That is because the websites that show ratings insert station owner and format data on their own and don't get that from Nielsen.
-
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
Entercom To Rebrand as Audacy
- Thread starter AceBiscuits
- Start date
Research shows that "radio" is considered old school by younger demos. So no matter what you do with the word, it is not attractive to that large group.
And around 80% of 18-34's use radio, using a quick look at four different top 10 PPM markets. That is not "Do they listen to terrestrial radio? No." in any way!
The term "googly eyes" and its derivatives date back to the 20's. Google, the search engine, in its original logos and artwork, had, among other things, bubble eyes with glasses "googling". It's not definitive that the math term was the source of the name as that term was seldom used, and quite possibly unknown to a bunch of computer geeks working on an early search engine.
But using a seldom used term that has no negatives is different than trying to redefine a well-used term that has very negative or "old" connotations among the younger half of the population.
I'll bet 90% of Tesla owners can not accurately tell you who Nikola Tesla was or what he did.
So research shows that the word "Audacy" is instantly recognizable to younger demos, and they're all like "wow, that sounds like a brand we're going to get behind."
Last edited by a moderator:
No, research does not show what you sarcastically describe any more than research would have shown that Facebook or Google or even Apple would be the name of a successful company. But those terms or names had no strong negatives, and the companies built their own image.
"Coca Cola" had no meaning when it started. Neither did, to any significance, Crest or . Just two examples of "starting from scratch" names.
Whether Audacy will be a good brand or not depends on how well they expand into new media. Given the obtuse vision of the company's leader, I have doubts. But going the other way was a a guaranteed path to bankruptcy.
You hit a Homer with that one!
Sure it did. The coca was for the coca leaves and the cola was for the kola nuts in the original recipe, which was for a patent medicine rather than a soft drink. As the product evolved both ingredients disappeared, but that's irrelevant to the point you tried to make here.
I disagree... I'm sure by 1988 radio was as common and as popular as a CD...
And pretty much in every car by then too...
This name change is more of a Turn Off than a Turn-On...
Radio.com is an extremely valuable domain that this company has now considered it of little value...Someone else would put it to better use and appreciate it.
I consider this an "identity Crisis" just like when our local "Charter Communications" changed to Spectrum after buying Time Warner...
Very few people then knew what the kola nut was, nor did they know about cocaine. The name was invented, based on a derivation.
You are being way to analytical. Initial impressions are emotional, not analytical.
Last edited:
Radio was common in cars well before 1988.
It´s an attempt to broaden the company's scope beyond the declining AM and FM services.
I can't think of anyone who would pour capital into an ancient technology.
Yet it has worked out well and gotten rid of a name that smells "old".
Last edited:
Correct on all points.
Back in the 70's, Joe Field started 'Entertainment Communications, Inc.' As the company grew and shares went public, it changed to something more modern: 'Entercom'. Now what were traditional radio or TV groups, need to branch out into new forms of media, these legacy companies need to update their corporate name to reflect those changes.
Other than a handful of people on this site who are adverse to change, the vast-vast majority of stock market analysis's see this sort of corporate rebranding as a positive. Who's opinion do you think matters more?
Stock investors.
Except there's one problem: the name is a very poor one. If the average Joe on the street can't figure out how to pronounce it, how is that an improvement? IHeartMedia can be understood by a six year old, provided they know what the word "media" means.
This forum is populated with educated people and we aren't really sure about the pronunciation, much less the necessity of the name change. It's not like the word Entercom roared "AM Radio". Focus groups and consultants made money off the name change, but I doubt the company will do any better because of it.
My local phone company has gone through four name changes in 40 years and they still are the same service, and probably hold the same stock value. They could have kept the original name and the only difference would be that the name would be too long for the sign on the stadium they used to sponsor.
Except the choice of name was a really bad one. All the money that went into seeking a new identity and that's the best they could come up with?
It doesn't matter what you or I think of their name change. When you think of Google, do you think of Alphabet? Probably not, but Google changed their corporate name to reflect the entire suite of businesses that run under the umbrella. It's done for corporate structure branding, not to be a catch phrase for the run of the mill consumer.
Entercom has long been associated with traditional AM-FM radio. That's how they started. For years past if you became an Entercom shareholder, you were buying a piece of ownership in a traditional broadcaster. For those companies that plan-on, or have evolved into other forms of business, do you still want future shareholders to be under the impression they're buying just AM-FM radio stations? To me, that's a really bad stereotype if you hope for any growth as a publicly traded company.
Telecoms have changed names to reflect primarily ownership changes. Since the Ma Bell breakup years ago, telecoms have split, merged, and swapped around geographic areas to grow and expand their business model. Then a bigger fish comes along and buys them. The changes you site are for a completely different reason and business model than what we're talking about here.
I agree that the name is exceptionally bad. They are renaming an audio media company with a name that is not easy to spell or understand and needs lots of visual reinforcement to be easy for people to type into their device. Apple is easy, Facebook is easy. Audacy is not.
It may have had meaning to the maker of the formula, but the average consumer had no idea what it meant. They used the ingredient names to create a consumer friendly name in an era when the market was filled with all kinds of patent medicines, remedies and the like.
Remember, well into the 70's most drug stores would sell you a 2oz to 3oz little bottle of coke syrup as a "tummy tonic" and it was given often to kids with light upset stomachs; my mother, on the board of a major city's public hospital system, used to give me a spoonful when something disagreed with me. Neither of us thought it was cocaine-laden.
But they won't get the chance because Audacy will retain the name. This is a common practice. Back in the early days of the internet, The Nashville Network registered the domain Country.com. They told their viewers to go there for all things country. That was over 25 years ago. When TNN went away, that domain stayed with the company. It's now owned by Viacom. They determined that the brand they wanted to market for country was CMT.com. That was their main marketing focus, not the lifestyle of country. So they replaced Country.com with CMT.com. But the company kept the country.com domain. So now, when you type Country.com, it automatically sends you to CMT.com. They call this domain forwarding. As I said, it's a very common practice. That's what will happen to radio.com.
Entercom was seen as toxic at least for Sacramento but then again it was from a different era with different management at the time and it's disputes with Ed Stolz yes it was considered toxic for a certain era though. Once Entercom got the former CBS Radio affiliates then that perception of being toxic faded because other parts of the country was starting to know who Entercom inc was.
I understand your point, but I would think that "future shareholders" involve two separate categories of people, neither of which are really influenced by the name change.
The first category is the 401K holder and mutual fund holder, who probably couldn't tell you what companies are in their portfolio on any given day, much less whether any of them changed their name. And the second category is the expert, who probably knows the ins and outs of the company regardless of the name of it. A name isn't going to make them buy stock if they think the company is poorly run.
If a company is a retail store, or a brand that directly sells services or goods to the public, yeah, a brand name change sometimes can help with sales or visibility. But most users of Entercom's services don't know it exists. They know it as "KISW" (in Seattle).
Expert stockholders are more concerned about the operation, the running of the company, and its financials, as opposed to the name on the door. The name on the door means nothing. Just because Entercom is now Audacy doesn't mean they're going to make expert decisions. It doesn't mean they're going to make more money next year than they did last year. Experts probably know this. The 401K holder is more or less clueless about it.
My view is: It's less about investors choosing the stock because of the new name, and more about them avoiding the stock because of the old name.
Again, is trying to sell a bad new name a better move than trying to refresh a name that "sounds old?" And if having the word "radio" in your brand is a path to bankruptcy, should we begin shorting iHeart stock? Oh yeah...they already did the bankruptcy thing.
Maybe the company formerly known as Entercom are doing this because market analysts told them that a change is good for the stock price, but is that long term, or (as is often the case) more about short term gains for investors?
Or to put it in the form of an "Office Space" movie reference..."Is This Good For The Company?" I know that Field admires iHeart's way of doing business, but it seems like they've set themselves on a similar path. Acquire a lot of stations (along with a lot of debt), cut costs (staff) drastically to make the bottom line a little more attractive in the near term, and careen down the same road that the old Clear Channel took. Makes me wonder if they're prepping the stock price for a sale to a venture capital firm.
- Status