If you study what that demo wants, it can't be delivered on broadcast radio. The folks at Disney discovered that a while back. They thought playing music that appealed to that demo would work. It didn't. The presentation was too slow. In fact, the presentation of traditional cable-delivered video channels such as Disney Jr. and the rest are too slow. I watched a 2 year old spin through dozens of short videos on his mother's phone with the dexterity of a pro. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
-
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
Country Format Billing
- Thread starter BJSteigner
- Start date
If you study what that demo wants, it can't be delivered on broadcast radio. The folks at Disney discovered that a while back. They thought playing music that appealed to that demo would work. It didn't. The presentation was too slow. In fact, the presentation of traditional cable-delivered video channels such as Disney Jr. and the rest are too slow. I watched a 2 year old spin through dozens of short videos on his mother's phone with the dexterity of a pro. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
That's because radio doesn't try. All they want to do is cash in on the 25-49 demo. It's always about short-term gain, never about building a future. A business strategy driven by quarterly bonuses for the guys at the top who are willing to ride that gravy train as far as it will take them before hopping onto the next one.
Doesn’t try? The only thing radio tries to do is reach listeners that advertisers desire. In major and large markets, advertisers call the shots…not “big bad corporate” guys. WABC is an anomaly supported by a wealthy benefactor.
Do you work for free? I don't either. Radio would be much better if it didn't have to depend on advertisers, and listeners paid for what they hear. But listeners want everything for free and then complain because the people doing the work want to get paid. They won't even spend a few bucks and buy an HD radio.
Did Cumulus engage an investment banker to run a marketing process for that property and the others sold to EMF around the same time? If so, it is possible indications of interest were received from multiple parties.
EMF's status as a tax-exempt NFP entity perhaps gives it an automatic advantage. Their programming distribution model definitely gives them an advantage and allows them to value a station more highly in many instances than a would-be, for-profit buyer.
Cumulus was coming out of bankruptcy, so it was up to the creditors to sell the stations. They took the biggest offer they could find.
They would have loved to have included the AMs, but EMF wasn't interested.
No, local advertisers did not support it and the ratings were not high enough for agencies to be interested. In fact, it did better when it was part of the corporate "Nash" brand and sold as a network"
There is no evidence that WABC is making a profit. It is below 20th in 25-54 and many consider the station to be a personal pet project of the wealthy owner.
A local owner would go for a format that appeals to a broader and salable audience group. History shows that any chance of a country station succeeding today is essentially zero.
New York got just as many frequencies as any other congested area of the country got. And those allocations were mostly dependent on the laws of physics, so saying they were "insufficient" is not a valid point
And those are separate challenges. Still, radio reaches 85% of adults each week and is a very viable ad medium.
There are all kinds of music and talk formats that terrestrial radio can't deal with as they are too small to attract advertisers. To zoom in on one area I am familiar with, I know or have met many Hispanics who hate the few choices they have and they stream all-salsa, pop/ballad oldies, all-vallenato, all-Argentine-rock, all-ranchera, all-regional-Mexican and a variety of others; each of those is a viable format elsewhere but is too small to be employed in New York City. Quite simply, alternative rock and country have joined those groups.
The average radio listener in New York's MSA hears 6 stations in a week and even more over longer periods of time. If alternative and country are gone, those listeners (who are terrestrial radio users) will simply listen to other stations.
A good example is Beautiful Music. That format, in the 70's and early 80's the source of several top 5 stations in nearly every US radio market, was dropped in a mad rush in the later 80's. Radio listening levels did not decline... those people simply found another station to listen to.
Actually, it is some subset of 18-54. Every agency ad campaign and every local direct advertiser has a specific target that may also include gender and ethnic requirements, too. There are no radio campaigns against teens... that dried up in the 70's due to changes in marketing and fragmentation of that target group.
Radio goes where there are existing ad budgets.
In TV, CBS has been trying for a decade to get ad budgets to include 50-65 (almost all broadcast TV is 18-49 or some subset). They have worked with ad agencies to make presentations to their clients at the highest levels and have spent millions trying to get demos expanded. There has been nearly no success except in the area of pharmaceuticals... and that industry came to TV more due to changes in industry standards and legal issues than because CBS was out there pitching older viewer's purchasing power.
There is no evidence of that. Few in radio are getting much in the way of bonuses today; in real inflation adjusted dollars revenue is off over 60% since 2000. There are many reasons for that, such as the 2008 recession, new media, lower listening levels in the PPM, the decline of small retailers... but radio can only go for formats that will get them on ad buys.
Just a couple of years ago or less, you were touting radio's 93% reach. How low must radio go before even its most ardent cheerleaders admit there might just be a problem going forward? What is the tipping point at which advertisers accelerate their exodus from radio? 75 percent? 50 percent?
I'm not aware that advertisers are buying a generic national figure such as 85% reach.
That was pre-iPhone and pre-PPM.
There is no tipping point. As BigA says, the metric is listener delivery, and as long as radio delivers significant numbers at the right cost per point, it is viable. Advertisers still buy newspapers and magazines, and neither has anywhere near the reach of radio.
There's something called SiriusXM. Heard of it?
Yes, it's "real" (not unsold vehicles and trial subscriptions) reach is about one in every 8 vehicles in the US. And while it is promoting its streams, the penetration in that area is much smaller.
Perfect example. Lots of variety, everything a listener could want, but only a small percentage of the population subscribe, because they want radio for free. I think they have at least five different country channels, all commercial free.
The SiriusXM music channels have no ads.
Most of the talk channels have ads, but ones for "insurance for the uninsurable" and the like seem to be the predominant advertisers.
And advertisers don't look at things like that as they are very subjective.
Advertisers are buying numbers, impressions, not personalities.
- Status