My post was not a dig at you or any other posters on here. This is for someone who, as Kelly mentioned earlier, posted the exact same thread title and post word for word on the NYC forum, yet when someone who has actual experience or a strong knowledge of it, it’s immediately rebuffed.
-
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
For True Music Fans, FM Radio Sucks
- Thread starter jehoyle
- Start date
Yet 90% of all persons 18 and over use radio. Go figure.
Your math is worse than Trump's science.
(Note from 12 hours later: this post was the subject of a complaint. It was intended as a little levity based on the widely criticized and publicized remarks about administering antiseptic chemicals to people. That is why there was a wide-eyed, huge-grinning icon after it.
After all, isn't "tongue-in-cheek" better than "tongue-in-disinfectant"?)
Last edited:
No, I think your are overwhelmingly unaware.
The problem is not radio, yet you blame stations... or the lack of stations... for what is a music problem.
There have now been plenty of responses to what we call in Spanish "shoot and take cover". They all show different angles of the decline in the interest in rock as a function of age. Younger listeners, particularly those under 35 to 40, grew up in a rhythmic age which began decades ago; fewer and fewer are rock partisans.
And those smaller numbers who do like rock are more highly fragmented than ever. What a station plays to appeal to any one younger demo group will drive away other groups in the same age group.
All these points are about music, not radio. Radio only reflects taste... it generally does not create it. And, with the exception of older libraries that date back to the Abrams Superstars consulting days, there is not enough broadly popular newer music to sustain a station.
And the record labels have pretty much given up on the promotion of all but the few wider-popularity-artist releases.
So, fundamentally, you are shooting the messenger.
First I want to address the state of terrestrial radio (I will address the irrelevant "Trump's Science" remark that was posted in a previous poster's post later) and provide a BRIEF SUMMARY of why I (and many others) agree with the original poster's remark, despite his poor choice of wording it.
Keep in mind that what I'm about to say is coming from someone who likes, grew up with, assisted in AND STILL has interest in CHR rhythmic, urban, CHR top 40, hot AC, rhythmic AC, Churban, rhythmic oldies, regular A.C., News Talk and even some alternative radio. I am not preaching hard rock or dance or oldies or jazz or any other offensive genre here. Therefore, the typical "niche" or "age" or typical radio politics excuses cannot be used on me. I've experienced all the same ol' excuses from heritage "experts" who believe only one way of radio works on different radio boards over the past decade.
Forget about the actual music itself or the argument regarding how much pop or hip hop or all music in general has changed and degraded lyrically and quality-wise over time.
Pick ANY time of music from the last 3 decades and apply *today's* most typical programming styles to it and it would still be stale, uncreative and boring in comparison to how things used to be with many terrestrial radio stations, regardless of which generation of music is filled in.
There are still a few stations in the U.S. that know how to stay within their strict limitations, but still figure out a way to be more creative and spice up their programming or on air presentation *without* failing or becoming unprofitable.
Therefore, based on that already existing knowledge, I KNOW for a fact that it is possible for radio to be better than it currently is.
One thing that's funny to me is that a majority of the "experts" here seem to not know much, if anything, about DJ mixshows, certain types of specialty programs or even the music and/or artists and type of remixes that are featured in those shows (or don't even have much knowledge about any of the music on certain formats in general).
What is ironic that the programmers who are actually knowledgeable in those areas and understand how to utilize those things in a way that works tend to also have the most creatively interesting fun stations (especially in the mainstream rhythmic or pop, hip hop, hot AC and old school categories). They also know how to find and use DJs who are diverse with their skills and musical styles, but still know how to please the target demographic *without* only mixing ONE or two types of music. (Dj Baby Yu is an example, look him up on V103).
And that is just ONE example of a very simple way to creatively spice up an otherwise boring stale jukebox style programming (on stations that many people simply settle for or simply use for background noise after picking what they can tolerate due to lack of better choices).
And that is another thing I wish to address! Every expert claims that what is on mainstream radio is what people want to hear - because ratings and numbers say so. While radio today is indeed designed for a society of sheep who don't think for themselves and people have been mentally programmed to believe that this is what they should like, many people still only listen to what's available for basically a few reasons:
1. That is the only music they know because that is all that's fed to them.
2. Radio is still the easiest and fastest thing to simply turn on for noise when bored or when in a rush or when you don't understand modern technology or have no access to it or the net, etc.
3. They are unaware of other avenues or ways to find more of what they like (or discover new music).
4. They can't afford or don't wish to pay to listen to a radio station, but don't always want to or have time to hook up devices with similar music of their choice.
I'm sure there are other reasons I wanted to list when I originally thought about leaving my comment here, but I forgot them. However, I am sure you get the point.
Countless times, I heard from so many people (various ages but mostly late teen to upper middle aged), that they don't necessarily like the stations they listen to these days, but simply find a format with programming style and music they can tolerate, especially in the DC market.
Of course, whether or not people are tolerating or enjoying whatever popular station they programmed and tune in to out of habit, ratings will stay up, especially if there are limited choices.
But... If the experts know everything, then why am I hearing about Hot 99.5, one of the most boring, basic, bland CHRs in the biggest markets of the US, having problems with ratings (that actually reflect my opinion on the station)? And how are the experts who know everything having trouble formatting a CHR top 40 in an area - WITH NO DIRECT TOP 40 COMPETITION?!?
Is the new excuse going to be that "nobody (in a diverse market like DC) wants to hear top 40" as oppose to looking at and improving the delivery content, on air line up and programming of the station?
And that, again, is just ONE example. I haven't even touched on the lack of creativity in programming, specialty shows and mixshows on DC radio!
Not to mention the lack of diversity on stations! All the urban stations tend to seemingly have all or predominantly black on air staff presentation, then the rest of the formats seemingly all Caucasian or similar on air presentation. Where is the multicultural in between type of format with white, Hispanic, black, Asian and other races mixed up throughout the day - on ONE station?
Why isn't Hot 99.5 at least like that?
All this talk about how DC radio reflects the DC market and what people here want; So, I should conclude that DC is a racially segregated place? Are Phoenix or LA, etc. really more open minded and multicultural than DC? At least there you can find a variety of races presented throughout the day on air and some specialty mix shows from multicultural DJs who occasionally get creative with the music as oppose to sticking to one typical type of sound / style, ALL the time!
Not to mention more variety with the English / Spanish top 40 hits and different styles of music used in specialty shows in other market CHRs that are actually less diverse than DC!
Even Atlanta has Power 96.1, a station that features an ALL EDM / dance mix show on Saturday nights starting at 10 pm - and I doubt that Atlanta is *more* racially diverse than DC lol.
And, is it just me, or is there no station in the DC market that plays "she drives me crazy" by Fine Young Cannibals or "true faith" by New Order, etc. - In REGULAR rotation? But we have a classic hits format?
So, am I to conclude that DC just happens to have all the people who don't want to hear those songs? And bring up dance music and people take offense and complain, yet the classic hits station in DC actually plays 90s dance while dismissing certified non dance classic hits by Fine Young Cannibals or New Order?
Huh?
And what happened to Wash FM? They also can't play Fine Young Cannibals on a station specialized for 80s, 90s, 00s and today variety?
No, I am not here to attempt to change anyone's mind or convince the "experts" that terrestrial (U.S.) radio has become absolutely horrible, uncreative, bland, boring and even ridiculous. It has been expressed time and time again since the early days of radio discussion or radio info forums from both people inside and outside of the industry, but the same silly close minded answers full of factual inaccuracies are given from the "experts" to defend the lack of creativity and lack of innovation or excitement that was once more common in terrestrial radio.
Besides, how can I take anything the "experts" and others on this board say seriously when this is the same board with experts that tried to convince people 10 to 15 years ago that a top 40 station could *never work* in Atlanta, or where experts spend a lot of time listening to but complaining about and making dumb inaccurate remarks while bashing talk radio hosts in the Phoenix section, or the experts in Atlanta who referred to B98.5 and Star 94 as "Top 40 / CHRs" and call Hot 99.5 a "rhythmic station" etc.? And what about the experts who believed that Jan Jeffries style was the best programming style for Top 40 radio, especially in Atlanta?
Then, you have stations that were blatantly poorly programmed like DCs 107.3 or Atlanta's WiLD 96.7, where it eventually literally sounded like the programmers simply gave up on the stations either in beginning stages or near the end, leading them to fail, then claiming "nobody wanted to hear them."
How is it 2 or more PDs and MDs can have 2 or more different ideas on how to run a station of a same format in a same market, and all versions of programming are many times successful, yet the experts still believe there is only ONE way that works?
Do the experts really know everything here? And if so, why was I the only one who knew a launch of a rhythmic AC after 10 years of no official rhythmic or top 40 in Atlanta would fail while the experts thought the short lived attempt was a brilliant idea?
BOTTOM LINE:
All I know, which has been proven since some stations are actually successfully doing it, is that there is, indeed, a way for terrestrial radio stations to spice things up and be more creative, regardless of all the radio politics crap people use as an excuse to suck and ridicule those who desire creativity and innovation.
Lack of creativity and passion, or lack of knowledge about the type of thing(s) that can spice up a bland, boring station is a choice, not a requirement.
Regardless of whether or not radio is just a messenger, the choice to deliver the "message" / content in an innovative, fun, creative and interesting way versus a boring, bland, uncreative way is an option that can work, especially on more modern popular music formats, in nearly any market.
Keep in mind that I only introduced a FEW of the MANY ways stations that actually have passionate people working for them could spice up their station WITHOUT necessarily changing the music. (Some CHRs in this nation are actually doing nonstop DJ mixes and other creative things during the current pandemic quarantine time!)
Lets stop being close minded and be more innovative! This can easily be done without having to change the type of songs that are currently being played in regular rotation on a particular format today.
Keep in mind that what I'm about to say is coming from someone who likes, grew up with, assisted in AND STILL has interest in CHR rhythmic, urban, CHR top 40, hot AC, rhythmic AC, Churban, rhythmic oldies, regular A.C., News Talk and even some alternative radio. I am not preaching hard rock or dance or oldies or jazz or any other offensive genre here. Therefore, the typical "niche" or "age" or typical radio politics excuses cannot be used on me. I've experienced all the same ol' excuses from heritage "experts" who believe only one way of radio works on different radio boards over the past decade.
Forget about the actual music itself or the argument regarding how much pop or hip hop or all music in general has changed and degraded lyrically and quality-wise over time.
Pick ANY time of music from the last 3 decades and apply *today's* most typical programming styles to it and it would still be stale, uncreative and boring in comparison to how things used to be with many terrestrial radio stations, regardless of which generation of music is filled in.
There are still a few stations in the U.S. that know how to stay within their strict limitations, but still figure out a way to be more creative and spice up their programming or on air presentation *without* failing or becoming unprofitable.
Therefore, based on that already existing knowledge, I KNOW for a fact that it is possible for radio to be better than it currently is.
One thing that's funny to me is that a majority of the "experts" here seem to not know much, if anything, about DJ mixshows, certain types of specialty programs or even the music and/or artists and type of remixes that are featured in those shows (or don't even have much knowledge about any of the music on certain formats in general).
What is ironic that the programmers who are actually knowledgeable in those areas and understand how to utilize those things in a way that works tend to also have the most creatively interesting fun stations (especially in the mainstream rhythmic or pop, hip hop, hot AC and old school categories). They also know how to find and use DJs who are diverse with their skills and musical styles, but still know how to please the target demographic *without* only mixing ONE or two types of music. (Dj Baby Yu is an example, look him up on V103).
And that is just ONE example of a very simple way to creatively spice up an otherwise boring stale jukebox style programming (on stations that many people simply settle for or simply use for background noise after picking what they can tolerate due to lack of better choices).
And that is another thing I wish to address! Every expert claims that what is on mainstream radio is what people want to hear - because ratings and numbers say so. While radio today is indeed designed for a society of sheep who don't think for themselves and people have been mentally programmed to believe that this is what they should like, many people still only listen to what's available for basically a few reasons:
1. That is the only music they know because that is all that's fed to them.
2. Radio is still the easiest and fastest thing to simply turn on for noise when bored or when in a rush or when you don't understand modern technology or have no access to it or the net, etc.
3. They are unaware of other avenues or ways to find more of what they like (or discover new music).
4. They can't afford or don't wish to pay to listen to a radio station, but don't always want to or have time to hook up devices with similar music of their choice.
I'm sure there are other reasons I wanted to list when I originally thought about leaving my comment here, but I forgot them. However, I am sure you get the point.
Countless times, I heard from so many people (various ages but mostly late teen to upper middle aged), that they don't necessarily like the stations they listen to these days, but simply find a format with programming style and music they can tolerate, especially in the DC market.
Of course, whether or not people are tolerating or enjoying whatever popular station they programmed and tune in to out of habit, ratings will stay up, especially if there are limited choices.
But... If the experts know everything, then why am I hearing about Hot 99.5, one of the most boring, basic, bland CHRs in the biggest markets of the US, having problems with ratings (that actually reflect my opinion on the station)? And how are the experts who know everything having trouble formatting a CHR top 40 in an area - WITH NO DIRECT TOP 40 COMPETITION?!?
Is the new excuse going to be that "nobody (in a diverse market like DC) wants to hear top 40" as oppose to looking at and improving the delivery content, on air line up and programming of the station?
And that, again, is just ONE example. I haven't even touched on the lack of creativity in programming, specialty shows and mixshows on DC radio!
Not to mention the lack of diversity on stations! All the urban stations tend to seemingly have all or predominantly black on air staff presentation, then the rest of the formats seemingly all Caucasian or similar on air presentation. Where is the multicultural in between type of format with white, Hispanic, black, Asian and other races mixed up throughout the day - on ONE station?
Why isn't Hot 99.5 at least like that?
All this talk about how DC radio reflects the DC market and what people here want; So, I should conclude that DC is a racially segregated place? Are Phoenix or LA, etc. really more open minded and multicultural than DC? At least there you can find a variety of races presented throughout the day on air and some specialty mix shows from multicultural DJs who occasionally get creative with the music as oppose to sticking to one typical type of sound / style, ALL the time!
Not to mention more variety with the English / Spanish top 40 hits and different styles of music used in specialty shows in other market CHRs that are actually less diverse than DC!
Even Atlanta has Power 96.1, a station that features an ALL EDM / dance mix show on Saturday nights starting at 10 pm - and I doubt that Atlanta is *more* racially diverse than DC lol.
And, is it just me, or is there no station in the DC market that plays "she drives me crazy" by Fine Young Cannibals or "true faith" by New Order, etc. - In REGULAR rotation? But we have a classic hits format?
So, am I to conclude that DC just happens to have all the people who don't want to hear those songs? And bring up dance music and people take offense and complain, yet the classic hits station in DC actually plays 90s dance while dismissing certified non dance classic hits by Fine Young Cannibals or New Order?
Huh?
And what happened to Wash FM? They also can't play Fine Young Cannibals on a station specialized for 80s, 90s, 00s and today variety?
No, I am not here to attempt to change anyone's mind or convince the "experts" that terrestrial (U.S.) radio has become absolutely horrible, uncreative, bland, boring and even ridiculous. It has been expressed time and time again since the early days of radio discussion or radio info forums from both people inside and outside of the industry, but the same silly close minded answers full of factual inaccuracies are given from the "experts" to defend the lack of creativity and lack of innovation or excitement that was once more common in terrestrial radio.
Besides, how can I take anything the "experts" and others on this board say seriously when this is the same board with experts that tried to convince people 10 to 15 years ago that a top 40 station could *never work* in Atlanta, or where experts spend a lot of time listening to but complaining about and making dumb inaccurate remarks while bashing talk radio hosts in the Phoenix section, or the experts in Atlanta who referred to B98.5 and Star 94 as "Top 40 / CHRs" and call Hot 99.5 a "rhythmic station" etc.? And what about the experts who believed that Jan Jeffries style was the best programming style for Top 40 radio, especially in Atlanta?
Then, you have stations that were blatantly poorly programmed like DCs 107.3 or Atlanta's WiLD 96.7, where it eventually literally sounded like the programmers simply gave up on the stations either in beginning stages or near the end, leading them to fail, then claiming "nobody wanted to hear them."
How is it 2 or more PDs and MDs can have 2 or more different ideas on how to run a station of a same format in a same market, and all versions of programming are many times successful, yet the experts still believe there is only ONE way that works?
Do the experts really know everything here? And if so, why was I the only one who knew a launch of a rhythmic AC after 10 years of no official rhythmic or top 40 in Atlanta would fail while the experts thought the short lived attempt was a brilliant idea?
BOTTOM LINE:
All I know, which has been proven since some stations are actually successfully doing it, is that there is, indeed, a way for terrestrial radio stations to spice things up and be more creative, regardless of all the radio politics crap people use as an excuse to suck and ridicule those who desire creativity and innovation.
Lack of creativity and passion, or lack of knowledge about the type of thing(s) that can spice up a bland, boring station is a choice, not a requirement.
Regardless of whether or not radio is just a messenger, the choice to deliver the "message" / content in an innovative, fun, creative and interesting way versus a boring, bland, uncreative way is an option that can work, especially on more modern popular music formats, in nearly any market.
Keep in mind that I only introduced a FEW of the MANY ways stations that actually have passionate people working for them could spice up their station WITHOUT necessarily changing the music. (Some CHRs in this nation are actually doing nonstop DJ mixes and other creative things during the current pandemic quarantine time!)
Lets stop being close minded and be more innovative! This can easily be done without having to change the type of songs that are currently being played in regular rotation on a particular format today.
Did you use the word "brief" in your post? Do you know what "brief" means? It ain't underwear.
For a first post -- in fact, for any post -- you've got to admit it was well written and not troll-ish in the least. Hardly the stuff of one-post wonders. Do you plan to address her many excellent points?
I love your comments Jessi Kennedy. I have been getting a paycheck in radio since 1978. You have spent some time and colored the words with your passion for radio. Thank you.
I'm still passionate about radio. I still think "I can't believe I get paid to do this". I've been in small markets and in one major market. My route went from jocking to programming, then to sales and management. I opted to go back to a small market to do sales (it's just fun dealing one on one with people).
I'll share what I have seen and what I have felt as well. I've worked for some people labeled tyrants but it was rare for them to show that side to me. The all wanted a station that performed well and frankly the very best it could. Like most professions when hired to create something, you start with the basics. You are conservative in what you do until to fully understand your market. Any uniqueness us well within the lines. If you get outside the lines, your boss is going to yell and look for failure, no matter how insignificant because your 'chance taking' buts his performance at risk too.
I had one General Manager tell me this: He said he was not a gunslinger. He said he wasn't the guy that challenged things because those challenges became greater and greater over time. Like the gunfighter, everybody that challenges you knows your style, has studied you and ready to one-up you. Every challenge you beat, the harder it gets. Eventually you reach your peak. The GM simply was trying to tell me it is better to not be the guy everyone wants but rather the guy that knows what he is doing and the guy that always has another trick in his back pocket because he never reveals himself to be all he is.
I recall at one point the news director wanted the GM to allocate another part-time news person. He was told to hang in there and give it 6 months to a year. The GM wanted to be sure the current position of the station could be maintained to support the added cost. He got his news person and 7 months later. That jived with the GM's other remark I remember very well: in business you always show forward motion. A step back is failure. You want to always move forward in good times and bad. The way to do that is to hold back in good times to make sure you can survive the bad times without taking a step back.
This neither addresses programming or your comments but it does share the mindset and outside influences that may affect programmers.
As for me, I always felt the stations I worked for could all do better. In a way, I think that's a symptom of the passion one has for radio. The truth be told, had I been in the position, there would be things I could do to make the station better but I was just holding those cards for when it was the right time to play them.
I'm still passionate about radio. I still think "I can't believe I get paid to do this". I've been in small markets and in one major market. My route went from jocking to programming, then to sales and management. I opted to go back to a small market to do sales (it's just fun dealing one on one with people).
I'll share what I have seen and what I have felt as well. I've worked for some people labeled tyrants but it was rare for them to show that side to me. The all wanted a station that performed well and frankly the very best it could. Like most professions when hired to create something, you start with the basics. You are conservative in what you do until to fully understand your market. Any uniqueness us well within the lines. If you get outside the lines, your boss is going to yell and look for failure, no matter how insignificant because your 'chance taking' buts his performance at risk too.
I had one General Manager tell me this: He said he was not a gunslinger. He said he wasn't the guy that challenged things because those challenges became greater and greater over time. Like the gunfighter, everybody that challenges you knows your style, has studied you and ready to one-up you. Every challenge you beat, the harder it gets. Eventually you reach your peak. The GM simply was trying to tell me it is better to not be the guy everyone wants but rather the guy that knows what he is doing and the guy that always has another trick in his back pocket because he never reveals himself to be all he is.
I recall at one point the news director wanted the GM to allocate another part-time news person. He was told to hang in there and give it 6 months to a year. The GM wanted to be sure the current position of the station could be maintained to support the added cost. He got his news person and 7 months later. That jived with the GM's other remark I remember very well: in business you always show forward motion. A step back is failure. You want to always move forward in good times and bad. The way to do that is to hold back in good times to make sure you can survive the bad times without taking a step back.
This neither addresses programming or your comments but it does share the mindset and outside influences that may affect programmers.
As for me, I always felt the stations I worked for could all do better. In a way, I think that's a symptom of the passion one has for radio. The truth be told, had I been in the position, there would be things I could do to make the station better but I was just holding those cards for when it was the right time to play them.
No, I'll wait for the abridged version.
Yet you posted on another forum that the latest ratings suggest that about 3% are listening to radio in NYC. Go figure yourself. :[
Last edited:
There are a number of publicly accessible documents about ratings terminology available online at the Nielsen website. You'd likely understand the data with a quick review of them.
About 90% of all persons in US rated markets listen to radio weekly, both in the PPM and diary method surveys. That means that at some point during a week they heard a quarter hour of radio programming at minimum.
At any given time, not all radio users are listening. More listen in drive times than evenings. More listen during the work week than on weekends. But the average, non-virus era listening is now around 9% based on the 128 hour 6 AM to Midnight 7-day-a-week average.
It's lower in NYC because so few people use cars there compared to all other rated markets.
And in the last few weeks, listening has been much lower because so many less people are using their cars.
Total listening at least once a week is called "cume" from the term "cumulative" which means "additative"... all the people who listen at least once to a station... or, overall, to radio.
"Share" is the average percentage of radio listeners tuned to each station over a particular time period.
A station may have 1,000,000 cume but they don't listen all day. So the ratings also give AQH or Average Quarter Hour Persons... the number, on average, that are listening at any one time.
"Rating" is the percentage of all people listening at a given period. "Rating" is less than a tenth of share.
Rating, Share and AQH Persons are all the same thing, expressed as a percentage of all people, percentage of only radio listeners and an estimate of the actual number of persons listening on average.
Last edited:
You are making a number of typical "outsider" observations that are not based on facts.
Most major market stations of any significance do considerable research on a song by song basis for their libraries. They also do research on perceptions of the station itself and its style and texture. That's a deep subject, so suffice to just say that stations ask listeners about their programming and music.
An idea of what stations do when there is no epidemic: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/research_station_based.htm (Note: much of this is now done online but the concept is the same).
Is Picasso better than Can Gogh? It's a matter of taste, of course. Same with programming style. Every good PD has their own set of radio values, and there are, over the years, thousands of examples of different approaches to the same format winning in specific situations. Again, the product is determined by listener feedback.
I've worked with many programmers, and find that there is no "correct answer" to the art. There are many ways to do a station, in mechanics, in texture, in presentation, in promotion, in personality... and there are lots of ways to achieve the same goal with very different sounding stations.
The problems of the last decade or so have to do with radio being a one-to-many medium, with many people wanting a one-to-me service. So radio has to seek a common denominator, while many listeners want personal playlists and songs on demand.
I can't address all your observations, but I will take on one of them but first a caveat: each market is different. The competitive array is not the same in every market, and the ethnic composition and permanency in a metro are different. Even things like climate can have an effect. So comparing two markets has to take many other factors beyond song selection into consideration.
My comment on mix shows is that some stations have legal restrictions based on corporate policy on un-approved and un-researched songs. Since payola and other practices are license-threatening it's often not well liked to have mix shows done by outside talents (like club jocks) where there is no research and no way to determine the reasons for playing songs. Personally, I find that restrictive and the screening should not be of the songs but of the mixer themselves... if a mixer is know to be very good, sign a statement about payola and let the person do their thing. But doing that in groups with hundreds of stations is indeed risky. And in the case of smaller stations and small owners, the risk is greater than the company could economically bear. In other words, this is all about our highly regulated society and its costs.
Does this make for the best radio? Probably not. But it is a consideration given the legal issues involved.
97 Underground came from that WHVY use to be a 10 watt class D station in Baltimore at 96.7, then owned by Essex College (today CCBC Essex Campus). It signed off then the group bought 103.1, which up until that point had been "Bay Country".
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-03-22-1991081082-story.html
Another exception to the generalization that "hard rock doesn't work" would be San Diego's KIOZ. It's been hard rock for 20+ years, first on 102.1, then on 105.3. A much longer run than KNAC.
Why do I have the feeling a recitation of underperforming advertising numbers is upcoming by our resident authority on all things ratings/share/demographics/ad revenue?
No recitation needed. The question is how many hard rocking stations exist at the moment in commercial radio. We can both agree radio chases dollars. The formats chosen are all designed to produce money. The popularity is directly related to how much money they can produce. If there are a bunch in the format, it's a moneymaker. If not, usually there are easier routes to profit. As a former GM reporting directly to the owner, the owner could care less what we programmed so long as we covered our expenses and better yet, produced a little profit. Don't misunderstand that I don't realize you must reach the masses to get the most money coming in. In general, the stations with the most listeners make the most money.
Actually, in Baltimore the rock station, WIYY, seems to do quite well at 5.4. A Classic rocker pulls a 4.2. But that's including the entire metro radio market.
I'm surprised rock radio does as well as it does nationwide. The music itself isn't as popular as it was two decades ago, but apparently it still has an audience.
- Status