Country in San Francisco?

[RadioJunkieMike]

I really wonder if anyone can make a go of country in the San Francisco market. Entercom's. 95.7 The Wolf was one of the best sounding and most well produced country stations in the U.S., and even that couldn't do it. Unless Cumulus just wants to operate a signal as a cheaply ran national feed to simply secure the San Fran market in national ad buys. Might be worth it to them in that respect, but ratingswise, I just don't know.

they might want to wait and see if their new country station makes it in New York. Remember the last attempts failed and it has been 11 years since someone tried it in New York. It could be a complete failure or not.

ah, but here's the thing: "Nash-FM" is a national feed that can be customized locally (you can add your own AM or PM drive show if you want). Cumulus went out of its way to buy Harold Camping's old NY frequency just to put "Nash" on the air there. Putting it on in SF wouldn't be about getting big ratings, it would be about telling national accounts that "Nash" is being heard in Market #4.

 

[davideduardo]

And in West LA, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica (etc.) most NPR listeners probably prefer KCRW, which runs a lot of its own programming (Morning Becomes Eclectic, etc.), but sticks to NPR news programming during drive times.

I stream KCRW sometimes from the Bya Area, but I have no idea how good or bad its signal is.

KCRW gets about half the share points that KPCC gets... usually in the 0.6 to 1.0 share range.

And KCRW also has a challenged signal... about 7 kw at 1000 feet, which only covers well about 50% of the market. Better than KPCC, but not by much.

 

[DavidKaye]

KPCC has 600 watts to cover the enormous LA geography. KQED has 110,000 watts. It would be natural to expect KPCC to significantly underperfom any metric set by KQED simply because it only covers about a third of the market well.

KPCC puts in a fine signal all the way down to Long Beach. KQED Radio on the other hand, though it has a hefty signal, is significantly affected by shading within SF itself due to its location on Mt San Bruno. KPCC doesn't have that problem with LA.

 

[DavidKaye]

ah, but here's the thing: "Nash-FM" is a national feed that can be customized locally (you can add your own AM or PM drive show if you want). Cumulus went out of its way to buy Harold Camping's old NY frequency just to put "Nash" on the air there. Putting it on in SF wouldn't be about getting big ratings, it would be about telling national accounts that "Nash" is being heard in Market #4.

That sounds cynical and all, but this is the way radio has been done since the birth of network radio in the late 1920s. The only difference is that instead of being a "programming network", that is, the same program run simultaneously in each market, it's a "sales network" where the same national spots would be run in each market. One only has to look up old Broadcasting magazines about such outfits as "Key Network" to find that these arrangements have been around a long time.

 

[davideduardo]

KPCC puts in a fine signal all the way down to Long Beach. KQED Radio on the other hand, though it has a hefty signal, is significantly affected by shading within SF itself due to its location on Mt San Bruno. KPCC doesn't have that problem with LA.

KPCC puts a usable (65 dbu) signal over about 8 million of the 13 million people in the LA market. The 65 dbu reaches, barely, Carson and Lakewood. It has practically no Orange County signal (except areas where the population is almost entirely Hispanic and Vietnamese). It's also pretty limited west of the 405 in "The Valley" and covers none of the Santa Clarita and High Desert areas.

 

[landtuna]

Wasn't KYA-FM a country outlet in the early 80's? How did that work out?

 

[LKellerIII]

Wasn't KYA-FM a country outlet in the early 80's? How did that work out?

Very late 80s or early 90s, I think. CBS purchsed 93.3, and because they ended up with 2 Oldies stations (the other was 99.7/KFRC), they flipped 93.3 to "Young Country" (KYCY). It may have initially done OK - I can't recall, but over time, not so hot.

Then there were no SF country stations for awhile until Bonneville tried "The Bear" at 95.7 (late 90s?). That tanked quickly, and there was no country again until Entercom tried "The Wolf" also at 95.7. The Wolf was (by far) the best of the 3, but after some initially decent ratings, it was basically downhill from there.

 

[Jeffrey]

I really wonder if anyone can make a go of country in the San Francisco market. Entercom's. 95.7 The Wolf was one of the best sounding and most well produced country stations in the U.S., and even that couldn't do it. Unless Cumulus just wants to operate a signal as a cheaply ran national feed to simply secure the San Fran market in national ad buys. Might be worth it to them in that respect, but ratingswise, I just don't know.

they might want to wait and see if their new country station makes it in New York. Remember the last attempts failed and it has been 11 years since someone tried it in New York. It could be a complete failure or not.

ah, but here's the thing: "Nash-FM" is a national feed that can be customized locally (you can add your own AM or PM drive show if you want). Cumulus went out of its way to buy Harold Camping's old NY frequency just to put "Nash" on the air there. Putting it on in SF wouldn't be about getting big ratings, it would be about telling national accounts that "Nash" is being heard in Market #4.

Nash isn't a national feed but it is a national brand. Cumulus bought 94.7 in New York as the anchor to the new brand. If you can say your brand is in market number 1 you can sell alot of national advertising regardless of ratings. For Cumulus the situation is a win, win. They paid only $40 million since 94.7 is a weaker signal and transmits from NJ so even w/ a 2.0 they'll make money.
I'm not as familiar with available signals in SF nor do I believe any are for sale but it wouldn't suprise me if Cumulus tried to bring the brand to market 4.

 

[beachguy3b]

LA is different from SF. Rightwing talkradio has always done very well there, not so here. Oldies have also done well there and not so well here. Meanwhile, KQED Radio (NPR) SF has nearly triple the share that KPCC LA's NPR affiliate does. The markets are simply different.

Different is an understatement. About the only similarity besides shared state government is that they both are politically liberal areas, albeit very different brands of liberalism. Attitudes, mindsets, and tastes are markedly different.

 

[DavidKaye]

Different is an understatement. About the only similarity besides shared state government is that they both are politically liberal areas, albeit very different brands of liberalism. Attitudes, mindsets, and tastes are markedly different.

Any culture has an underlying set of circumstances that made it what it is today. Cultures become different and thus radio listening habits are different as well.

SF was settled largely be educated single men from the cities during the 1880s-1910s, people who came here either because they wanted a new start or they got gold fever and (not having family to worry about) dropped what they were doing and moved out here.

LA was settled largely by uneducated families who made their living farming. They moved there en masse during the Depression, having been forced from their land by the foreclosures after the drought turned the South into the Dust Bowl.

Thus, SF supported an opera, a symphony, and two world-class museums long before LA did. So, it was not unusual for SF to support two classical music stations (KKHI and KDFC) for decades, as well as the nation's first fulltime jazz station, KJAZ, and the highest-rated NPR station in the country.

LA, on the other hand has had a long history supporting country/Western music (and remember that cowboy singing star Gene Autry was a major broadcaster in LA for generations). LA also has a long history supporting churches -- everything from Aimee Semple McPherson's church to today's Scientology. LA is more traditional, SF is more experimental.

It is no accident that tech innovation comes from the Bay Area, and it is no accident that LA is the hotbed for chain diners (that can feed a family cheaply), and freeways (that can move that same family fast).

 

[Goldilocks94941]

David - that last assessment of "SF vs LA" is a bit over the top. As one who has lived in both places, and still considers the Bay Area my home (even tho' I worked for SF publications that went out of their way to cheat me out of sales commissions I was due, and rent versus salary levels forced me to move away), that Bay Area "I'm better than you are, 'cause I've got a masters degree. . . in Science!" attitude really doesn't play well outside area code 415. It only leads to Pacifica-Radio style self-immolation in the end, when you have to think that the place you live has to be better than anywhere else, because you live there. Which of the two "markets," SF or LA, has more robber barons ripping off the public? I'd make a case that the folks at Apple, despite their LA-style veneer of "coolness," are largely a rip-out outfit, too.

LA has a vibrant and important fine arts scene, and is as multi-cultural a city as probably anywhere in the world. And for classical music, I'd take KUSC over the old KKHI anyday. I still really do miss KJAZ, however. But KKJZ in Long Beach is probably just as good, whereas I've usually found KCSM to be too brassy and condescending in how many of the announcers talk. Good thing Bob Parlocha is still syndicated nationwide -- except is no one in the Bay Area still not picking up the home town jazz host?

I don't think the broadcast dial accurately reflects the composition or tastes of local communities anymore, since it's only a chosen few corporation that get to rule the airwaves today. And countless discussions on this board suggests that local character rarely figures into programming on most stations. The rare exceptions, like KPIG, only proves my point, by being so rare.

If radio really reflected the diverse interests and needs of the people within its signals, then why are there so many fundamentalist "storefront preacher" stations, when that's not the bulk of religious affiliation in in these communities? Then why are the fantasy "25-54 males and females" demographics that commercial stations believe they're appealling to only have two or three interests in music or talk? And did all of the 55 and older folks just die or go into nursing homes, and have no money to spend, or need for news or entertainment or companionship on the radio?

There's a lot of reasons for all of this, and a nutshell history lesson doesn't really do justice to the complexities of what's going on today from city to city across America. yeah, I love San Francisco, and Oakland and Berkeley, and Marin County, and even Walnut Creek, too. But it's not better than LA or Santa Monica or West Hollywood or Pasadena or even Thousand Oaks. Just different.

 

[DavidKaye]

[....] I worked for SF publications that went out of their way to cheat me out of sales commissions I was due, [....]

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

It only leads to Pacifica-Radio style self-immolation in the end, when you have to think that the place you live has to be better than anywhere else, because you live there.

I never said SF was better than LA; I said they were settled by different people from different backgrounds at different times, and thus different underlying cultures have been created, and I surmised that this accounts for a difference in how radio stations are programmed, and why the Bay Area is a hotbed for Internet innovation and LA isn't.

Which of the two "markets," SF or LA, has more robber barons ripping off the public? I'd make a case that the folks at Apple, despite their LA-style veneer of "coolness," are largely a rip-out outfit, too.

You obviously have issues. Robber barons? Of course! The term "robber baron" was created to apply to those 4 San Francisco businessmen of the Central Pacific Railroad, Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker. Again, I'm not saying SF is better than LA; it's simply DIFFERENT.

 

[davideduardo]

ah, but here's the thing: "Nash-FM" is a national feed that can be customized locally (you can add your own AM or PM drive show if you want). Cumulus went out of its way to buy Harold Camping's old NY frequency just to put "Nash" on the air there. Putting it on in SF wouldn't be about getting big ratings, it would be about telling national accounts that "Nash" is being heard in Market #4.

Nash has all the markings of being a brand for an unwired network.

Unwired networks have 60-some years of history and are essentially a batch of somehow related stations that are sold in a package. They may get some features, specials or shows from the network, and they may or may not share a brand,

The main purpose of having an unwired network today is to tap into network ad money.

There are several broad revenue sources: network, agency (local, regional, national) and local direct.

To get on agency business, you have to be in a market the agency is buying, and you have to meet cost per point goals for the target demographic. To get a decent rate, you have to have decent ratings.

To get on network business, you have to be in a wired or unwired network. You will get a share of the network rate based on delivery. If you have a lot of audience, you will get more of the revenue from each buy. Network sales is bulk sales where the packager of the network delivers a volume of listeners at a commensurate rate.

Local direct is the least delivery-related of the three. Sales may be more relationship based, but at the end of the day, the station has to deliver traffic to the merchant, so it has to have audience.

You can't sell just because you are in NY or SF or Chicago or LA. You have to deliver numbers.

 

[1069_KIFR]

Don Johnson will most likely pull a Spike Lee. He'll want Nash to change its name, as people
will think it refers to Nash Bridges.

If he wins, then Steve Nash will file a lawsuit, too

 

[LKellerIII]

Don Johnson will most likely pull a Spike Lee. He'll want Nash to change its name, as people
will think it refers to Nash Bridges.

If he wins, then Steve Nash will file a lawsuit, too

Doubt it. It's called Nash FM, not "Nash Bridges FM" or "Steve Nash FM." Spike Lee settled his lawsuit (against Spike TV), but I doubt he got much money, if any, and Viacom was then free to use the "Spike" brand.

And Spike Lee is still around, making dramas and documentaries. Nash Bridges is done - I don't think it's even in reruns anymore. So why would Don Johnson care?

And I don't think you can copyright a name - depending on the context. If I opened a fast food joint called McDonald's, the Golden Arches would sue my a** off, and probably win. But if I wanted to open McDonald's Dry Cleaners, or start a radio station called McDonald FM, I think I'd be in the clear.

 

[michael hagerty]

Don Johnson will most likely pull a Spike Lee. He'll want Nash to change its name, as people
will think it refers to Nash Bridges.

If he wins, then Steve Nash will file a lawsuit, too

Doubt it. It's called Nash FM, not "Nash Bridges FM" or "Steve Nash FM." Spike Lee settled his lawsuit (against Spike TV), but I doubt he got much money, if any, and Viacom was then free to use the "Spike" brand.

And Spike Lee is still around, making dramas and documentaries. Nash Bridges is done - I don't think it's even in reruns anymore. So why would Don Johnson care?

And I don't think you can copyright a name - depending on the context. If I opened a fast food joint called McDonald's, the Golden Arches would sue my a** off, and probably win. But if I wanted to open McDonald's Dry Cleaners, or start a radio station called McDonald FM, I think I'd be in the clear.

You'd have no problem at all with the dry cleaners, especially if your name was McDonald, but any attempt to start a national brand with the name McDonald would probably have to jump through some serious hoops, even if that name were on your birth certificate.

If I were McD's lawyers, I'd want some really compelling answers about that FM name.

But "Nash" is clearly short for Nashville. The city might have a claim, but they know it's good publicity.

 

[DavidKaye]

And I don't think you can copyright a name - depending on the context. If I opened a fast food joint called McDonald's, the Golden Arches would sue my a** off, and probably win. But if I wanted to open McDonald's Dry Cleaners, or start a radio station called McDonald FM, I think I'd be in the clear.

You cannot copyright a name. You can register it as a trademark or service mark, but first you have to use it, and then you have to keep it in use. When RCA was broken up and sold, they stopped using certain trademarks and lost them. Now, anybody can use Nipper and the horn and the term "His Master's Voice" in the Americas, because RCA's successor, Thomson SA, stopped using the logo and trade name.

The enforceability of a trademark depends on how unique it is. "Kodak" is unique. You cannot offer a "Kodak Pie" or a "Kodak Oil Filter" because "Kodak" is a made-up name that is unique. However, "Johnson" is not unique. Thus, you can have "Johnson's Wax", "Johnson's Baby Shampoo", "Johnson's Foot Powder", and "Johnson's Controls" -- and all are separate companies. Back when Johnson's Wax (SC Johnson & Son) was in the shampoo business they couldn't use the Johnson name for their shampoos. Instead, they used product names like "Haalva", "Herbal Essence", etc.

Spike Lee and the estate of Spike Jones had legitimate challenges to the "Spike TV" name, given that Spike Jones had a TV show and was in movies, and Spike Lee, of course, has a long career in movies. Movies and a TV network are very similar.

However, "AMC" is an interesting case because both American Multi-Cinemas and American Movie Classics are in the business of exhibiting movies (via screens and via TV respectively). The AMC mark is so very common in everything from building supplies to cars (remember American Motors Corporation?) that it gets very hard to stake out an area for a trademark. I'm surprised that the two movie AMCs have so far managed to do so.

But "IBM" is an extremely strong mark, and the only other users of the "IBM" mark put other words with the mark, such as "International Brotherhood of Magicians - IBM".

As for "Nash", that mark goes back decades to such things as the Nash Rambler car, etc. So, I doubt that anybody using the mark "Nash" would be able to challenge the use as a radio format name.

Made-up words are the best, which is why we see words like "Zynga", "Oomba", "Kozmo", "Webvan", etc. Funny, the delivery service, Kozmo, has been out of business for years, and somebody filed a "Kozmo" trademark less than 2 years ago, for the same thing, a delivery service.

 

[1069_KIFR]

Like Kosmo Kramer?

 

[brettbutlerisok]

Bet you can't use, "I'm lovin it" as your tag line for any station, but KMCD McDonald's FM is good to go.

Grey area. . ."McDonald's FM, 100 percent all-beef rock."

 

[michael hagerty]

Bet you can't use, "I'm lovin it" as your tag line for any station, but KMCD McDonald's FM is good to go.

Grey area. . ."McDonald's FM, 100 percent all-beef rock."

Both tag lines would get you a cease & desist order. Unless your name was McDonald, simply referring to KMCD as "McDonald's FM" would probably result in some conversations with their attorneys, too.