Asheville NC has a "hip" image and this station seems to be successful, though it is on HD and has a low-power translator:
http://981theriver.com/
http://981theriver.com/
-
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
Format idea: Hot AC meets AAA?
- Thread starter tall_guy1
- Start date
That almost sounds a little like the KC variation of the "Jack" stations KCJK.
G
Groove1670
Guest
The bottom line, a mainstream format is going to generate more revenue than a niche format. If your unique format is rolling in the dough, you are an exception to the rule, and they are far and few cases out there.
Here is a good example of a loyal niche format that did not generate revenue according to the owner, however the format they switched to didn't fare much better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPijhecUHJg
On the other side of the debate:
I would of went to the paper and press and told everyone the fate of the format (polka) before I did a full switch and gave the listeners and advertisers the opportunity to save it. In a town that small the abrupt change probably did more damage.
Once again this approach has worked in a few case (more likely in smaller markets).
WELY was a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bkMCBM7Gto
a sidebar: the cases listed are over 25 years ago, and the radio market is much more difficult to survive in now.
Here is a good example of a loyal niche format that did not generate revenue according to the owner, however the format they switched to didn't fare much better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPijhecUHJg
On the other side of the debate:
I would of went to the paper and press and told everyone the fate of the format (polka) before I did a full switch and gave the listeners and advertisers the opportunity to save it. In a town that small the abrupt change probably did more damage.
Once again this approach has worked in a few case (more likely in smaller markets).
WELY was a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bkMCBM7Gto
a sidebar: the cases listed are over 25 years ago, and the radio market is much more difficult to survive in now.
Last edited by a moderator:
What all this says to me is that if you build a business strictly around a radio format, especially a niche format, you're going to need some other revenue stream besides the station. Because there won't be enough listeners to interest advertisers, and the listeners themselves won't pay for the station.
Yo Mission Hill guy, unless you were watching Mission Hill when you were eleven. . . you are not really all that young any more. Soon to be old. I am 35 and love that show. I was "young" 10 years ago. Now I am only 20 years away from the totally worthless demographic of 55 to dead.
No new radio formats. Most people younger than my old self listen to services like pandora almost all of the time.
Talk is radio's only real hope. Radio is dying. If you really were watching Mission Hill when you were eleven, please find something more productive and profitable to do than radio. . . or at least work on your talk show.
Just realized I turned 36 three months ago.
Good night now.
That guy is a talk show host.
Last edited:
Huh? Not sure what you're talking about. Talk radio in in trouble too. The reason is young people don't want to listen to someone else talk. They want to engage. They want to participate. Top down talk isn't interesting. It's a lecture, and we all know how stimulating that is.
What we see with Pandora is yes, young people use it. So do old people. They use it as a replacement for cassettes or mix CDs. They create their own stations with their personal favorites. But they ALSO listen to music radio to hear what else is going on. Music radio listening is at the same level among 25-35s as it was with those same ages 30 years ago, for the same reason. Perhaps a day will come when services like Pandora and Apple Music replace OTA radio, mainly because they're hiring former OTA people to recreate OTA radio on another platform. But the concept that what we know as radio is exploding.
Regarding formats, when people can create their own radio stations, they create their own formats. That's what Tall_Guy1 is doing. That's his list of personal favorites. What professionals do is look at thousands of personal lists and the streaming charts to find common songs. If there are millions of people who like a lot of the same songs, that can become the basis for a format. If there is commonality in the themes or instrumentation, that can become the basis for a format. It's all about finding consensus in something that is very personal and individual, which is taste in music. And when you find consensus, you have lots of people, and where you have lots of people, you have an opportunity for advertising. Advertisers are looking for efficient ways to reach lots of people, and OTA radio is still a very cheap and efficient way to do that.
Last edited:
G
Groove1670
Guest
Talk radio is losing share only because of the target demo, and a refusal to change with the times. It is still a viable format, but wont be unless it reinvents itself.
If you classify Hipsters as kids that have their own record collection (or Pandora list). Nothing has changed there. 30 years ago, I had my own CD, cassette collection. I also listened to the radio. As a music geek, I say it was half and half.
The challenge is to keep listeners engaged (and that is across all media platforms).
People respond better to audio or visual ad. How many times have you actually clicked on a digital banner.
Software developers are going to make it easier to block those pesky ads. Google, Apple, Firefox, have started doing this. Television has started putting more product placement in shows, and radio will do more NTR.
Radio just needs to be more creative, without losing the audience (which it has).
If you classify Hipsters as kids that have their own record collection (or Pandora list). Nothing has changed there. 30 years ago, I had my own CD, cassette collection. I also listened to the radio. As a music geek, I say it was half and half.
The challenge is to keep listeners engaged (and that is across all media platforms).
People respond better to audio or visual ad. How many times have you actually clicked on a digital banner.
Software developers are going to make it easier to block those pesky ads. Google, Apple, Firefox, have started doing this. Television has started putting more product placement in shows, and radio will do more NTR.
Radio just needs to be more creative, without losing the audience (which it has).
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on the target demo. For some, it's fine. For others, it's retirement age. And it also depends on what kind of talk you're (ahem) talking about. Because sports talk is very healthy.
Some stations are trying to reinvent themselves, but if they're on AM, it won't matter, because new listeners aren't sampling what's on AM anymore. So then it becomes the platform again. I'm not sure there is any format or host that will get modern digital-age listeners to put up with the audio quality (or lack of it) on AM.
G
Groove1670
Guest
Sports is a whole different animal. I wasn't going to get into the AM quality discussion. In a word.. done. (FM translators will save some in smaller/medium markets).
Now FM will deal with becoming a overcrowded mess, but it will give comfort those who feel basket weaving instruction should be a format.
Now FM will deal with becoming a overcrowded mess, but it will give comfort those who feel basket weaving instruction should be a format.
The strong will survive. At some point, even FM translators won't help bad formats. We all have access to a platform. Getting access isn't the issue any more. Getting the most people to pay attention is.
A good format is one that includes or attracts the most people of a certain target, and one that's flexible enough to adapt and change as tastes change. Ultimately that will determine if a particular format idea is practical or not.
Your both right. I said radio is dying, not dead. A condition we all suffer from. Talk has the best shot (sports, news, lifestyle, ect. and of course politics) to reinvent it's self and stay relevent. Pounding the listener with Rush clones won't work much longer. Anything could work, and no one should stop trying.
However if you own a AM station that isn't making much money, and somebody wants to buy it, sell it.
However if you own a AM station that isn't making much money, and somebody wants to buy it, sell it.
I think the listener will make that decision, and so far, they prefer seem to music.
The advantage to talk is you own it. You don't have to pay a rights fee. The disadvantage is it's a lot of work to build a talk host into a celebrity big enough to compete with a music star.
Not to mention that no one under about 60 is interested. Edit: I just thought of something else: Since it takes about five years to build a Talk audience, by that time, no one under about 65 will be interested!
Last edited:
It depends. If your hosts are in their 60s and only talk about subjects that appeal to people of their generation and they're on AM radio, you're right.
G
Groove1670
Guest
AM talk still does a fair job selling older demos Because of subject matter, many large advertisers have a mandate to not run in certain talk programs. They still manage to do well with non traditional advertisers.
Those businesses and vendors still realize that there is a potential of 12 to 15 million listeners. More than Fox, CNN and Msnbc combined.
Those businesses and vendors still realize that there is a potential of 12 to 15 million listeners. More than Fox, CNN and Msnbc combined.
It's still a time bomb.
Something that has not been pointed out about radio is the cross-section of the public reached. If you look at mere numbers, radio is a viable choice. If you look at TV, it has much higher 'time spent' than radio but when you look at the choices the numbers play out. If connected to Cable TV or satellite, the number of channels available is so large, the choices make it difficult to reach the numbers, at minimum in a metro, that outdo 'time spent' and number of listeners at a better rated radio station. The radio dial might have up to 100 choices but cable/satellite is in the hundreds and not everyone receives all those channels because of the package they choose or because they choose an option other than cable or satellite (similar to radio vs. online and personal music library). So, say what you will about radio, but it is affordable and has great reach compared to other media even when targeting a certain demographic. I don't even have to mention production costs or the speed that radio can change the message versus other media.
When a network only gets a few million viewers nationwide, how many does an advertiser reach in a metro? Radio, a station with decent ratings, can reach more people for less money and certainly less production costs.
For this reason, this is why radio, to maintain its edge, must be familiar and comfortable to potential listeners. The more that listen and listen longer, the better radio does. As a result, known music does that. When you play something the audience does not know, a deep cut, let's say, a percentage of listeners leave for another station and a percentage of listeners that want deep cuts don't like the choice and tune away. The result is you lose listeners on both ends. How many competitors are making money because of the listeners you chased off?
I'll give you an example why I never did 'two-fers' in classic rock: I personally respect but am not a fan of most Led Zepplin hits and Rush, while a great band, has a vocalist that drives me up the wall (apologies to Geddy). If I know I have 2 of their songs in a row on Tuesdays and hear either band, I punch to the next station. And those are familiar songs. I figure I have a better chance of keeping a listener that may not like a group if they know they will only hear one song, not two.
When a network only gets a few million viewers nationwide, how many does an advertiser reach in a metro? Radio, a station with decent ratings, can reach more people for less money and certainly less production costs.
For this reason, this is why radio, to maintain its edge, must be familiar and comfortable to potential listeners. The more that listen and listen longer, the better radio does. As a result, known music does that. When you play something the audience does not know, a deep cut, let's say, a percentage of listeners leave for another station and a percentage of listeners that want deep cuts don't like the choice and tune away. The result is you lose listeners on both ends. How many competitors are making money because of the listeners you chased off?
I'll give you an example why I never did 'two-fers' in classic rock: I personally respect but am not a fan of most Led Zepplin hits and Rush, while a great band, has a vocalist that drives me up the wall (apologies to Geddy). If I know I have 2 of their songs in a row on Tuesdays and hear either band, I punch to the next station. And those are familiar songs. I figure I have a better chance of keeping a listener that may not like a group if they know they will only hear one song, not two.
You are confusing cume with individual program ratings.
Some Fox shows get over 3,000,000 viewers for a single show run. The cume of Fox News is much greater.
G
Groove1670
Guest
Yes, correct Cume. As I said there is still a large market there for older demos. True or not, Rush claims 18 to 20 million listeners a week. You can solicit a lot of people for gold coins, adult scooters, and the coming economic crash (according to the ads).
FNC had 1.934 million viewers on average between 8 PM and 11 PM (March 2 – 8 2015)
Numbers are bigger for individual shows.
FNC had 1.934 million viewers on average between 8 PM and 11 PM (March 2 – 8 2015)
Numbers are bigger for individual shows.
- Status