Do You Really Care About Radio?

[Mercy Hawkes]

The Call Letters: KLBJ were associated with Owners President Lyndon Baines Johnson and the more active and involved Lady Bird Johnson both of who's names fit the call letter association. One of the early programmers was Steve Smith who became the Editor of the Trade Magazine "The Album Network". Steve worked his way up to senior executive and mutual ownership status prior to the publications sale.

 

[davideduardo]

The only reason they happily co-existed between 1973 and 1977 was because FM was still not yet considered viable to the group owners until about 1980. Basically, they ran the FMs with whatever format seemed to be low-hassle until the billings of the AM dropped low enough, and then they switched the format to the FM as FM was rising.

While a few markets, particularly those with rugged terrain, were slower in building an FM following, the big move to FM competitiveness and profit actually happened in the late 60s. The FCC essentially put an end to simulcasting of co-owned FMs in 1967, and owners looked for formats that would not compete with the profitable AM formats. Thus a flood of Beautiful Music and progressive rock stations... with new formats like oldies starting to come on even as early as 1968.

A few owners still thought FM was a drag. George Storer sold his Miami FM to Cece Heftel in the early 70's, and Heftel proceded to make Y-100 the #1 station in the market and the top biller, too.

By '73 or '74, most AM CHRs were fading and FMs had taken over. Abrams "Superstars," created in Raleigh in the early 70's, produced dozens and dozens of AOR affiliates and sound-alikes. Over a third of listening was on FM by around '73, and by '77-'78, FM and AM were equals.

A lot of operators who had relied on their AM for revenue saw their format duplicated on FM and lost if they did not react on time.

San Francisco was one of the latest markets in becoming FM-dominated. Others, like Dallas and DC and Miami and Cleveland and many others where there were few, if any, good signals on AM, became FM hotspots instantly.

From personal experience, I had a profitable FM in 1967 and within another couple of years, that FM was the leading biller in my cluster of 2 FMs and 3 AM.

On the opposite side, in a top 15 US market in 1978, FM only had about 18 shares. One single station changed format, and 4 months later, 55% of listening was on FM!

 

[DavidKaye]

San Francisco was one of the latest markets in becoming FM-dominated. Others, like Dallas and DC and Miami and Cleveland and many others where there were few, if any, good signals on AM, became FM hotspots instantly.

From personal experience, I had a profitable FM in 1967 and within another couple of years, that FM was the leading biller in my cluster of 2 FMs and 3 AM.

Indeed, SF was still very much an AM market in the 1970s among group owners. KFRC-FM tried a bunch of stuff as KKEE, KFMS, etc., with formats such as easy listening and oldies. KGO-FM didn't seem to take off until the late disco era of about 1975 or so as KSFX. KNBR-FM tried news as KNAI, AC as KYUU, etc., but wasn't a big biller as I recall. It was only after KFRC sold the FM that it took off as KMEL. It took many tries and a frequency swap for KCBS-FM to budge the needle as KLLC. (In fact, its original channel, 98.9, as you know, had something like 7 different owners before it managed to go anywhere as KSOL. KRON-TV eventually sold classical KRON-FM, which became profitable as KOIT, but that wasn't until the late 70s, either.

While it's true that James Gabbert et al were very successful early on with KPEN/KIOI (aka K-101), they had to change format from easy listening to MOR to AC in order to do it. And it was a stand-alone. (Well, he did add KIQI 1010, but that seemed to be more of a hobby than a serious venture.) It also didn't hurt that K-101 had a tremendous grandfathered signal of 125kw.

I remember two distinct landmarks in local FM, one was when KSOL 107.7 (United Broadcasting of Bethesda) hit #4 in the Arbitrons and people thought there had been some fraud committed; I think that was 1980 or so. And then there was KMEL becoming the dominant rock FM and people thought that it was because diarists had mistaken KMEL (pronounced Camel) for KABL (pronounced Cable). It was hard for radio folks to imagine that any FMs beside K-101 could actually make it here.

But around here and in areas removed from here many group owners just moved their successful AM formats to FM when FM's viability began to take hold -- KGNR/KCTC and KROY/KROI in Sac, KJOY/KJAX in Stockton, for instance -- and some even swapped callsigns. Or am I wrong?

 

[michael hagerty]

Both "kinds" of commerical rock stations happily co-existed. The beer-drinking, superficial 'frat' boys listened to the 'hits', and the music lovers listened to KLBJ-FM.

The only reason they happily co-existed between 1973 and 1977 was because FM was still not yet considered viable to the group owners until about 1980. Basically, they ran the FMs with whatever format seemed to be low-hassle until the billings of the AM dropped low enough, and then they switched the format to the FM as FM was rising.

I was a resident of LA during the "Free Form" era, and I think David is actually being generous with his estimate. In my memory, "free form" started as a part-time format about 1968 on a couple of money losing FMs, then got briefly big, but was long gone by 1972. KMET (owned by Metromedia which also owned KSAN in the Bay Area) remained "album rock" until sometime in the 80s, but was formatted with a play list by 1972. And the big ratings leader in LA by 1972 was "Rock 'N Stereo" KLOS (ABC), which was a heavily formatted Top 40-Album rock hybrid. KLOS mostly just played the hits with a few album cuts mixed in. Gathering from the ratings, that's what listeners wanted to hear.

When KMET flipped in summer '68, it was 24/7 (it had been an uptempo easy listening with 33% vocals and all-female announcers...automated). But B. Mitchel Reed did the only live show until 1970 or so. The rest was automated.

They didn't do badly, all things considered...including the fact that they were going up against KPPC, which was also fulltime freeform (until 1973 when they were sold and became KROQ-FM) and had a one-year head start (but a signal that kept them out of the books until 1970).

The fall 1968 Pulse shows KMET with a 1.0 (tying them for 16th with KBBQ, KBCA-FM, KEZY, KFAC, KHJ-FM, KRKD, KWKW and XERB). In fall '69, that jumped to a 2.5 (a tie for 14th with KWIZ and only 0.3 behind KFI), but that was their best book until 1976, when Shadoe Stevens was PD, with tighter music and a huge billboard campaign (many of them posted deliberately upside-down).

However...... those early numbers were hurt by weak morning and midday numbers. In fall '69, they pulled a 1.0 for 18th place from 6AM-3PM, but in afternoon drive, BMR was tied for 8th with a 3.0, only a point behind Gary Owens on KMPC. From 7PM to Midnight, KMET was 6th with a 5.0.

KLOS, as Llew says, really was hits with a few LP cuts...wrapped in an album-rock delivery. But it came out of the gate like a monster. A 2.8 in the fall, 1971 Pulse, a 3.8 and tied for 9th in fall '72 (half a point more and they would have been tied for 4th), a 4.1 and fourth place in fall '73 and they stayed in the top 10 through 1977.

And again, the dayparts really tell the tale.

In fall '71, KLOS was 5th at night with a 5.0...half of KHJ's number from 7-Midnight. In fall '72, KLOS shot to 2nd with a 7.0, as KHJ tied for 6th with a 4.0. KHJ came back with a squeaker in the fall of '73, a 4.7 and second place, edging out KLOS' 4.4 and third place. But in fall '74, KLOS roared back...6.4 and number one from 7-Midnight, with KHJ in third with a 4.0. As I said in another thread on the Los Angeles board, KLOS really was the station that launched the migration of mainstream (as opposed to counterculture) teens and young adults to FM.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you think the music being made now is as good as it was in the early 70s? And that a musical culture can be built around radio now, given the enormity of cell phones and other interactive media?

 

[DavidKaye]

Do you think the music being made now is as good as it was in the early 70s? And that a musical culture can be built around radio now, given the enormity of cell phones and other interactive media?

Some people think the 1970s was one of the worst decades for music -- Terry Jacks' "Seasons in the Sun", Elton John's "Benny & The Jets", and all those Paul McCartney tunes...yecchhh!

I think today's music is as good as it was in the 1970s. Folks such as Alanis Morissette, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber -- all do good stuff, comparable to pop in the 1970s. I think Amy Winehouse was a big loss to the music scene.

 

[landtuna]

Do you think the music being made now is as good as it was in the early 70s? And that a musical culture can be built around radio now, given the enormity of cell phones and other interactive media?

It is difficult to pick out a decade which is the "best" but the 70's, with the exception of Disco, was IMHO one of the best if not the best. Lots of innovation and a host of very talented musicians.

Today we have pretty much crap spewed out by talentless freaks who are more video than audio and are backed by techno resources that don't require up-front talent. The primary audience for pop music now are in the pre and early teen years, hence performers like Beiber. The majority are just clowns in funny haircuts and clothes producing lots of motion but no music. Like American Idol, it's just visuals for the teen-screamer set.

The mid-50's through the early 80's was the best period in all of pop/rock music and is unlikely to be equaled. It certainly won't be challenged by today's musical misfits.

 

[michael hagerty]

Do you think the music being made now is as good as it was in the early 70s? And that a musical culture can be built around radio now, given the enormity of cell phones and other interactive media?

Some people think the 1970s was one of the worst decades for music -- Terry Jacks' "Seasons in the Sun", Elton John's "Benny & The Jets", and all those Paul McCartney tunes...yecchhh!

If you focus on singles (especially those singles), then the 70s were pretty grim. But albums...that's a different story. At the same time AM Top 40 stations were wearing out the grooves of "Seasons In The Sun", you could hear great stuff on the albums of the time. My friends used to say back then that the biggest hit single from an album was usually its worst track. An exaggeration, but maybe not much of one. And the worst singles of the time ("Seasons In The Sun", "Billy Don't Be A Hero", "Feelings" were from singles acts anyway (did anyone buy the LPs those songs were from?). The artists you expected good stuff from generally delivered on their albums. Most of McCartney's "Band On The Run" album was quite good. Elton had some nice tracks on "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road".

Santana, Jethro Tull, Steely Dan, Paul Simon, ELO, Doobie Brothers, Eagles, Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, Boz Scaggs, Bonnie Raitt, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Bob Seger, Rickie Lee Jones, Van Morrison...a lot of solid stuff on LPs from that decade.

 

[landtuna]

Elton had some nice tracks on "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road".

GYBR, with the single exception of the "Bennie & the Jets" track, was IMHO one of the great albums ever produced and was easily Elton John's finest. I don't remember being alone in that opinion at the time it was released.

And I would add Cat Stevens, Dire Straits and Fleetwood Mac to Michael's list. There are obviously lots of others which will come to mind as soon as I hit <enter>. ;D

 

[HCochet]

328 responses and only (2?) including me admit to caring about radio. That's a lot of response for something no one cares about.

 

[landtuna]

328 responses and only (2?) including me admit to caring about radio. That's a lot of response for something no one cares about.

I think perhaps the wrong question may have been asked.

It's more like "why doesn't radio care about me"?

Radio says I am too old and not in any profitable demographic so they ignore me.

There are no terrestrial radio stations within my market playing the music I like. Some hit the fringes and there is one AM I would listen to if only it wasn't covered in static.

Certain stations adopted the abysmal "HD" scheme thereby greatly reducing any DXing I may have wanted to do - and did in the old days.

Radio now plays huge chunks of commercials which seemingly go on forever and the DJ's talk over the beginning and endings of my favorite songs (when I infrequently hear them).

The DJ's I enjoyed listening to are virtually gone now.

I didn't abandon radio - it abandoned me.

 

[TheBigA]

I didn't abandon radio - it abandoned me.

You want someone to cater to your personal taste for free. Sorry. You want personal service, you have to pay.

If you want free, you get Coke or Bud.

 

[landtuna]

I didn't abandon radio - it abandoned me.

You want someone to cater to your personal taste for free. Sorry. You want personal service, you have to pay.

You have stated this before but you have missed my point.

There was a time, several decades ago, when radio provided what I wanted. Now it doesn't. I didn't change. Radio did.

I still care about radio but there is not very much I can do to change what has happened and I damn sure cannot grow younger. The sad fact is that terrestrial radio is becoming more irrelevant as time goes by and music radio, in particular, is on the way out. Perhaps not in my lifetime but going none the less. People in the biz could do something about it but not those of us who are primarily listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

There was a time, several decades ago, when radio provided what I wanted. Now it doesn't. I didn't change. Radio did.

But you DID change. You got older. Not your fault, but that's at the heart of it. Wait a few more years and try to buy a car or some clothes. You'll go to stores and they won't have what you want any more. You didn't change. But in fact you did. You just didn't notice.

Going back to your previous post, it wasn't radio that said you were too old. Radio itself loves you at any age. It's advertisers. They don't want to reach you on radio any more. They figure they've already got you on TV. They see no need to pay for you twice. So they advertise on TV. If radio could find advertisers that want you, they'd gladly pay for DJs, gladly play your favorite music, and gladly do whatever you wanted. But it all stems from those mean old advertisers. Blame them and father time.

 

[DavidKaye]

If radio could find advertisers that want you, they'd gladly pay for DJs, gladly play your favorite music, and gladly do whatever you wanted. But it all stems from those mean old advertisers. Blame them and father time.

It's actually a compliment. The fact that advertisers don't want to reach older people means that older people are no longer swayed by bogus advertising claims. They're no longer swayed by the glitter. Older people know that they're not going to get lots of new friends just because they hang out in a bar and drink Budweiser. Older folks don't care about the GEICO pig or the weight loss pill that doesn't work. They want substance to their advertising, and advertisers have learned that glitter and outlandish claims move more product than honest advertising does.

 

[TheBigA]

They want substance to their advertising, and advertisers have learned that glitter and outlandish claims move more product than honest advertising does.

Well, not exactly. As I said, the advertisers are spending money to reach older audiences on TV. That's why you see ads using classic rock on TV, but not on radio. That's where you have erectile dysfunction ads, not radio. That's where Fidelity and Schwab advertises, not radio. That's where BMW advertises, not radio. That's why there's no music programming for people over 55 on radio.

 

[KeithE4]

If radio could find advertisers that want you, they'd gladly pay for DJs, gladly play your favorite music, and gladly do whatever you wanted. But it all stems from those mean old advertisers. Blame them and father time.

It's actually a compliment. The fact that advertisers don't want to reach older people means that older people are no longer swayed by bogus advertising claims. They're no longer swayed by the glitter. Older people know that they're not going to get lots of new friends just because they hang out in a bar and drink Budweiser. Older folks don't care about the GEICO pig or the weight loss pill that doesn't work. They want substance to their advertising, and advertisers have learned that glitter and outlandish claims move more product than honest advertising does.

It also means that we join our grandkids in getting our music online, via MP3, Pandora, YouTube, internet-only broadcasters, etc. - everywhere but commercial broadcast radio.

So where will your audience come from in the future? Today's Sacred Sales Demos are tomorrow's geezers that radio will ignore. Tomorrow's Sacred Sales Demos are listening to things other than radio.

 

[TheBigA]

So where will your audience come from in the future? Today's Sacred Sales Demos are tomorrow's geezers that radio will ignore. Tomorrow's Sacred Sales Demos are listening to things other than radio.

Radio isn't in the music business. There are lots of things radio can do besides music.

But a story came out today that Pandora users actually listen to more OTA radio than non-Pandora users. What does that tell you?

http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/113058/vision-critical-finds-online-radio-is-not-a-compet

This may explain why radio companies like Clear Channel aren't worried about their own streams competing with on-air stations.

 

[davideduardo]

It's actually a compliment. The fact that advertisers don't want to reach older people means that older people are no longer swayed by bogus advertising claims. They're no longer swayed by the glitter. Older people know that they're not going to get lots of new friends just because they hang out in a bar and drink Budweiser. Older folks don't care about the GEICO pig or the weight loss pill that doesn't work. They want substance to their advertising, and advertisers have learned that glitter and outlandish claims move more product than honest advertising does.

It doesn't mean that, either.

Advertisers don't target 55+ (although they have no objection to getting the "free" spillage that many stations deliver with a 25-54 buy) because it simply takes more impressions to make a sale.

Older consumers simply have more entrenched habits. They are more resistant to trying new brands, and generally slower to react to advertising. So, if it takes more ad impressions to make a sale, at some point the return on the investment in advertising is too low or is non-existent...

For several years CBS, which does a lot better in 35-64 than the standard TV demo of 18-49, has been working on selling agencies and their clients on broadening the targets. They insist that some of the old models of measuring effectiveness are not accurate and want advertisers to invest in 50+ on TV.

 

[landtuna]

But you DID change. You got older. Not your fault, but that's at the heart of it. Wait a few more years and try to buy a car or some clothes. You'll go to stores and they won't have what you want any more. You didn't change. But in fact you did. You just didn't notice.

I don't know how old you are 'A' but I can promise you I have noticed each and every day as I aged. All those youthful football games, all those motorcycle races (and falls) and all those late hours partying the night away add up and are a constant reminder you aren't 17 any longer.

But that's the downside and there is an upside, at least for me. I no longer worry about money. I don't have to please a boss (except for YKW in the kitchen). And I don't have to get out of bed if I don't want to. I can pay cash for virtually anything I want to own (including the car I bought last year). I have no debt and can donate assets to charities or my kids as I please. That is an enormous amount of freedom and well-being.

I don't now, nor have I ever, responded to commercials. Even as a young adult. If I want to buy something I go research it and decide on the specific product. Research does not include any advertising. I may be unique in that regard, I'm not sure, but I have never been a 'habit' buyer either. My new car is Korean - both the car and country of origin were not on my radar until I looked through all the options - again, without advertising (unless you count opinions by other owners).

Advertising is never complete. All you see or hear is the enticement, never the downside. I understand that and that is the simple reason I don't pay attention. Commercials now are sometimes entertainment for me if they are done very well. Otherwise they are just noise.

While it is true I am more set in my ways than when I was a young adult there are plenty of areas that I have no preferences and those, for most people, are what advertisers should be shooting for. Older people are interested in more than dental appliances and walk-in tubs.

I realize that I am a minority in the senior age group and most of my peers don't have my assets. If anything they should be ever more religious in researching major buys than I. I don't know anyone near my age that defines themselves as a "Buick" person because their dad or they always owned one. Those were my parents generation.

Going back to your previous post, it wasn't radio that said you were too old. Radio itself loves you at any age. It's advertisers. They don't want to reach you on radio any more. They figure they've already got you on TV. They see no need to pay for you twice. So they advertise on TV.

Well, they don't have me on TV either but here's the difference.....on radio I can listen to an alternative totally without commercials or I can hit the pre-set to the 'other' preferred station without penalty. If I am watching TV I do not have that option. I am watching a program I am interested in and it isn't playing on another station so there is no pre-set option. I could DVR it and bypass commercials which is similar to playing my own library. The bottom line is that I watch many more TV commercials than hear radio commercials but they still don't entice me to buy. In the very rare circumstance that I actually want to hear what an advertiser has to say I generally have to listen multiple times because I have become so efficient at filtering out commercials.

If radio could find advertisers that want you, they'd gladly pay for DJs, gladly play your favorite music, and gladly do whatever you wanted. But it all stems from those mean old advertisers. Blame them and father time.

I am constantly reminded of a major advertiser on my favorite teen radio station of my youth (KTKT 990 Tucson). The Seat Cover King probably advertised more than any other business in the late 50's yet I never owned a car (nor did the vast majority of my peers) and never bought a set of seat covers. The music was Top-40 but they clearly were advertising to another demo than the majority of their listeners. Dumb old advertisers. ;D