Do "Geezers" Make Terrestrial Radio Look Good?

[TheFonz]

A Bridge Ratings Survey survey done in 2007 seems to suggest that terrestrial radio listeners 55+ still have strong loyality to radio and listen in great numbers. In fact, the survey says, these listeners have compensated for the lack of interest in radio by the 12-21 age group (an audience radio will want in a few years). We're told that 55+ doesn't make money for radio. But are they making radio look good by inflating the listener numbers? Here's the survey:

http://www.bridgeratings.com/press.05.16.07.Gaunlet.htm

 

[Don62]

Amazing how the powers that control radio completely knock anyone with gray hair, and feel downright embarrassed by their listeners.

The one audience that could save the medium is despised. The medium, in most places, doesn't broadcast programs for those listeners. They're unimportant.

Now, the shoe's on the other foot. Radio is less important than ever and most people don't care about the pathetic AM or FM bands anymore.

 

[davideduardo]

Amazing how the powers that control radio completely knock anyone with gray hair, and feel downright embarrassed by their listeners.

No matter how many times your are told that radio does not directly program to 55+ because the ad agency clients don't buy advertising against this group, you still insist on blaming radio for this fact of business and marketing life.

There are plenty of formats whose appeal includes over 55, such as talk, A/C, country, Urban A/C, Hispanic adult hits, etc. >But they sustain themselves based on the under-55 portion of their audience. It's formats like standards and 60's based oldies that can't generally survive because nearly all the audience is over 55.

The one audience that could save the medium is despised(sic).

What you are really saying is that oldies could save the medium. In fact, even in 55+, there are other formats with much greater appeal than oldies, and those formats are doing fine.

A format, like 60's oldies that has no advertiser interest, can only kill radio, not save it.

The medium, in most places, doesn't broadcast programs for those listeners. They're unimportant.

They are amply served by many formats... just not crispy old 60's oldies.

Now, the shoe's on the other foot. Radio is less important than ever and most people don't care about the pathetic AM or FM bands anymore.

That's why 95% of Americans use radio weekly, of course.

AM may well be dead, mostly because it's audience is getting so old even news/talk is moving to FM where more under-55s listen. But radio is not dead... of course, you have no access to any real facts, so your ignorance of the true data is understandable.

 

[Don62]

There are plenty of formats whose appeal includes over 55, such as talk, A/C, country, Urban A/C, Hispanic adult hits, etc. >But they sustain themselves based on the under-55 portion of their audience. It's formats like standards and 60's based oldies that can't generally survive because nearly all the audience is over 55.

Horse hockey. My parents and grandparents don't listen to FM because they're not interested in "young" country, spanish, Hip Hope or AC. You're dreaming if you think most adults over 50 like that music.

I'm not even 50 and I don't like it. I don't hate country, but it's not something I seek out.

My quote was for the most part, radio doesn't serve older adults.

I wasn't focusing on oldies, which you hate with a vengence. Just let anyone on these forums dare to post a lament why oldies radio sucks or how it could sound much better, and you interject your obnoxious opinion into the thread every time.

 

[davideduardo]

¿Horse hockey. My parents and grandparents don't listen to FM because they're not interested in "young" country, spanish, Hip Hope or AC. You're dreaming if you think most adults over 50 like that music.

Who said anything about young country or hip hip. The biggest 55+ shares in most markets go to talk, AC and country, and urban AC and Hispanic adult hits if there is an ethnic population of any signficance. Most 55+ did not and do not listen to oldies.... most people move on and get interested in newer music, rather than living back in a different era, and the ratings show that oldies never got more than a fragment of the 55+ shares.

[/quote]I'm not even 50 and I don't like it. I don't hate country, but it's not something I seek out.[/quote]

My point is that oldies is only a small share of the 55+ listening when available. And that there are plenty of other formats tht serve 55+, even if not specifically targeted at them... just as CHR gets big teen numbers even if not targeted at teens.

My quote was for the most part, radio doesn't serve older adults.

Sure it does. 55+ uses radio just like 45-54, for example. However, the industry can not design formats specifically for 55+ as there is no income to be derived from that demo. But many stations obliquely serve 55 because their format is part in the sales demos and part outside,

I wasn't focusing on oldies, which you hate with a vengence.

I have nothing against oldies music, although I am truly tired of most of it. I am against the oldies radio format, because it is a money loser.

Just let anyone on these forums dare to post a lament why oldies radio sucks or how it could sound much better, and you interject your obnoxious opinion into the thread every time.

As I said, the only problem with me is that oldies (not classic hits) attracts an unsalable demo in most markets and is pretty much a dead format.

 

[TheFonz]

.... most people move on and get interested in newer music, rather than living back in a different era

Do Classical music fans "live" in the era of Bach and Beethoven? I think not.

 

[davideduardo]

.... most people move on and get interested in newer music, rather than living back in a different era

Do Classical music fans "live" in the era of Bach and Beethoven? I think not.

Which is why classical as a radio format is all but dead, save a few isolated markets.

 

[TheFonz]

.... most people move on and get interested in newer music, rather than living back in a different era

Do Classical music fans "live" in the era of Bach and Beethoven? I think not.

Which is why classical as a radio format is all but dead, save a few isolated markets.

MUSIC as a radio format is all but dead, save Country and Hip Hop.

 

[davideduardo]

MUSIC as a radio format is all but dead, save Country and Hip Hop.

Where do you come up with this totally inaccurate drivel?

Here are some of the formats that are both music driven and vibrant in many and sometimes all markets:

CHR
Urban
Churban
Hot AC
AC
Classic Hits
Classic Rock
Alternative or Active rock
Country
Spanish AC
SPanich CHR
Spanish Regional
Adult Hits
Spanish adult hits
Smooth Jazz
AAA
AOR
Contemporary Christian
Gospel
Ethnic music (Persian, Korean, Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., depending on market)

As many people listen to radio as they did 20 adn 30 years ago. So while time spent listening is off in a two-decade erosion, there is plenty of listening and nearly no cume erosion.

Please, don't make your points by posting data that is oh-so-easily disproven.

 

[TheFonz]

As many people listen to radio as they did 20 adn 30 years ago. So while time spent listening is off in a two-decade erosion, there is plenty of listening and nearly no cume erosion.

Please, don't make your points by posting data that is oh-so-easily disproven.

You STILL haven't been able to give us a head count. I'll ask for the third time: pick a station, date and time in 2008 and tell us how many people were listening. Then do the same thing for 1988.

 

[quadraphonic]

Isn't there "cume erosion" if the same number total are listening, but the number total of population has doubled?

 

[vibe]

A person is just like a house. It's not about actual age, it's the effective age that matters. I think the radio "pros" make too many assumptions. If you are in radio and about 35 y.o., why not frequent the "geezer" watering holes like the golf course. You'd find that our musical tastes (and buying habits) may not what you ASSume them to be. Talk with the spenders in your market. People just LOVE to give their opinions. maybe there is a common 'theme" that y'all have overlooked.
A station playing classic rock, for example, should consider having a list of the major high schools in their listening area. You could theoretically throw some classic country in there and "integrate" the playlist a bit. What's wrong with james Brown, hank Williams, and Iron Butterfly back to back? Find out when the 30,35... year reunions will take place (make a tickler file) and heavily concentrate on that demo for that weekend.

 

[davideduardo]

Isn't there "cume erosion" if the same number total are listening, but the number total of population has doubled?

Cume expressed as a percentage of the universe is not population dependent. A 95.5 12+ cume share means that radio gets to 95.5% of the population, irrespective of whether a market has grown or not.

There would be cume erosion if 98% listened 10 years ago, and 95% listen now; the figure has been around 95% for four decades.

There is no significant US market that has doubled in the satellite / iPod / Web streaming era.

 

[davideduardo]

You STILL haven't been able to give us a head count. I'll ask for the third time: pick a station, date and time in 2008 and tell us how many people were listening. Then do the same thing for 1988.

This kind of granularity is only avialble with the Portable People Meter, which is only rolling out now. TV has had it for decades, but only because TV is pretty much a static location medium, while doing the same function for radio required portable technology which has only been recently available.

Day and hour granularity with the diary is impossible, just as knowing what pages or ads were viewed in a newspaper.

But now radio can soon provide posting: exact data on how many listeners there were by age and gender and ethnicity for every spot or schedule for a campaign.

 

[Don62]

As many people listen to radio as they did 20 adn 30 years ago. So while time spent listening is off in a two-decade erosion, there is plenty of listening and nearly no cume erosion.

Please, don't make your points by posting data that is oh-so-easily disproven.

You STILL haven't been able to give us a head count. I'll ask for the third time: pick a station, date and time in 2008 and tell us how many people were listening. Then do the same thing for 1988.

He won't provide facts to backup his assertions. He's quick on statistics but slowwww on support.
He likes to come here and argue with everyone. No subject or board is off limits.

 

[davideduardo]

He won't provide facts to backup his assertions. He's quick on statistics but slowwww on support.
He likes to come here and argue with everyone. No subject or board is off limits.

You just don't read too well, do you.

There is no way to know today how many people read a particular page of a newspaper or a particular ad.

There is no way to know the precise daily by the hour listenership to radio, as the technology to measure this only started to operate real time last year and only two cities (markets) are using it yet.

You and Fonz are asking for something that only now is beginning to roll out. And you are asking for copyright data, too.

In the next two years, the technolgy will expand to cover more than half the US population (top 50 markets). It will be possible to determine how many people by age, gender, ethnicity, etc. were listening to every single spot on the radio in the electronically measured markets.

Today, we can only precisely tell you how many people listened in a particular month, day and quarter hour for two cities over the last few months.

In the past, advertisers were happy enough to know the average listenership over a multi-month period in specific dayparts; now, the use of computers allows looking at each spot, not the average for a campaign.

In any case, radio advertising is always bought based on averages for dayparts, not specific moments. The only use in having precise data on what a campaign delivered is to request price adjustments. Since the future will never be like the past, you can not predict future listenership levels, so buyers take historic data as a base and assume the delivery will be similar. But, just like Idol can vary almost 100% in delivery depending on the show and week, there is no guarantee... there is none in any medium... that goals will be met, but now the price can adjust based on real delivery.

 

[landtuna]

In the next two years, the technolgy will expand to cover more than half the US population (top 50 markets). It will be possible to determine how many people by age, gender, ethnicity, etc. were listening to every single spot on the radio in the electronically measured markets.

My question may belong in a separate thread David but I would like to know, from the view of a common listener, just how such precise measurements can possibly be made. I'm familiar with the electronic sampling of receivers of different types (such as TV sets in the UK for example) but, aside from frequency and time/date how can the sampler possibly know the personal attributes of the listener (unless, of course, the sampled devices are registered in advance)?

 

[davideduardo]

My question may belong in a separate thread David but I would like to know, from the view of a common listener, just how such precise measurements can possibly be made. I'm familiar with the electronic sampling of receivers of different types (such as TV sets in the UK for example) but, aside from frequency and time/date how can the sampler possibly know the personal attributes of the listener (unless, of course, the sampled devices are registered in advance)?

Arbitron places Personal People Meters with households or dwelling units, with each person getting one. They collect data on household characteristics as well as personal characteristics of each person.

The panel, which is what the set of participants is called, is a mirror reflection of the market as a whole. In other words, if 3% of the market is Black Men 25-34, 3% of the PPMs will be given to members of that group.

Each family is incentivized for participating by points that can buy merchandise, gift cards, etc.

Each person carries, like a cell phone, the PPM with them at all times and it "hears" signals encoded into each station's broadcast which identify what the participant heard minute by minute, all day.

 

[landtuna]

Figured it was something like that. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[quadraphonic]

Isn't there "cume erosion" if the same number total are listening, but the number total of population has doubled?

Cume expressed as a percentage of the universe is not population dependent. A 95.5 12+ cume share means that radio gets to 95.5% of the population, irrespective of whether a market has grown or not.

There would be cume erosion if 98% listened 10 years ago, and 95% listen now; the figure has been around 95% for four decades.

There is no significant US market that has doubled in the satellite / iPod / Web streaming era.

It just all sounds like a different way to spin statistics into BS.

I thought yall were talking about "20 or 30 years ago" for a minute there, so that's why I picked "doubled....."