And today WDRQ announced a new co-host for their morning show. So no format change likely:
-
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's alternative experiment not a success?
- Thread starter tall_guy1
- Start date
And today WDRQ announced a new co-host for their morning show. So no format change likely:
Personally I haven't given up, but I don't keep my head in the sand either. If technology and consumer habits change over time, that's noting you or I can just fix. One has to be simply creative to hold onto the existing audience, while watching operating expenses.
I don't know of any "professionals" here who have claimed "radio is dead", (other than maybe AM) nor have any of us driven radio into decline. Can't speak as to the other folks job responsibilities, but I know of no position descriptions that state the job is to stop the hands of time, keeping radio and consumer listening habits same as it was forty years ago. I think even you'd agree, that nobody could accomplish that task. Like any industry, you either adapt to the need, or you don't succeed.
I don't think any of us have intentionally "talked down" to you. We merely pointed out that your observations and assumptions were inaccurate. Your feeling defensive doesn't change the facts.
With the kind of rankings David brought to the discussion, I would hardly call that bungling. Clearly the number of human beings that are listening is definately important. Those numbers are determined via data, not via a couple guys on a radio discussion board who don't like certain songs or musical artists.
That's what smartphones or before those, personal listening devices like IPods, Zoom's or other portable devices. You can build your own playlist! And yes, they've been around since the 70's. Remember the Sony Walkman? Neither BigA, David, or myself had anything to do with those.
That's one of the few things we can both agree on.
To BigA: Steele has been handling morning co-anchor duties at 93.1 pretty much the entire time since her predecessor departed. I guess Cumulus simply decided to make it official (permanent).
The new PD certainly has phenomenal credentials. I've yet to notice any programming changes on either station (WDRQ and WDVD). Will be interesting to see what he has up his sleeve.
The new PD certainly has phenomenal credentials. I've yet to notice any programming changes on either station (WDRQ and WDVD). Will be interesting to see what he has up his sleeve.
Audacy "Alt" station latest PPM numbers:
New York: 1.8 share, has "Alt 92.3" ever been lower? This has got to be near a record low. 21st place. Sister station WINS 1010 is also near a record low.
Los Angeles: 2.3 share (improving)
Dallas: 1.3 share (at least six consecutive survey periods now with either a 1.2 or 1.3 share; this station used to score mid to upper 2's when it was CHR/Pop)
San Francisco: 1.2 share (near all time record low; 24th place!)
Seattle: 2.6 share (not horrible, and the station has rebounded from its all-time record low witnessed last year)
Detroit: 1.6 share (new low since the flip last November)
Miami: 1.4 share (another 24th place finish!)
San Diego: 1.7 share (crosstown Active Rock 105.3 KIOZ has risen 2.9 to 4.1 over the past six months; I guess Rock isn't dead)
Orlando: 2.6 share (lowest AQH share of any commercial FM in the market among reporting stations; another case of horrendous TSL, too)
Kansas City: 2.2 share (station has been a ratings disaster ever since Lazlo's ex-wife was fired from mornings; used to be a 3.5 share and at times even a 4.5 share radio station).
Las Vegas: 1.6 share (and atrocious TSL)
Sacramento: 4.3 share (a rare success story!)
Alt is to Audacy what Nash was to Cumulus...a national "brand" that generates mediocre to terrible ratings in most of the markets where it is found.
New York: 1.8 share, has "Alt 92.3" ever been lower? This has got to be near a record low. 21st place. Sister station WINS 1010 is also near a record low.
Los Angeles: 2.3 share (improving)
Dallas: 1.3 share (at least six consecutive survey periods now with either a 1.2 or 1.3 share; this station used to score mid to upper 2's when it was CHR/Pop)
San Francisco: 1.2 share (near all time record low; 24th place!)
Seattle: 2.6 share (not horrible, and the station has rebounded from its all-time record low witnessed last year)
Detroit: 1.6 share (new low since the flip last November)
Miami: 1.4 share (another 24th place finish!)
San Diego: 1.7 share (crosstown Active Rock 105.3 KIOZ has risen 2.9 to 4.1 over the past six months; I guess Rock isn't dead)
Orlando: 2.6 share (lowest AQH share of any commercial FM in the market among reporting stations; another case of horrendous TSL, too)
Kansas City: 2.2 share (station has been a ratings disaster ever since Lazlo's ex-wife was fired from mornings; used to be a 3.5 share and at times even a 4.5 share radio station).
Las Vegas: 1.6 share (and atrocious TSL)
Sacramento: 4.3 share (a rare success story!)
Alt is to Audacy what Nash was to Cumulus...a national "brand" that generates mediocre to terrible ratings in most of the markets where it is found.
Last edited:
I disagree. Listeners don't care about brands. They can call the station anything they want, but if the music sucks, people won't listen.
Audacy views it as a brand and markets it as such to record companies and advertisers and follows a similar programming philosophy on all such stations. I agree with your statement about listeners only caring about the quality of content at the end of the day.
In some instances, the shift to a unified brand has resulted in elimination of programming that some stations' audiences liked better.
In some instances, the shift to a unified brand has resulted in elimination of programming that some stations' audiences liked better.
So do you believe if a quality product is popular in Los Angeles, it wouldn't be popular in Chicago?
Yeah I think a certain someone named Howard Stern disproved that notion entirely.
That is a very debatable subject.
We can go back to the changes CBS TV made a half century ago when it removed the shows it thought were to "rural" and not cosmopolitan enough; they traded Sioux Falls for LA and NYC.
Each market does have a different psychology due to things as diverse as climate, kinds of employment, education levels and ethnicity.
Fresno is not Birmingham. Rochester is not Albuquerque. Miami is not Phoenix. You will have a different percentage of partisans for different kinds of music and different formats and presentations. To further complicate, you will have a different competitive array in each market.
The web has made tastes more uniform nationally, but the composition of each metro area will influence the local impact of national formats and brands.
Miami is a good example of where rock or rock leaning formats are at a disadvantage; as one example, Power 96 has gone from a dominant station to an also-ran as it shed its local feel for a national approach. In such cases, big groups have gone from a Corvette to trying to relaunch an Oldsmobile.
100%. I think people are anathema to having networked music personalities because they aren't household names like, say, a Casey Kasem. Or a Ryan Seacrest in this modern era. Or Stern. Or Rush. You know the people, you'll be more apt to listen.
I remember when WZAK blew up their successful local morning show in late 1997 to carry Tom Joyner, which was at that time controversial given 1) WZAK was the only FM in the Cleveland market that catered directly to an urban audience and 2) the local "Three's Company" show was itself highly rated. But it worked! People knew who Joyner was and his show was a high quality product, and WZAK did quite well in morning drive up to his retirement.
Then there's WAKR in Akron... they went from talk radio to adult standards in 1999, which led some people to actually think Chick Watkins, who worked at WGAR and WCUE back in the 1960s and 1970s, returned to Akron with that format flip (part 1) (part 2), not knowing that WAKR was actually running his airshift from the Westwood One satellite.
In retrospect, I now look at CBS's Free FM debacle as something 15 years ahead of its time, but utterly failed in execution, talent selection and format choice (Hot talk minus Stern? Good luck with that). The concept, however, remains sound.
Audacy IMHO blew it by not rebranding all the CHRs as "Now" with this move. Is it worth keeping WPOW under the "Power 96" name? What value is there to the KLUC calls as a brand? Or B-96? Stripping a station of a reason for its' heritage makes the heritage nonexistent. It's why Global Radio in the UK rebranded all their stations on a uniform basis per format when adopting regional and national programming strategies a few years ago.
Yes, it's tricky to do that here because brands are trademarked by different groups in different states (as seen with 101.9 in Orlando), but that should not be an excuse to not do it.
Last edited:
I would submit that radio and TV are vastly different animals, primarily because of the visual elements. Radio can have skilled, popular personalities anywhere, yet these personalities would never have the same impact if put in front of a camera simply because they 'have faces for radio'. Viewers trust TV personalities and news anchors for more than just the familiarity of their voice.
But in my example, we're talking about major markets. One could argue the two markets are culturally different, but they're still major markets. Los Angeles has a much higher Hispanic population but other than population density, I doubt the other ethnic ratios are much different.
As with the comment about Ryan Seacrest or Casey Kasem, the arguement could be made that good personalities and appropriate music/programming mix plays in Peoria, or Petaluma. 99.8% of listeners don't care whether Seacrest is in their home town. Good, popular programming is just good for a reason.
Steve Harvey is consistently one of the most popular radio hosts in just about every market that airs him. That's not 30 years ago. That's right now. But before Steve there were several other urban-oriented hosts who were bigger in their markets than any of the local hosts.
In terms of alternative, iHeart has The Woody Show. It's not been a hit outside of LA, but I don't think the issue is that its syndicated. Some of these radio companies thing you can just throw a local NY or LA show on the radio anywhere and not do local promotions for it. If your local host was doing an interview with a big star, you'd promote it all day. These stations don't always do that when its a syndicated show. The syndicated host has to become part of the local team in every way possible.
To Steve's credit, he has maintained a good, long run in the public eye, with a wildly successful run as Family Feud host to boot. It has absolutely helped bolster his radio career.
That is precisely how Stern made it in syndication... not because he was merely available, but because Infinity had Andy Bloom work as a consultant with the initial set of affiliates outside of WXRK to make his show accessible on that level. In fact, Stern's arguably most famous/infamous moment in general (and definitely in the Cleveland market) occurred at the WNCX "funeral" live broadcast that a WMMS engineer sabotaged. Yeah, he was a nationally syndicated host but traded ratings blows with WMJI's John Lanigan for the top spot right up to the end.
Syndicating hosts who play music is a different situation. Outside of the Docket 80-90s in rural areas that have had to mostly rely on programming from SMN/ABC or Westwood One or USRN (or with the Z-Rock or "The Wave" from SMN that saw a presence in mid-major and some large markets), no one has cohesively tried a "best of the best" music personality format on a turnkey basis. ABC came so close with Superadio but it was way ahead of its time.
Outside of Stryker and Kline (now minus Stryker), the talent being utilized by Audacy in country, alt rock and CHR aren't what I'd consider recognizable. They aren't being marketed or positioned as "the best of the best". And it comes off as a total disservice to them.
Part of it is that they're strictly in-house, which means they're limited to markets where Audacy owns stations. Steve Harvey is a true national host, and is heard on stations outside the iHeart space. That gives him a larger platform and more credibility. When you do a national show, it helps to be truly national, and not just in select markets where its convenient.
And yet when I look at streaming playlists made by users not radio professionals, they typically include all of the same songs being played on radio stations in all markets big and small. I wouldn't overstate that music or content varies by market. Otherwise Sirius, Spotify, and all the other national services would be failures. There are certain local nuances that can be beneficial, especially if marketed well. Here comes another Texas Ten in a Row! But localism is not a guarantee of success.
Exactly. Maybe back in the 60's through 80's when consumers had their own handful of local station favorites, one could say that X-community was unique in music and personality tastes to Y-community. But that just isn't the way anymore. Since given the multitude of media consuming choices, whether that's for radio or TV, quality of programming has become more important than local-ism.
Tastes in terms of GENRE preference definitely vary widely by individual market, BigA. Country music grabs 10 shares in DFW but only 2 shares in NYC, for instance.
Alternative historically has had noticeable idiosyncrasies in terms of artist choices and song texture between regions and even individual stations within the same region. To try to standardize that as Audacy is doing is unwise.
iHM is allowing greater customization between its stations in the format these days, and it's paying off with improved AQH share in several cases. For a while, virtually all of its stations in the format minus KTBZ were near clones of each other.
Wide variation in music tastes among the North America populace and a desire to make the service as mass appeal as possible is why SXM offers dozens of different music channels on its platform as opposed to, say, 10 to 20. Heck, on the actual SXM radio service, I have 4 or 5 different choices just for hard rock!
Alternative historically has had noticeable idiosyncrasies in terms of artist choices and song texture between regions and even individual stations within the same region. To try to standardize that as Audacy is doing is unwise.
iHM is allowing greater customization between its stations in the format these days, and it's paying off with improved AQH share in several cases. For a while, virtually all of its stations in the format minus KTBZ were near clones of each other.
Wide variation in music tastes among the North America populace and a desire to make the service as mass appeal as possible is why SXM offers dozens of different music channels on its platform as opposed to, say, 10 to 20. Heck, on the actual SXM radio service, I have 4 or 5 different choices just for hard rock!
Last edited:
Huh? No station gets a 10 share in Dallas. The two country stations together add up to an 8 share. The demos in Dallas are becoming more like NYC, with minorities making up almost half of the market. Neither Dallas nor Houston are as country as you might think.
Sure genre preference can vary by market, but that has nothing to do with local talent or playlists. Compare the country playlists in Dallas with the one in New York and there are a lot of the same songs, even though the stations have different owners. The whole idea of format radio is to have consensus songs. In the old days, that could be done by watching trade charts or with consultants.
As is Audacy. I have compared the playlists among the Audacy stations and they vary quite a bit in terms of spin rates on songs and percentages of currents.
You're forgetting 95.9 The Ranch as well as KTFW. Closer to 10 shares when including those stations. DFW is still way more country than NYC even if it isn't as country as it once was. Ever visit Fort Worth?
I never, ever said one country station in Dallas gets 10 shares. Don't twist my words please.
KPLX includes plenty of gold in regular rotation you won't hear on WNSH, and the stationality differs noticeably from WNSH, too. Yes, much more similarity exists between KSCS and WNSH for sure. KSCS constitutes less than half of the total shares for Country in DFW. The other Country stations serving the market all have a noticeably different "sound" from the KSCS's and WNSH's of the world.
I never, ever said one country station in Dallas gets 10 shares. Don't twist my words please.
KPLX includes plenty of gold in regular rotation you won't hear on WNSH, and the stationality differs noticeably from WNSH, too. Yes, much more similarity exists between KSCS and WNSH for sure. KSCS constitutes less than half of the total shares for Country in DFW. The other Country stations serving the market all have a noticeably different "sound" from the KSCS's and WNSH's of the world.
Last edited:
- Status