other half is still white. And not served by all this foreign stuff coming on the air.

 

[TheBigA]

The other half is still white. And not served by all this foreign stuff coming on the air.

But they ARE served by all of the various genres of pop and country music, right?

 

[K.M. Richards]

I am going to focus the quotes on one statement by Stan and the response by David, in the hopes that it will sink in.

Boomers have been edged out by the know it all consultants who say our music is too old to support a station.

It is not "some suit" that determines not to serve the over-55 crowd. It is the group of America's major clients and advertisers, via their ad agencies, who had determined that going after older consumers is not cost efficient. So if there is no money being spent against 55+ listeners, there is no profit to be made programming for them.

If I had a nickel for every instance of someone claiming the consultants are responsible for the business decisions made by stations based on what the agencies will buy time to advertise, I could retire without signing any more client stations.

Generally speaking, programming consultants are brought in after a decision is made by station management as to what demographic to target. That's why you'll find someone like me only doing Classic Hits formats, Jaye Albright only doing Country, David Gleason only handling Spanish language, Jhani Kaye only ACs. Yes, there are also consultants who help station's analyze ratings and potential revenue but -- and this is the most important "but" -- THEY DO NOT MAKE THE ACTUAL DECISIONS. The station owners and management do.

Radio is a business. Programming consultants are brought in to maximize the percentage of listeners in the demo the station wants to attract. Nothing more, nothing less. Agencies have always had a cut off age of 55 for time buys. Are they right? I personally believe not, but I have no leverage to change their minds.

But I will not take the blame for their doing so, and I demand apologies whenever someone tries to assign the blame to us.

 

[davideduardo]

The other half is still white. And not served by all this foreign stuff coming on the air.

No, about 80% of the market is considered "white" by the US Census Bureau. What you mean is half the market is "non-Hispanic white". "Hispanic" is not a race; it is a culture/ethnicity.

Service, in a commercial radio environment, is based on where advertisers want to spend their money. In general, they will spend in somewhat near proportions to the market composition.

So if a third of listening is to Spanish language stations, about a third of revenue will go to that segment because advertisers want to reach as much of the market as possible.

No sensible advertiser would put all of the money against non-Hispanic whites, leaving the rest of the market uncovered.

 

[b-turner]

Here Here! Don't you guys get that radio advertisers set the rules, not the radio station? The real beef is with the advertising agencies. When you go to an agency to try to get your station on the buy sheet, they have a predetermined criteria. If your radio station does not meet the criteria, you don't get the advertising. I'm assuming you understand advertising is the way radio stations earn income (public stations excepted somewhat although Underwriting is usually a big chunk and Underwriting is public radio's form of advertising).

So, you're in a market with many stations and you go out to sell businesses. When you visit they say "all my advertising is handled by X agency". You go to the agency and they learn about your station and they say, hmm, you reach a good percentage of 50+ listeners. The 50+ is not who our client targets, sorry, no buy. Per unenlightened readers this is somehow under the control of the 'consultant'? Explain how that is.

 

[stan]

And some markets are underserved. That was my point.

No wonder this board is dying.

 

[TheBigA]

And some markets are underserved.

They're underserved because there's no money to be made. That was my point.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And some markets are underserved. That was my point.

No wonder this board is dying.

Awww. We provided facts to counter your rhetoric and now you're the voice of doom for RadioDiscussions.

If RD is dying -- and I don't believe it is -- it is because non-professionals (and former professionals praying for the downfall of the conglomerates) post their opinions as if they were facts, and cannot stand being rebutted ... that is, told the actual facts.

And as for "your point", Stan, perhaps if you'd come right out and said that instead of that nonsense about consultants killing off formats that are 55+, we would better understand you and might be able to have a real conversation with you.

 

[davideduardo]

And some markets are underserved. That was my point.

No. Some segments of many markets are unserved by stations specifically targeted to them.

There are no stations specifically targeting teens, either. Or kids. The reason is the same: there is no revenue to sustain such programming.

However plenty of persons over 55 use the radio. In fact, the number is only slightly less than for the next closest group that is served, 45-54. The weekly hours spent with radio by 55 and over is quite high because many listen to AC, country, talk, news. sports, classic rock, classic hits and other such stations; those stations make their money off the under-55 listening but they definitely serve the older group, too.

And plenty of teens listen to CHR stations that target 18-34 women. Or Urban stations that target 18-34 African American young adults. But a specific teen station could not generate any revenue.

What you are talking about is the absence of a few specific formats such as 60's based oldies or standards or smooth jazz. Or even Beautiful Music. Those formats get virtually all listeners from the senior demos and have a very hard time generating revenue.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

However plenty of persons over 55 use the radio. In fact, the number is only slightly less than for the next closest group that is served, 45-54. The weekly hours spent with radio by 55 and over is quite high because many listen to AC, country, talk, news. sports, classic rock, classic hits and other such stations; those stations make their money off the under-55 listening but they definitely serve the older group, too.

Or - we give up on radio completely and use satellite (or HD-2 if it has the formats). Or streaming, or music players. Radio abandons us, we return the favor. I will not listen to the stuff stations say I should listen to because it is "popular" - I will listen to what I want to hear, regardless of delivery method. I am not alone.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio abandons us, we return the favor.

Keep in mind that if you're listening to another platform, you're still listening to the radio. You're abandoning certain genres of music, not the radio.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Keep in mind that if you're listening to another platform, you're still listening to the radio. You're abandoning certain genres of music, not the radio.

Quite true - they can populate the dial here with ALL foreign for all I care, there are HD-2 channels that still aren't foreign, satellite is still radio - and the longest DX possible unless you work for NASA and hear distant space probes. I would argue that streaming is not technically radio - it is cell data (which admitted comes over the air). But - songs on my iPhone are NOT radio. Unless the bluetooth connection counts.

 

[davideduardo]

Quite true - they can populate the dial here with ALL foreign for all I care, there are HD-2 channels that still aren't foreign, satellite is still radio - and the longest DX possible unless you work for NASA and hear distant space probes. I would argue that streaming is not technically radio - it is cell data (which admitted comes over the air). But - songs on my iPhone are NOT radio. Unless the bluetooth connection counts.

Perception is reality. When virtually 100% of consumers say that listening to streaming music on a smartphone is "radio" then the word has taken on a new meaning. Obvious to those same consumers is that any realtime audio without pictures is "radio".

The term "radio" is now platform agnostic.

 

[davideduardo]

Or - we give up on radio completely and use satellite (or HD-2 if it has the formats). Or streaming, or music players. Radio abandons us, we return the favor. I will not listen to the stuff stations say I should listen to because it is "popular" - I will listen to what I want to hear, regardless of delivery method. I am not alone.

In other words, this is not about general radio usage; this is just about you.

As high a percentage (give or take a few tenths of a percent) of 55-54 year olds use radio as do 45-54 year olds. They have not given up "completely" and are using very significant amounts of radio.

While you are not alone, you are in a small minority.

 

[frankberry]

For the longest time, I considered "radio" to be over-the-air only. Everything else was "streaming."
I'm changing my views. I believe that "radio" can be delivered in many ways ... Over-the-air AM and FM, streaming, and satellite. Audio on DTV subchannels is still, technically television and not radio.

 

[K.M. Richards]

In other words, this is not about general radio usage; this is just about you.

It always is, which is why posters turn hostile towards us when we explain that "their" view is not indicative of the general population (even when adjusted for demographics).

There is far too much "this is how I see it, therefore it is how everyone does" going on here, skewing opinions into pseudo-facts. And an equal amount of facts being challenged as "opinions of the suits".

No wonder we never settle any arguments. The side with all the personal opinions is outshouting the side with the actual facts.

 

[davideduardo]

It always is, which is why posters turn hostile towards us when we explain that "their" view is not indicative of the general population (even when adjusted for demographics).

There is far too much "this is how I see it, therefore it is how everyone does" going on here, skewing opinions into pseudo-facts. And an equal amount of facts being challenged as "opinions of the suits".

No wonder we never settle any arguments. The side with all the personal opinions is outshouting the side with the actual facts.

And for those of us in the business, we have to remember that it is the listener's perception that forms our reality.

A classic case of not paying attention to consumers was the Edsel. The designers and engineers did it their way, and did not ask for any consumer input or survey consumer tastes and needs. The result was the car they wanted, not the car that automobile buyers wanted.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

And for those of us in the business, we have to remember that it is the listener's perception that forms our reality.

A classic case of not paying attention to consumers was the Edsel. The designers and engineers did it their way, and did not ask for any consumer input or survey consumer tastes and needs. The result was the car they wanted, not the car that automobile buyers wanted.

??? You are making MY point. My perception - and just about everybody I know (all different ages) - is that radio has become too corporate, too generic, not creative at all, has limited playlists - and definitely doesn't have anything we care to listen to. So what I am in the older demographic? When people in younger demographics are saying the exact same thing, even very young friends - it tells me that stations are broadcasting Edsels. When stations stop listening to listeners, the relationship becomes mutual. That isn't walkmans that dozens, maybe hundreds of co-workers listen to with earbuds. It is music on their phones. Phones that don't even have an FM chip installed or active. I am probably one of two people I know that actually has a RADIO in their office. Reception is great inside the building - just nothing on the air people care about. It wasn't that way 20 years ago, radios were everywhere. We even came in on the weekend to set up an antenna / distribution system for the office. I remember executives with nice receivers in their office. No more.

 

[davideduardo]

??? You are making MY point. My perception - and just about everybody I know (all different ages) - is that radio has become too corporate, too generic, not creative at all, has limited playlists - and definitely doesn't have anything we care to listen to. So what I am in the older demographic? When people in younger demographics are saying the exact same thing, even very young friends - it tells me that stations are broadcasting Edsels. When stations stop listening to listeners, the relationship becomes mutual. That isn't walkmans that dozens, maybe hundreds of co-workers listen to with earbuds. It is music on their phones. Phones that don't even have an FM chip installed or active. I am probably one of two people I know that actually has a RADIO in their office. Reception is great inside the building - just nothing on the air people care about. It wasn't that way 20 years ago, radios were everywhere. We even came in on the weekend to set up an antenna / distribution system for the office. I remember executives with nice receivers in their office. No more.

The reason why people do not have single use radios in many places now is that they have a multi-use radio with them where ever they go. It is their smartphone. So having an additional device that does the same thing is redundant. And the nice thing is that the "radio" which is also your smartphone can connect with all kinds of other devices such as speakers at work and car audio systems on the go... so much more convenient that having a separate device in every location.

Since nearly all stations are available on multiple platforms, it does not matter whether they tune to the terrestrial signal on a traditional radio receiver, via a receiver chip in a smartphone or via a stream they are listening to the radio.

Stations spend a lot of money on research to find out listener perceptions, likes and dislikes. Almost all non-niche larger market programming is based on this listener input. Since ad rates are based on audience delivery, stations are very careful to follow listener dictates.

Your anecdotal evidence does not match a broad study of the entire US as seen at http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insigh...-today-radio-2016-appealing-far-and-wide.html 94% of adults 18-49 use radio regularly. Even the average Millenial uses over 11 hours of radio a week!

 

[TheBigA]

??? You are making MY point. My perception - and just about everybody I know (all different ages) - is that radio has become too corporate, too generic, not creative at all, has limited playlists - and definitely doesn't have anything we care to listen to.

Funny...that's the perception folks have about Sirius too. And if you want to study real corporate culture, spend some time with the people at Pandora or Spotify. Those two places are so deeply mired in corporate-speak, it's a wonder they can tie their shoes in the morning.

The truth is that OTA radio is becoming a lot more local-driven, and a lot more creative. It's attracting a much younger audience than they get credit for, and the most amazing thing is how traditional OTA radio is still hurting the new platforms, both in terms of audience and revenue. Everything Apple Music is doing is to imitate OTA radio. It's cost them billions of dollars, and it still hasn't paid off.