Curious

[djdan]

At the end of the KIRO thread I came to a realization. Ratings don't equal dollars any longer. Used to be the top two stations 25-54 were the top two billers in Seattle. The top two stations 25-54 on a four book are KISW and KZOK. Neither station is on top in billing. In fact under current pacing the top billing stations in Seattle are KMPS, KIRO, KRWM, KZOK, KMTT, KOMO, KPLZ, KUBE. KIRO, KMTT, KOMO and and KPLZ are not even top 5 25-54 in latest book or four book. It is easier to sell some formats over others and some stations get an inordinate amount of non agency business. It has been a change in Seattle and across the country. Good ratings are helpful, but don't mean a lot. Good key demos, heritage and live talent that can execute promotions are more important. There is a lesson in this I think, but it is late and I am not sure what it is. I will leave that to brighter minds to figure out.

 

[Bongwater]

Good "ratings" never meant anything - I've said that for YEARS on this board, what mattered was what how much PEOPLE LOVED the station. Without devoted people listening, there's NO station. No matter how much advertising you put on it.

It don't matter if you're playing something as HUGE as Rihanna or something as obscure as Jandek. KEZX in it's '80s heyday had a small, but EXTREMELY LOYAL audience. So did KYYX and KJET. And they are still fondly remembered and loved for it.

This does not mean we go BACK, but take a cue from what made radio a part of people's lives and WORK on it.

 

[TVradioguru]

Good "ratings" never meant anything - I've said that for YEARS on this board, what mattered was what how much PEOPLE LOVED the station. Without devoted people listening, there's NO station. No matter how much advertising you put on it.

It don't matter if you're playing something as HUGE as Rihanna or something as obscure as Jandek. KEZX in it's '80s heyday had a small, but EXTREMELY LOYAL audience. So did KYYX and KJET. And they are still fondly remembered and loved for it.

This does not mean we go BACK, but take a cue from what made radio a part of people's lives and WORK on it.

That's all well and good Bong, but how does one gauge whether people "LOVED" a particular station without some form of ratings?

Remembering one's youth and what favorite radio stations you frequented is great, but in reality those stations you mentioned never really did have a heyday, at least from a business perspective. Therein is why those formats/owners didn't hold up over the years and don't exist today.

Let's look at your examples: KEZX indeed had a small loyal audience, we agree there, but that is a problem. A small loyal audience doesn't pay the bills, let alone a profit in a market the size of Seattle/Tacoma. If that small loyal audience were to frequent ALL, or even the larger advertisers on the station, then perhaps the format would hold up. But that scenario doesn't happen, and thus there is no reason for an advertiser to buy time on a station with a small loyal audience, unless you want to appeal to that particular sector. The fact holds true whether you're an owner in DMA 13, or 213. Being mass-appeal to a demographic that has money to spend on products or services gives one the volume that by the laws of average, benefits the advertiser.

The same holds true for KYYX.. Even with attempting to keep costs low via using an early form of automation and voice tracks, "New Wave" music wasn't mass appeal enough to garner advertiser and listener support to keep the model going. KYYX was a majority female 17-24 appeal station, and advertisers weren't interested in that demographic.

 

[equalinercard]

Consistency. That's clearly one factor in revenue success for stations.

KMPS is proof of this. So is KIRO, which makes some of the Bonneville changes a little suprising, at least to me.

KIRO has been in the top 3 in billing (and often #1) every quarter for more than 20 years. So why did Bonneville give up on live, local programs at night and on weekends? Why change the heritage "newsradio" brand? Why allow KOMO to encroach on the news image? And why give up entirely on that blowtorch AM signal?

I understand doing a simulcast, I guess. But I'd never move off that big stick.

 

[AQH]

Dan, you know just as much as anyone about the tools that are out there now to slice and dice the Arbitron numbers. There are people on this board who know exactly what KPLZ's bread and butter demo and lifestyle are.

What I find consistently amusing on this board are the folks who say KPLZ is done, or should be done, said over and over and over again. They are a perfect example of a station that doesn't need to be top spot in adults 25-54 to survive.

 

[AQH]

That's all well and good Bong, but how does one gauge whether people "LOVED" a particular station without some form of ratings?

Remembering one's youth and what favorite radio stations you frequented is great, but in reality those stations you mentioned never really did have a heyday, at least from a business perspective. Therein is why those formats/owners didn't hold up over the years and don't exist today.

Let's look at your examples: KEZX indeed had a small loyal audience, we agree there, but that is a problem. A small loyal audience doesn't pay the bills, let alone a profit in a market the size of Seattle/Tacoma. If that small loyal audience were to frequent ALL, or even the larger advertisers on the station, then perhaps the format would hold up. But that scenario doesn't happen, and thus there is no reason for an advertiser to buy time on a station with a small loyal audience, unless you want to appeal to that particular sector. The fact holds true whether you're an owner in DMA 13, or 213. Being mass-appeal to a demographic that has money to spend on products or services gives one the volume that by the laws of average, benefits the advertiser.

The same holds true for KYYX.. Even with attempting to keep costs low via using an early form of automation and voice tracks, "New Wave" music wasn't mass appeal enough to garner advertiser and listener support to keep the model going. KYYX was a majority female 17-24 appeal station, and advertisers weren't interested in that demographic.

Trust me, if you want to put today's logic into an argument with that person, you're going to need a Costco-sized stock of head bandages from banging your head.

 

[Shark]

A few other factors that affect revenue: KMPS benefits from being competitive in almost every demo, not just 25-54. Whether it's 18-49, 35-64, men, women, even teens, they're going to be on the agency's short list of stations to consider. KIRO benefits from carrying almost twice as much commercial inventory as some other stations, plus they have a strong base of direct accounts who have been using the station for the last 20+ years (and probably paying bigger rates than they should). KPLZ and Warm benefit from targeting the same demo that many media buyers fall into and thereby influencing their decisions, plus KPLZ has always been willing to provide whatever promotional support a client requests. Just some observations from the local sales viewpoint.

 

[SeattleRadioPro]

That's all well and good Bong, but how does one gauge whether people "LOVED" a particular station without some form of ratings?

Remembering one's youth and what favorite radio stations you frequented is great, but in reality those stations you mentioned never really did have a heyday, at least from a business perspective. Therein is why those formats/owners didn't hold up over the years and don't exist today.

Let's look at your examples: KEZX indeed had a small loyal audience, we agree there, but that is a problem. A small loyal audience doesn't pay the bills, let alone a profit in a market the size of Seattle/Tacoma. If that small loyal audience were to frequent ALL, or even the larger advertisers on the station, then perhaps the format would hold up. But that scenario doesn't happen, and thus there is no reason for an advertiser to buy time on a station with a small loyal audience, unless you want to appeal to that particular sector. The fact holds true whether you're an owner in DMA 13, or 213. Being mass-appeal to a demographic that has money to spend on products or services gives one the volume that by the laws of average, benefits the advertiser.

The same holds true for KYYX.. Even with attempting to keep costs low via using an early form of automation and voice tracks, "New Wave" music wasn't mass appeal enough to garner advertiser and listener support to keep the model going. KYYX was a majority female 17-24 appeal station, and advertisers weren't interested in that demographic.

Trust me, if you want to put today's logic into an argument with that person, you're going to need a Costco-sized stock of head bandages from banging your head.

True that! It's not like I didn't warn "the guru" not to engage with Larry or anything like that. I guess some people just have to learn the hard way.

As for the original topic - it amazes me that a sales guy doesn't get the concept of selling "results radio" which usually has no correlation with ratings success. The oft-cited KLPZ is a classic example of this kind of station.

Methinks you've been too immersed in CPP figures and don't see the forest from the trees.

 

[djdan]

Methinks you are correct. At the rep firm level it is all about cost per point and promotional support, less about results. Buyers need to bring the buy in within a specific grp. Buys right now do tend to favor women 25-54 and 25-44 but that varies from year to year. In hot car buying and beer buying years the male demo did well. The answer to my late night question seems to be that agency and regional business depend on ratings, but at the local level it is results, heritage and promotional support that win the day. It also doesn't hurt that KIRO plays 1/3 more commercials an hour, I never made that connection to the AM radio band. They have much more inventory. KMPS, KIRO, KRWM, KMTT, KOMO, KPLZ, KUBE all have format heritage, consistent numbers year to year, live and local heritage talent and deliver client promotions and results. Given the broad decline expected in regional and national business this year these attributes will be even more important.

 

[TakeItFromMe]

Ya know. For a bunch of learn-ed radio folk you really don't get it :-\ It ain't about who makes the most revenue it is all about who makes the most profit dudes and I would betch that JACK, WOLF, MOVIN all make more prooofittt than KIRO or KOMO or KUBE or kZOK :
Say what you say ??? JACK bills about eight mill and year and the WOLF close to nine. Dudes the cost to operate JACK is nothing cept sales commission and power. How much you think it costs to run KIRO or KOMO. T-Man just signed for a bazillion dollars at KUBE and Rivers makes two to three million a year at KZOK and KIRO SPorts AM will have a Mariners contract and Seahawks contract and sports talent and reporters. You really think these stations make a bunch o profit. ??? JACK costs zero and MOVIN and WOLF maybe half a mill at best. Aint sayin its right but it tis t he way it is :-\

 

[TVradioguru]

Ya know. For a bunch of learn-ed radio folk you really don't get it :-\ It ain't about who makes the most revenue it is all about who makes the most profit dudes and I would betch that JACK, WOLF, MOVIN all make more prooofittt than KIRO or KOMO or KUBE or kZOK :
Say what you say ??? JACK bills about eight mill and year and the WOLF close to nine. Dudes the cost to operate JACK is nothing cept sales commission and power. How much you think it costs to run KIRO or KOMO. T-Man just signed for a bazillion dollars at KUBE and Rivers makes two to three million a year at KZOK and KIRO SPorts AM will have a Mariners contract and Seahawks contract and sports talent and reporters. You really think these stations make a bunch o profit. ??? JACK costs zero and MOVIN and WOLF maybe half a mill at best. Aint sayin its right but it tis t he way it is :-\

I believe you're talking about margin Cowpoke. But for the sake of discussion, let's talk profit.... How much profit do you think KMPS makes as compared with Jack, Movin, and Wolf? My guess is a LOT more. In fact probably more than the three stations put together. Care to make an educated guess Wolfie?

 

[KYYX_fan]

Ratings don't equal dollars any longer... Good ratings are helpful, but don't mean a lot. Good key demos, heritage and live talent that can execute promotions are more important. There is a lesson in this I think, but it is late and I am not sure what it is. I will leave that to brighter minds to figure out.

From the humble perspective of a (non-radio) marketing guy: If the only demos you're measuring are gender and broad age band, then you're not really measuring much. You're standing on a balcony and throwing flyers to a crowd. Smart businesses don't advertise to simply get "eyeballs" or "ears." Businesses advertise to close sales and make money. In some cases, you probably have savvy business owners measuring their sales numbers and putting them up against their ad schedule (or, ideally, tracking the source of new customers). They might not even know what specific demos are driving sales -- just that when the ad runs on station X, the ROI (return on investment) is better. In other cases, you might be looking at deeper demographics than just gender and broad age band. Income, marital status, children, ethnicity... all could be important factors for a given advertiser. Regardless of the overall ratings, you want go where you'll hit the most people that are responsive to your offer. Another thing to consider is type of listening and/or the propensity to act. A station could have a huge "listen at work" audience, but are they really paying attention -- especially to the ads? And if they're not paying close attention, how can that drive the purchase of products or services? Is the audience of a particular station or show open to changing purchasing behavior based on a radio ad?

Modern advertising is so much more than simple geography or rudimentary demographics. The tools available to even the smallest businesses far exceed anything that has come before.

Just my $.02.

 

[WKomm]

djdan - with all respect, I'm surprised this is a new revelation for you. I've known for a long, long time that ratings are meaning less & less - other factors are more important.

With many if not all good-sized markets down to 4, 3, even two good-sized operators, it's almost a defacto collusion that occurs. It's been many years since we've experienced the fierce radio wars most of us worked through. BTW, they were fun! What happens now is that everyone stakes out their territory and the players mostly (not always) leave each other alone. If you've got some FMs and a big Talk FM, your competitor won't bother the Talker much if you'll not switch a format on your FMs to challenge their successful AOR. That kind of thing.

With owners having clusters of many stations, the old concept of anyone "winning" seems to be just about dead. Back in the day, 12 plus numbers were the Holy Grail. I'm not an Arbitron Wizard but the #'s have always been able to be manipulated to help the sales dept. Still, as an airstaff, we wanted to be #1 12 plus. Now we don't care nearly as much about THAT number as the revenue and profit numbers. You can be #8 in a 50 signal market, bill #4 and you're a winner. You can be #2 in your demo but bill #5 and still be a loser. Likewise with profit. If the station billing at #4 is at the bottom of the cluster when it comes to profit, there will be no joy. It's less a wild west shootout in the old days, with Ted Turner like owners changing formats and wanting to annihilate the competition and more like a chess game at a gentleman's club; still intense but in a different way. Now the idea isn't to beat the competitor, it's to survive. Survive the sale. Survive any dip in any numbers. Survive budget cuts. There's very little chatter about "beating" other stations and a decided lack of passion. The day my country station started airing promos for the AOR that WAS our competition and telling listeners to go to the News Talk station for more coverage on stories, it was obvious a very different day had dawned.

I don't like it. I don't think it's an old guy thinking "back then" was great but it really was fun to have a goal and want to beat the hell out of everyone else in the market. There was a swagger to being #1 12 plus.

No swaggering now. If there's any strutting around, it's done by morning shows pulling down big bank and completely detatched from the rest of the station. They're programmed separately, treated differently and have nothing in common with an afternoon guy who just went from a 4 hr gig to 5 hrs plus VT'ing three other shifts at three other stations.

It's as if the entire industry has gone through the Looking Glass when we weren't paying attention. But it's the world we live in and the world I work in.

I want my mommy.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

I apologize for my soapbox ... but it's frustrating being an old guy who watches all this go down and then goes outside to rake leaves all day muttering "dumb asses" (referring to the ownership & leadership) as the only significant observation on the game plan...

I have this theory that came about from watching it happen over & over... Great companies end up imploding because the culture takes over. Soon the people in the company are so focused on "reverse engineering" what they are supposed to do in order to earn a bonus or get great accolades in their review ... that everyone ends up forgetting the basic formula of "do something to get customers and keep doing stuff to make them happy". When you do that, business works.

So in our case when the whole focus of the business became about year-over-year margins and everyone at the market level reacted "or else kiss your gig goodbye...." .... we lost focus of the basic premise of "put on a great product ... keep the people listening .... and sell that audience to advertisers who want to reach them".

As a result we have this landscape of "cheap" formats, in most cases it's cheap talent, all run by computer so the talent doesn't slip and accidentally use their mind. The stations get programmed regionally...with somebody at the local level making sure the voice track schedule and sales calls get covered. The sales people make sure they are working toward making plan ... even though in many cases that "plan" was put in place as an unrealistic target in the first place because "if you can't get me a decent number we can get someone in here who will". Programming staff (what's left) becomes bitter, sales people become bitter, they don't support each other so the advertising promotions (which are contests thinly disguised as product placement for radio) don't always work ... and we're back to plugging a 60 second message into some shoebox avail and in many cases it doesn't end up being all that effective for the advertiser.

Granted there are a ton of differences in the landscape now ... but it was easier to compete when radio had less media competition. That factor's gone. But the one thing that has NOT changed is the most amazing stations where I set foot inside had one thing in common .... PRIDE. People who worked there felt like winners, and as a result, they backed each other up, went the extra distance to make things work ... and in the end, it DID because the focus was on the goal of creating great radio and selling it. It was only a tiny fraction of the station's population who stayed up nights worrying about how to make sure the budget apple was polished for the corporate brass. Now, everyone is keenly aware of that apple and it's the corporate mission top-to-bottom. The listeners are no longer core part of that mission. Without that, every day you work is just a "dry run" for the real thing.

 

[TVradioguru]

I apologize for my soapbox ... but it's frustrating being an old guy who watches all this go down and then goes outside to rake leaves all day muttering "dumb asses" (referring to the ownership & leadership) as the only significant observation on the game plan...

I have this theory that came about from watching it happen over & over... Great companies end up imploding because the culture takes over. Soon the people in the company are so focused on "reverse engineering" what they are supposed to do in order to earn a bonus or get great accolades in their review ... that everyone ends up forgetting the basic formula of "do something to get customers and keep doing stuff to make them happy". When you do that, business works.

So in our case when the whole focus of the business became about year-over-year margins and everyone at the market level reacted "or else kiss your gig goodbye...." .... we lost focus of the basic premise of "put on a great product ... keep the people listening .... and sell that audience to advertisers who want to reach them".

As a result we have this landscape of "cheap" formats, in most cases it's cheap talent, all run by computer so the talent doesn't slip and accidentally use their mind. The stations get programmed regionally...with somebody at the local level making sure the voice track schedule and sales calls get covered. The sales people make sure they are working toward making plan ... even though in many cases that "plan" was put in place as an unrealistic target in the first place because "if you can't get me a decent number we can get someone in here who will". Programming staff (what's left) becomes bitter, sales people become bitter, they don't support each other so the advertising promotions (which are contests thinly disguised as product placement for radio) don't always work ... and we're back to plugging a 60 second message into some shoebox avail and in many cases it doesn't end up being all that effective for the advertiser.

Granted there are a ton of differences in the landscape now ... but it was easier to compete when radio had less media competition. That factor's gone. But the one thing that has NOT changed is the most amazing stations where I set foot inside had one thing in common .... PRIDE. People who worked there felt like winners, and as a result, they backed each other up, went the extra distance to make things work ... and in the end, it DID because the focus was on the goal of creating great radio and selling it. It was only a tiny fraction of the station's population who stayed up nights worrying about how to make sure the budget apple was polished for the corporate brass. Now, everyone is keenly aware of that apple and it's the corporate mission top-to-bottom. The listeners are no longer core part of that mission. Without that, every day you work is just a "dry run" for the real thing.

You have some good points, but the bottom line, (excuse the pun), is that radio and TV is a business... Is now and always has been.

The difference between the good old days and the last ten years, is that as you pointed out, there are double the number of stations all vying for a piece of the total listener/viewer pie. In the case of Seattle and most domestic markets, the listener pie grows to a lesser percentage than the station count. So what we have here over 60 stations battling it out for a decreasing slice of market, whereas several years ago when there were clear and consistent ratings/demographic winners there were around 30 stations. Fractionalization of formats followed, and station owners have looked to automation and voice tracking to keep expenses down yet still compete.

I believe you could have the best music and on-air personalities in the market, but only will have the lions share of a fractional audience IF you are a heritage station. KMPS is a prime example of such a station. Sure listeners may sample a "Young Country", Wolf, or whatever newcomer, but like a comfortable pair of jeans, listeners go back to what they are familiar with.

As Dan pointed out, as much as people on this board have strong opinions about how heritage stations with loyal followers like; KMPS, KPLZ, KIRO, KRWM, and KZOK should change to Tibetan Cheese Festival Music, Reggae, Classic Country, or whatever to shake up the market, all those aforementioned heritage stations still have the clear advantage when it comes to making budget, because they have had the demographic dialed in for many years. The newcomers are the ones trying to keep their expenses low because they have to.

Trust me, the "corporate suits" that are trying to deliver the best product at the lowest cost for their employers/owners didn't just walk into this industry. Most if not all have seen the evolution of the radio business, and are making adjustments using research and other tricks. It's like a horse race of very equal horses; you hold your position and wait for the leaders to stumble so you can hopefully move up. All the while your publicly-traded owners, (aka shareholders), are looking forward to the 4% growth in the quarter with the market revenue down 10%.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

That brings to mind two questions:

(1) Does the model still suggest 60 is viable .... or will the mere competition of other media and changes in listening habits dictate that only a few of those will be commercially viable....

(2) If 60 is still the target (more people still trying to get licenses) ... then do expectations need to change so that, for example, only 10-20 will be major market winners and all the others designed to serve a dedicated niche? problem seems to be that the expectation is all 60 have to compete on the same field....when that is no longer viable.

All along my benchmark has been "if you MAKE MONEY you are already winning"!! So if you want to be a KBCS and play Gregorian Chants mixed with Alabama Blues and you can afford to keep it running....you win. If you're CBS and you want your 50KW AM to be as profitable as your 100KW KMPS FM, probably not....so their only alternative is to cut expenses and that leaves us with product we have.

If AM goes away (which it probably will at some point), leaves us with half the playing field, and perhaps the market will gravitate toward this "mass appeal" and "niche appeal". if the market doesn't do it, the Internet will do it for them.

 

[TVradioguru]

That brings to mind two questions:

(1) Does the model still suggest 60 is viable .... or will the mere competition of other media and changes in listening habits dictate that only a few of those will be commercially viable....

(2) If 60 is still the target (more people still trying to get licenses) ... then do expectations need to change so that, for example, only 10-20 will be major market winners and all the others designed to serve a dedicated niche? problem seems to be that the expectation is all 60 have to compete on the same field....when that is no longer viable.

All along my benchmark has been "if you MAKE MONEY you are already winning"!! So if you want to be a KBCS and play Gregorian Chants mixed with Alabama Blues and you can afford to keep it running....you win. If you're CBS and you want your 50KW AM to be as profitable as your 100KW KMPS FM, probably not....so their only alternative is to cut expenses and that leaves us with product we have.

If AM goes away (which it probably will at some point), leaves us with half the playing field, and perhaps the market will gravitate toward this "mass appeal" and "niche appeal". if the market doesn't do it, the Internet will do it for them.

Regarding question #1, I would say the answer is a resounding no. Let's look at Yelm as an example.. I believe that Yelm is considered to be in the Seattle/Tacoma DMA. Let's assume that three diaries are dropped into the area, and the two participants in Yelm fill out that they listen to KNBQ. Because of a marginal signal to the North and East, KNBQ isn't a real player in the whole market, so now KNBQ essentially takes away from the Seattle total, but not enough to garner a share that means much. Now add in a move-in class C or D AM which now adds to the market station totals.

Back in the day with 30 stations, if you listened to county your only choice was KMPS-FM or KAYO-AM. If you listed to Top 40 it was KJR or KING. Now you have three or four country stations with some rim-shot signals diluting the total.

Regarding point #2; you're absolutely correct. The play for the rimshot signals like the newest rim-shot from Enumclaw is to ultimately sell it and make money that way. Obviously the scenario played well for some like Bedrock, former licensee of KFNK, and whomever held the CP of KNBQ prior to selling it to Clear Channel. Talk about a quick buck! Fast forward to 2008, and nobody is in the position to buy any stations, especially rim-shots.

But here we are, everyone is digging in trying to weather an economic storm, with all the stations competing, trying to avoid "Death By Ducks".

 

[KYYX_fan]

As someone who is outside the radio business, it is interesting reading the replies in this thread. Here is the original point:

At the end of the KIRO thread I came to a realization. Ratings don't equal dollars any longer.

Most of the replies above have done little to address the original question. There is talk about pride and programming and corporate deals and strategies... All of those may have some small effect on ad buying, but any marketing director who buys ad space -- be it radio, TV, print or Internet -- based simply on "we'll give you 50,000 female listeners/viewers age 25-54," should be fired. All of those things can contribute to growing an audience, but audience does not equal consumers.

I was recently asked to consult on a non-radio promotion that involved a radio personality. One of the available resources was a mailing list of listeners. That's all fine and well, but they knew little about the list. Thousands of names, but no demographics. The only profile we had was a general perception of audience make-up. That lack of sophistication may have worked years ago, but not today.

To get back to Dan's original question, the reason a station with lower ratings may bill better is that they're better at reaching a particular age/income/interest subset of the audience. Or maybe the gender and broad age bracket are fine, but one station's listeners are more active consumers. Maybe one station exerts more influence over its audience. Perhaps in this last aspect, some of the comments about pride and programming and personalities do come into play. Does the environment in which the ad plays support the goals of the ad? If you're selling guitars or equipment rental, why not target the local music show that might have a higher percentage of listeners who dream of starting their own bands? You shouldn't just buy "male, 18-24."

 

[TVradioguru]

Really? Then if given the choice, would you advise your client with guitars for sale to buy time on KOMO? Or perhaps KRWM? And without ratings that spelled out what the demographic group the station appeals to, how would you justify buying ad time on any station? Your own personal tastes or understanding of what you think the demographic appeal of various stations?

 

[KYYX_fan]

Really? Then if given the choice, would you advise your client with guitars for sale to buy time on KOMO? Or perhaps KRWM? And without ratings that spelled out what the demographic group the station appeals to, how would you justify buying ad time on any station? Your own personal tastes or understanding of what you think the demographic appeal of various stations?

I never said anything about personal tastes or understandings. In fact, I'd be strongly against using either as a basis. I'm saying that buying based solely on "female, 25-54" is woefully inadequate for modern marketing. While those simplistic breakdowns worked before we knew any better, they're now the same as running ads that target Bellevue because "that's where the rich people are." In fact, buying based on coarse demos IS like buying based on personal tastes or gut feelings.

Given a choice between response analysis and ratings, I'll take response analysis every time. If I can track 500 sales back to an ad on one station (via custom phone #, offer code, etc.) and only 250 to another, the ratings are irrelevant. You buy the one that gets you better ROI (return on investment). Station #2 would need to be 1/2 the cost to justify a buy.

Maybe precise ratings and audience profiles do exist. They do, for example, in the magazine world. Maybe you have marketing directors buying radio based on more sophisticated methods. That would explain why a station with lower 25-54 ratings gets more business than the #1 in that demo.