That makes sense David, but wouldn't they prefer the younger part of the 35-54 demo instead of the tail end of the demo? This would give them a lot more time to incorporate more 80s and then possibly some 90s in the playlist. If they are playing the same 60s motown, they might lose they younger audience to another station.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Classic Hits 80s
- Thread starter AM/FMRAINMAN
- Start date
A
Avid Listener
Guest
The second biggest myth the suits attempt to perpetuate regarding radio is that the old paradigm of the Baby Boomers only liking "their" new rock music has remained true since the 50's and 60's. It's simply not true that the "younger demos" only want to hear what was on the Top 40 when they were in high school. It just doesn't work that way any more. Nostalgia is no longer the main driving force for the success of a station that plays any sort of vintage music. It's a factor, yes, but it's a minor factor.
But again, the suits keep telling us that their "research" produces results at total variance with what we can easily see and hear ourselves. Yet we still hear the same old refrain from the suits: "Who are you going to believe, our research or your own lying eyes?"
Sorry, but I trust my eyes and ears more than a bunch of suits who have their own agenda to promote.
Except they don't have a musical agenda. They have a money agenda. The only way to make money is do what's popular.
Personally, I don't see any radio company forcing baby boomers to like "their music." Although that's what the majority prefer. A lot of boomers prefer something called "adult alternative." Another group prefer contemporary country, which some say is similar to 70s rock. So there are several current formats that attract boomers besides classic hits. And sure, there are the younger folks who like music of the 80s because that's what their parents liked. Taylor Swift is one of those. She's 23 years old, but loves 80s hair bands like Poison and Def Leppard. So it goes both ways. But I see no evidence that radio companies have some kind of musical agenda to promote. Maybe you can be more specific.
In the older part of the demo, classic hits stations have less competition. In the 25-44 range, you have everyone vying for listeners. the 35-54 range is just as salable, and less competitively congested.
There is definitely listenership...in most markets the Persons Using Radio for 55-64 is as high as that of 35-44, in fact.
You can succeed in getting audience, and you can have a really good station for that demo... but you can't monetize it easily.
The classic case is WDUV in Tampa. #1 12+ for well over a decade. #15 in 25-54, #15 in revenue.
Hey, don't rush it, man. I am 50 years old, and it seems like every day, someone is trying to chase me away from the format. Give it a little over four more years, and I will age out of the demo, and then the Gen-Xers and younger can have it.
Welcome back, Tibbs, and don't be a stranger. My parents took me on a helicopter ride over Nashville a little over three years ago after hearing about it over WSM. There was one extra seat on this four-seater chopper, after my parents and the pilot, so they offered to take me along. So yeah, you still can sell something to the senior citizen set, and that chopper ride would have cost them the same, whether I had been on it with them, or not.
Wanted to revisit this article, mainly because of this quote from it:
This goes back to what I have said all along, although they are a little more specific here than I have been. (It also may explain why we are increasingly seeing advertising in the above-referenced areas.) Right now, they aren't concerned about children, but the younger you go, the more options you are seeing. Children are growing up with video games, cell phones, tablets, etc. Not all of these devices are music providers, but all of them are increasingly taking the younger set's time and attention away from radio. Of course, we ALL have access to this electronic gadgetry, to the extent that we can afford it. But it is more likely to be in the hands of children and teens than the rest of us. My mother now has an ipad, but usually has to have my wife (who also has one) and sometimes me to assist her with it.
I am wondering if what this station is doing is currently legal. They may need to have the law changed. I sympathize with their plight, but I believe that at least for now, this is probably against FCC rules and regs. It isn't just that people don't want to pay for (just) radio; most of us don't want to have to start paying for ANYTHING that used to be free.
I was being a bit facetious on my comment above. It is indeed not EASY, but as some of the aspects also mentioned in posts about younger demographics also make it similarly tougher and with more competitors just as difficult. Like we have all said for five years on here, the fact that younger listeners are not engaged and older listeners are pronounced out of the buying generation have narrowed the desired age to just a few years. I have always agreed that the younger demo won't be there because they have no real reason to listen to radio vs. their own sources that self serve them. I completely disagree with the TOTAL lie that people over 50 or 55 are not still active purchasers of new products or support new or on-going businesses. The fact that radio has allowed this myth to go uncheck is, in my opinion, just proof that radio sits backs and reacts. Same probably could be said for not being entertaining or different enough to pull new generations along.
But, as David and others have told us again and again, radio can't do anything about advertisers' and advertising agencies' perceptions. Do you think WDUV likes being No. 1 12+ and No. 15 in billing? Do you think their salespeople aren't hustling their asses off just to get what few ad dollars are out there for 55-to-dead? If WDUV can't convince advertisers and agencies to send money equivalent to what a top 5 -- or even a top 10 -- station is getting to a No. 1 station, what chance does the No. 5 or 6 overall classic hits station that is being forced to drop most songs that are more than 40 years old have? It's not a matter of young whippersnappers who don't know diddly about good music running radio, or even running the agencies. It's just the way it is, and nobody outside of a mom and pop with an AM they don't want to take dark quite yet is going to play a lot of old music.
Oh, and you are hearing this from someone who is shading 60 and never thought he'd become set in his ways as far as purchasing goes. But I have. Other than a few computer-related items, I find myself buying the same things all the time. My grocery cart is filled with the same stuff, same brands -- in fact, most food brands in that cart are now generic; ad agencies are REALLY hating me now! I give new restaurants a try, but they seldom get more than three visits before I return to the old stand-bys. My next car will be used, and cheap. But gee, I still love all that great music from the '60s and '70s and think it's just the best music of all time and would love to hear it again on FM -- guess how much that means on Madison Avenue.
What makes this a "fact?"
It's legal. Look at Bob Bittner's station in Boston and his two in Maine... commercial licenses, but listener supported.
This is no different than the "Listeners' Guild" type of thing some classical stations had decades ago... send us some money and you get the monthly program guide. Of course, the money you sent was for a membership, and exceeded the cost of a small magazine.
The issue is not whether seniors are active consumers. The issue is ROI... Return on Investment.
Advertisers find that the older the consumer, the more ad impressions it takes to make a sale. The more ad impressions that are needed, the higher the cost of the sale. At some point, the cost of the sale exceeds the profit potential, and there is a loss on every item sold.
It's not a myth. Folks like P&G know how efficient ad expenditures are and they do this with all the now-available data mining resources such as daily sales scans from retail, shipments from distributors and such which they compare with ad campaigns, competitors' campaigns and such. And they believe that going after 55+ is not cost efficient save for products targeted directly at seniors, which is a separate market and not a radio friendly one.
It affects TV, too. CBS, which is demographically top-heavy, has been campaigning for several years at the agency and client level to consider 35-64 as well as TV's traditional 18-49. There is all the weight of the biggest of the big behind this, but it is hard to sell advertisers who snap back with ROI issues.
Seems like with national advertisers the likes of Progressive and Geico advertise SO MUCH that they would overcome this whole bit of enough repeat airings to get consumers to change their buying habits, regardless of age. But Geico's and Progressive's ads are becoming "progressively" MORE annoying! For as bad as Flo's TV ads are, her radio spots are worse! And her singing! Who greenlighted this ad campaign? She actually says, "don't change the channel. I'm on all of them!" She isn't kidding!
So many of Flo's ads are so annoying that it becomes more about her than about the product. More on this later.
So many of Flo's ads are so annoying that it becomes more about her than about the product. More on this later.
Sellers of intangibles have a unique set of problems. Nobody really wants to spend money on insurance, and every time a consumer gets a bill, they wonder if there is a better or cheaper way. So the insurance companies have to achieve top of mind awareness so that they either get renewed or get considered each time a person thinks about insurance. Apparently, annoying is effective... Flo annoys me and the last company I would buy insurance from is... you guessed it... Progressive.
I remember that in the early '80s, top 40 radio basically stepped aside and let MTV pick the hits for them. It really took MTV to get Kenny Rogers off of "pop" radio.
Then in the late '80s, there was a bit of a backlash generated by just one station out of Phoenix that "recycled" about half a dozen minor hits from the earlier '80s and made them hits all over again. (I had a thread about this on the '80s board.) Even then, the rest of radio sat back and let just ONE station choose the hits for everyone else. (I say "backlash" because at least some of these recycled hits did not have videos for them, thus could not get MTV airplay. I call this radio's way of getting back at MTV. Of course, MTV is itself irrelevant now.)
And that was a bad thing?
What does this have to do with Tibbs2's post? He was talking about advertisers, not music.
I remember calling Geico at least once (back in the mid '90s) to do that whole "rate quote" thing. They quoted me a rate that was double what I was already paying. Their exact words to me: "we're twice as much." Still, it doesn't hurt to check it out every once in a while. (Although I wonder if they could REALLY save me some $$$$ if they didn't spend as much on advertising. I get mailers from them all the time!)
- Status