Fall '10 Buffalo-Niagara Falls Persons 12+

[JustPastBuffalo]

The Buffalo-Niagara Falls 12+ make for interesting discussion.

Disclaimer: It's only Persons 12+. We all know what really matters. Speculation only. As other posters say, no wagering please. Your mileage may vary west of the Mississippi. Void where prohibited. This is not an offering which can be made by perspective only. If condition persists more than four hours, consult a physician immediately.

So...

WYRK, a station that should get more love on these boards, is off a tad from Summer '10, but impressively jumps more than 2 shares from Fall '09 and reigns over the 12+ roost. Wouldn't be surprised to find that WYRK leads the 25-54 pack as well. Which often prompts the question, "Why doesn't a competitor go Country?" As if it were that easy.

97 Rock rebounds. Some will attribute this to Bills football which no doubt has pull, but I'd attribute its performance to a strong local personality approach throughout the day and the return of Slick Tom Tiberi from 7-midnight. That was the "Ted Williams feel good story" in this market.

Classic Hits WHTT slipped slightly from Summer '10, down point 7 from Fall '09. Probably still strong 35-64. The Edge is up from Summer '09 and Fall '10. WHLD swings into motion with a showing of point 7 in it's first book with the Standards format. Insiders say they love selling this format and it's making an impact.

WGR doubles from Summer '10, duplicating its Fall '09 rating. Bills talk and Sabres having an impact. Jack up from Summer '10 and Fall '09. Bob1370 will no doubt offer they'd be doing better if they had live, local personalities in a few dayparts. I might agree, but that's academic.

Star rebounds from Summer '10 and Fall '09. Joy is up from Summer but off a smidge from Fall '09. The So, which station won the All Christmas Music dust up for Women 25-54 and 25-49? The envelope please... The Lake posts a 1.9, which is off from Summer '10 but up a nose hair from Fall '09. Kiss off from Summer '10, but up a tenth from where is placed Fall '09.

It's genuinely surprising that WBEN didn't perform better, given the November election, Carl Paladino's candidacy and weather issues in its wheelhouse. WBEN is off from Summer '10, which is a traditionally soft book for news-talk-sports-talk formats in Buffalo. But more striking, WBEN is down 2 shares from Fall '09, going 10.8 to 8.7. Is the news-talk line-up on WBFO and WNED-AM taking a few shares from WBEN?

Steve on a cell phone, you're on. Whataya think? Dave? Dammit Dave! Turn your radio down! Let's go to Marty in Marilla.

 

[Bob1370]

"It's genuinely surprising that WBEN didn't perform better, given the November election, Carl Paladino's candidacy and weather issues in its wheelhouse. WBEN is off from Summer '10, which is a traditionally soft book for news-talk-sports-talk formats in Buffalo. But more striking, WBEN is down 2 shares from Fall '09, going 10.8 to 8.7. Is the news-talk line-up on WBFO and WNED-AM taking a few shares from WBEN?"

It's not so much of a surprise, given that the station is drifting further off the center of the lane and onto the right shoulder of the radio road. The more people who think the station doesn't speak for them, the more likely they are to go somewhere else. This wasn't an issue back in the day when WBEN's programming was divided into three parts, hard news at the top and bottom of the hour, light entertainment most of the rest of the hour, and occasional nuggets of useful information (traffic, weather) popping up as needed. That was general, mass-appeal programming for anyone 25 and over. People chose a station based on how well it did those things and how well you liked the personalities and the music mix. WNED and WBFO were minor players. They've become major players basically because the traditional "big three" either shriveled up (KB), went from general service to niche programming to young and middle aged men (WGR) or turned right (WBEN). IMHO if WBEN had been less partisan and more eclectic in its personality lineup over the last several years it might find itself with most of what's now WBFO's and WNED-AM's sizable audience, and would pass WYRK and dominate the market again. Now, listening habits have set to the point that the opportunity to make some changes and pull back lost listeners in younger and more upscale demos may have passed.

Same thing has happened in Rochester, where you can substitute WBEE for WYRK and see the same scenario playing out-with WXXI-AM playing the same role in Rochester that WNED-AM and WBFO do in Buffalo, blocking WHAM from the top spot (although you can argue that WHAM blocked itself by narrowcasting to an audience that's older, more male and more conservative than the market as a whole, to an even more pronounced degree than WBEN did).

The NPR affiliates in each of these markets owe their positions as significant players in the markets in part to the quality of their own offerings, but in part to the decision by their main commercial news/talk competitors to throw away some of the audience they used to have and could have kept.

 

[listener-in]

you can argue that WHAM blocked itself by narrowcasting to an audience that's older, more male and more conservative than the market as a whole

Amen to that. Pity, really - WHAM's local programming used to be a class act and is still good, but I have a hard time supporting the station at any time of day because I find its syndicated output so offensive.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

It must be a trend, WBT Charlotte is now sitting in 12th place with some dismal 12+ numbers. Country and Urban lead here and have for awhile. Could folks finally be getting tired of political talk? I didn't check WBEN and WHAM but WBT's cume isn't what it used to be either.

 

[Paul_Warren]

In the heyday of WBEN and WHAM, what we now call "talk" programming was garnish on the plate. Today, the plate's piled high with parsley and there's no meat. The audience response should be no big surprise.

 

[cee]

AM Talkers - pretty high demos these days, correct? To me, not interesting. I'm finding even political talkers who's opinions are more in line with my own - it's tedious. Lotta gripin', lotta blaming, no solutions.

If radio wasn't mostly run by corporate suits, innovative talk, or spoken word programming might really take off. With all these high tech alternative music delivery systems we've talked about so much here getting more and more popular, it seems like compelling, live spoken word programming might be the salvation of traditional radio. But, of course, corporate suits running the show may think different.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

AM Talkers - pretty high demos these days, correct? To me, not interesting. I'm finding even political talkers who's opinions are more in line with my own - it's tedious. Lotta gripin', lotta blaming, no solutions.

If radio wasn't mostly run by corporate suits, innovative talk, or spoken word programming might really take off. With all these high tech alternative music delivery systems we've talked about so much here getting more and more popular, it seems like compelling, live spoken word programming might be the salvation of traditional radio. But, of course, corporate suits running the show may think different.

Just my 2 cents.

I feel the same way you do, what's on now is not interesting, just noise. BUT....Do you think people with today's short attention spans would actually sit and listen to an honest discourse on the issues? A log time ago talk hosts started deliberately saying things to get people angry enough to call their shows.

My fear is with all the hate on the radio someone is going to get hurt. Free speech is good but isn't inciting a riot against the law? Some of these talk hosts (I'm thinking specifically of Neil Broortz) are going way too far!

 

[TheBigA]

With all these high tech alternative music delivery systems we've talked about so much here getting more and more popular, it seems like compelling, live spoken word programming might be the salvation of traditional radio. But, of course, corporate suits running the show may think different.

The thing is that while alternative delivery systems may be popular, the content they carry isn't. In other words, there is so single type of content, music or otherwise, that's attracting enough people to interest sponsors. So while sponsors like the overall numbers at Pandora, there is no single channel there that could stand on its own the way radio does.

The "corporate suits" just want something that'll interest advertisers. If that means bluegrass polka music, they'll approve it. If it means innovative talk, they'll say yes. They don't care. It's up to the imaginations of the programmers. It's a pretty freeing and open environment. Still, no one has answers to what people want, and even in clusters of 4 or 6 stations per market, that's not enough to come up with the numbers advertisers want. The minute someone comes up with the next big thing, everyone will line up and cash in, just as they've done before.

 

[Bob1370]

"My fear is with all the hate on the radio someone is going to get hurt."

Sorry to say that may have happened today.

A Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona has been shot and seriously wounded in Tucson, and the sheriff in Pima County, Arizona, where a 21 year old man has been arrested and charged with shooting her and a number of other people, is blaming incendiary right wing talk radio for inciting the crime. Only time and perhaps a trial will tell if that is in fact the case...but if it's true, will any of these hosts accept any responsibility?

I won't be holding my breath...

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

1) re Congresswomen Giffords: The alledged shooter, according to AP, is a 22 year old male. At the time of this post, it's too early to know what he was thinking, what his motivation is/was, what his political bent may be and if it has anything to do with his actions. I'm glued to MSNBC, CNN and NPR. When we speculate this early in the process (been there, done that, programmed it), we become part of that which we do not like about the media. Progressives who are inclined to say "it's those Tea Party nuts" do themselves a disservice. We just don't know.

2) BigA: You make a reasonable point. The suits will sell Classic Polkas if it makes money. But I'd offer that it's not as much of a "pretty freeing and open environment" as we'd like to think. Few PDs, especially those working for the Big Four, ever will have an opportunity to roll the dice on an adventuresome format, especially in news talk, because so much of what's heard (Rush, Hannity, and until recently Dr. Laura) is owned and distributed by the companies that own an unwieldy number of radio stations. Additionally, there's little incentive for PDs to step out. GMs and RVPs are not patient men/women.

As a result, today more than ever (in the last five years) WHAM Rochester has much more in common with WSYR Syracuse, which has much more in common with WGY Schenectady-Albany (Clear Channel stations, which I use only as an example.) These companies protect their "A" (news-talk) stations and for the most part, run sports on the their secondaries. In many cases it's satellite delivered. If there's a tertiary station, as there is in Buffalo, it will run almost totally unsupported on life support, again, satellite driven.

So IF it is the case that WBFO-FM and WNED-AM, Buffalo's two NPR affiliates, are making gains at WBEN's expense, there may be a very good reason. I have observed that listeners appear to have become fatigued with the echo chambers that exist on stations that target both the right and the left. Listeners under 35 have very little interest in the style or content on most commercial talk stations. In Buffalo, WEDG's Shredd & Ragan capture the essence of sports-news-talk for 18-34's, especially Men, with a Jon Stewart approach.

I do not have access to the book (and if I did, I wouldn't be spewing proprietary information), but speculatively speaking, it may be that WBEN lost what "younger" listeners it may have had to The Edge and WNED-AM and WBFO siphoned a few ears from the mid and upper end of the demo. And it could very well be that WBEN had a good 35-64 book, although not as good as it may have had a year ago. As most of us know, stations can put up very soft 12+ numbers yet score very well in their target demo. (I suspect this may be the case with Star and Joy; soft 12+ Persons, but very strong 35-49/35-54 Women.)

As I noted in my initial post, I was genuinely surprised that WBEN did not perform better, given Buffalo Tea Party candidate Carl Palidino's quest for the governor's office. Again, the 12+ disclaimer.

 

[TheBigA]

Few PDs, especially those working for the Big Four, ever will have an opportunity to roll the dice on an adventuresome format, especially in news talk, because so much of what's heard (Rush, Hannity, and until recently Dr. Laura) is owned and distributed by the companies that own an unwieldy number of radio stations.

But each of those shows have peaked, and they know it. Program development is the name of the game. The big names make so much money and hold so much power that it's not much fun. I always use the music analogy, and this is another one. The labels may make big money with the superstars. But the excitement is in breaking new stars. Certainly the change with Dr. Laura opened a door for some new host. Savage seems to be self-destructing, so that will create an opportunity. Beck seems to have peaked. And Rush won't go on forever. Stations are looking for something new. So I think the time is ripe for someone to come up with something new and exciting. But you're right, there's a lot of risk in stepping out. Still, that's what the job is all about. There's no excitement in status quo, so if you feel that way, then you gotta go for it when the opportunity presents itself. The incentive is to be seen as a visionary and get promoted to group PD. The risk is you get fired and end up with a blue vest saying "Welcome to Wal Mart." Either way, it's not status quo.

 

[listener-in]

..but if it's true, will any of these hosts accept any responsibility?

I won't be holding my breath...

Quote from Tucson press conference a few minutes ago, referring the rhetorical climate of political speech in Arizona - including the radio business and some in the television business:

"It may be free speech but it's not without consequences".

That was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Tucson +20 hours. More becomes known about this horrible act. As a radio demographer and former talk radio program director, I wonder if the alleged shooter, a 22 year old white male from the suburbs, really paid attention to what's said on local or national talk radio. Talk radio listeners are typically 45 and older, with the greatest concentration being perons over 50. He may have been more influenced by national political figures who advocated "targeting" the opposition, but I wonder if that in itself is over-reaching. To use the contemporary parlance of the street, the shooter was "just another farked-up kid with a gun." Regarding politics and what's said on talk radio, Pima county sheriff Clarence Dupnik's words should echo through the media and minds of all politicians and citizens. It wouldn't hurt to ratchet it down on both sides of the aisle.

 

[listener-in]

Mr. Pastrick: My only role in radio is one that’s the very reason your business exists – listener. I am familiar with you only through your postings on these boards, and I respect your opinions. You have obviously contributed much to a medium that has educated me and given much pleasure over many decades. I echo your closing thoughts about talk radio and ratcheting down the volume on both sides of the aisle. However, I do think that you let your industry and its influence off the hook much too easily.

You write as if talk radio and its demographic of listeners are isolated in a box, out of contact with the rest of the public or the rest of the political and media culture. It may be comforting for you as a radio insider to persuade yourself that a deranged young man would be immune from the influence of talk radio (because he’s the wrong demographic) but perhaps he might be influenced by the actions of national political figures. That divide just doesn’t seem tenable, because both sides of it are woven into the same fabric. Talk radio is either an originator or an amplifier – and often the prime mover – of ideas that percolate through our culture, bouncing back and forth many times from radio to Washington to the TV networks to the internet to the printed word to the water cooler. Moreover, "just another farked-up kid with a gun" doesn’t live in a vacuum – he’s exactly the type of person that one would most expect to be influenced by language or actions that go over the top. I don’t mean the occasional slip, which anyone can make, I mean a 24/7 background of violent rhetoric, which is exactly what Sheriff Dupnik was talking about.

While it seems reasonable to ask “both sides of the aisle” to ratchet down the volume, it’s indisputably the far-right talkers that overwhelmingly dominate the airwaves. When one party is in charge, they are built-in cheer leaders; when the other party is in charge they go far beyond the pale for what should be expected of a loyal opposition. Regardless of whether talkers on the other side go to extremes – and some do – they do not have a powerful echo chamber at their disposal.

As I wrote quite some time ago on these boards, it’s not reasonable to hold that talk radio does not influence listeners when commercial radio is founded on that very premise – that a radio advertisement, usually repeated over and over, i.e., commercial “talk”, can influence a certain fraction of listeners. As I also wrote, it was entirely predictable that the radio industry would shrug its shoulders say “who, me?” if some unbalanced person responded to rhetorical violence with actual violence. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t expect the Limbaughs or the (Michael) Savages or the Malloys of this world to voluntarily reform the way they do business, but station owners and managers have the leverage to make them do so. They have the editorial freedom to do so, and it’s time they did.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Listener, I think that you're missing the bigger picture. Talk radio may be distinctly right-of-center, but you have to admit that the left-of-center owns the Internet. It may be a generational effect, and people do tend to become more conservative as they age, but the blogosphere more than makes up for the influence of talk radio these days.

Vitriol in politics is nothing new. Take a look at how Abraham Lincoln was treated before his death. The newspapers of the day made today's talk radio hosts look like reasonable people. That doesn't mean that I advocate either the vitriol, or the censorship that would be required to "tone it down".

What's necessary here is for people to simply TURN OFF BAD RADIO. If the numbers drop, the programming will change. Look for other voices, or other sources. There's a reason that NPR saw its number GROW during the depths of the recession. (see this article. They continue to present quality programming that generally presents both sides of issues. More people are finding that to be a better alternative than the rantings from either extreme.

Radio can't be seen as separate from the rest of the media. This is a bigger issue. We as citizens simply need to stop supporting hate from either side, and demand solutions. We need to lessen the impact of corporate money by supporting candidates who represent US - The People.

 

[listener-in]

SirR, I agree with probably more of your points than I disagree with, such as about NPR and about corporate money (though I think the latter is a losing battle until we get either a Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment that strips corporations of their personhood).

But, here are the differences between radio and the internet. The former is under fairly concentrated corporate ownership, with a relatively few big names dominant in talk radio. The internet (thanks largely to net neutrality - long may it remain so) is much more diffuse and there are no commanding voices, right or left, that can elbow others off the "air". Furthermore, compared with the internet, radio is still much more of a mass medium, though that may change within a few years. To most people, especially those who work for a living or those who spend spend much of their time commuting, the internet isn't too practical an option, whereas Rush Limbaugh is universally available at the touch of a radio button; you could drive across country and only rarely be beyond the reach of his voice. That's not true of liberal talk and not - yet - true of the internet.

So in practice, if not in principle, it's currently the far-right that steers extremist rhetoric. As far as "censorship" is concerned - editorial control is exercised all the time, in all kinds of media. Station owners and managers permit poisonous language on the air that no newspaper editor would permit to appear in print, and that's not viewed as censorship.

I particularly agree with what you say here:

Radio can't be seen as separate from the rest of the media. This is a bigger issue. We as citizens simply need to stop supporting hate from either side, and demand solutions

Well, editorial sanctions against inflammatory rhetoric are merely one solution we can demand of one sector - the stations. That doesn't let others off the hook, but somebody had better take the lead. Denial isn't a useful option.

 

[TheBigA]

Well, editorial sanctions against inflammatory rhetoric are merely one solution we can demand of one sector - the stations.

To whom do you make your demand? "Congress shall make no law...." You know what that is?

 

[listener-in]

Well, editorial sanctions against inflammatory rhetoric are merely one solution we can demand of one sector - the stations.

To whom do you make your demand? "Congress shall make no law...." You know what that is?

Read what I wrote in the quote you just appended - this time, carefully.

 

[Element9]

Breathing a sigh of relief that the Tucson tragedy didn't happen in Buffalo considering the reckless rhetoric during the last presidential campaign, Carl Paladino's rants, what's said by the crackpots that call the local radio talk shows and the 24-7 drumbeat of NeoCon 9-30, especially the Michele Bachmann-like nattering of the wench from Williamsville. How can people have that much "hate" inside them? That lady is disturbed.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

Agreed, niner. I was stunned when during the Christmas season one of her callers, Rambo Jim (that says it all), criticized his brother-in-law for educating his son against violence. Here was a caller who was actually making the case for violent behavior, and she agreed with him. I rarely tune her in, and after hearing that show, I haven't been back. But it's that kind of rhetoric that contributes to the climate we have in our society today when six people are killed and a US congressperson is critically wounded.