GOOD TIMES Magazine on CBS FM Flip

[KevinFodor]

I mean, really, this is an entertainment choice, a casual thing for the public, not the regents exam, for goodness sake,,,
I just don't believe that anything people say in these tests has any bearing on their actual wants or habits...
it's a self perpetuating cash flow for those who have a vested financial interest in keeping this party going while the radio and record business falls further and further into disrepair...

Geez...is that why the station's that do this research tend to be market leaders, while those who don't, aren't?

 

[KevinFodor]

I said "before corporate interests took complete control";
which came to fruition in the mid 80s(totally corporate run radio), and the result is that there hasn't been an amazing radio station in the past 20 years, the last that I recall was the early days version of Z100,which WAS run by Shannon's ears at the beginning, as a writer for The Island Ear and NY Nightlife Magazine, I was the first to greet, write about, and spend some time at the original Z, before it went from 'worst to first', and it was a thing of beauty to behold; having Michael Ellis and a young Frankie Blue around didn't hurt, either....

I'm sure it was a lot of fun to watch from the sidelines. But, if you didn't work there, you don't actually know if Scott used music research at Z100. It's not something they would have talked about. It wouldn't fit the bad boy image Shannon has crafted over the years. Just as good programmers today use research and their "ears," major market stations in many formats were using music research extensively by the mid-80's. I'll bet Malrite & Z100 used the evil music research, too.

Every successful large or major maket radio station utilizes research to one degree or another.

Whether it is callout research, auditorium music tests or internet music testing, they all do it.

I worked for CHR stations in the 1980's...we had an entire part-time staff of people who manned the telephones for 3 hours a night, 4 nights a week doing call outs. That was in Dayton, Ohio. (Hardly a "major" market). If we were doing it, you can bet the farm New York was doing it, too...if not more.

What is it going to take for we broadcast professionals to convince you folks that there really is a reason why we do the things we do? Some of you people amaze me at the depth of your total misunderstanding of what goes on inside a radio station. Investigate it, please...then offer your opinions. Much of what has been said on this board is uneducated, uninformed, total nonsense...with a dose of paranoia to boot.

By the way, I do not intend to imply the comments above were indicative of what I said here. But, when I read about how this is all due to "corporate radio", or "conspiracies from big business"...excuse me, but I want to puke. I would bet none of the people saying these things have ever worked in a radio station (at least not in a larger market).

Yes, it's entertainment. And, yes...there is a part of this business that relies on gut instinct. But, you don't go into a board meeting at Proctor And Gamble telling the board of directors your "gut" tells you to do something. You show evidence that backs up your gut instinct. That's what the research does.

Oh and, yes...you do occasionally find a "n'er do well" at a music test who's trying to screw up your results. What do you do? You delete his/her scores from the panel... What some of you don't understand is that radio station people are often watching what goes on inside these tests. You just don't know who they are or where they are.

 

[adma]

I mean, really, this is an entertainment choice, a casual thing for the public, not the regents exam, for goodness sake,,,
I just don't believe that anything people say in these tests has any bearing on their actual wants or habits...
it's a self perpetuating cash flow for those who have a vested financial interest in keeping this party going while the radio and record business falls further and further into disrepair...

So, you're saying that the hundreds of programmers and radio managers that use music testing are so ignorant of the enlightened perspective and knowledge that you have, that they continue to blunder on in this fraud? If you ran a radio station how would you go about determining what the listeners wanted to hear? Would you play what you guessed they wanted to hear? Or is it just obvious, based on your intrinsic feel for the "actual wants or habits" of your audience? If your gut is that good, you should quit writing for the dying medium of print and get yourself a 6 figure job with a media in disrepair.

If print is dying, why are we reading so much of it on-line?;-)

But, listen. Everybody. Especially you who are prone to criticizing music programming logic, music testing, et al.

Get away from your idee fixe of music radio for a second. And shift your attention to...talk radio.

Then shift back to music radio. Consider...maybe there's a parallel programming mentality?

Does conservative talk, the *overwhelming* prevalence of conservative and shock-talk, bother you? Appall you? Does it strike you as an inconceivably ugly alternate universe? (Presuming that those who criticize music radio are more likely to think so.)

Well, to the radio industry, it's a sign of successful programming. It's popular. It gets ratings. It brings in ad bux. It gives the listeners what they want. As for liberal talk, Air America, etc, the ratings prove that that's *not* what the listeners want. (Key word: "listener". If you don't like it, don't listen, and don't waste your breath griping.)

Consider that. Perhaps that's the cultural mentality you're working against. If you find it inconceivably callous, well..."that's your problem".

I guess it's like a wife dealing with an abusive jerk of a husband. Even if she's a success post-divorce, he'll still figure out some way to brand her a "failure" or "loser"...

What is it going to take for we broadcast professionals to convince you folks that there really is a reason why we do the things we do? Some of you people amaze me at the depth of your total misunderstanding of what goes on inside a radio station. Investigate it, please...then offer your opinions. Much of what has been said on this board is uneducated, uninformed, total nonsense...with a dose of paranoia to boot.

Does the above answer your question?

 

[KevinFodor]

I mean, really, this is an entertainment choice, a casual thing for the public, not the regents exam, for goodness sake,,,
I just don't believe that anything people say in these tests has any bearing on their actual wants or habits...
it's a self perpetuating cash flow for those who have a vested financial interest in keeping this party going while the radio and record business falls further and further into disrepair...

So, you're saying that the hundreds of programmers and radio managers that use music testing are so ignorant of the enlightened perspective and knowledge that you have, that they continue to blunder on in this fraud? If you ran a radio station how would you go about determining what the listeners wanted to hear? Would you play what you guessed they wanted to hear? Or is it just obvious, based on your intrinsic feel for the "actual wants or habits" of your audience? If your gut is that good, you should quit writing for the dying medium of print and get yourself a 6 figure job with a media in disrepair.

If print is dying, why are we reading so much of it on-line?;-)

But, listen. Everybody. Especially you who are prone to criticizing music programming logic, music testing, et al.

Get away from your idee fixe of music radio for a second. And shift your attention to...talk radio.

Then shift back to music radio. Consider...maybe there's a parallel programming mentality?

Does conservative talk, the *overwhelming* prevalence of conservative and shock-talk, bother you? Appall you? Does it strike you as an inconceivably ugly alternate universe? (Presuming that those who criticize music radio are more likely to think so.)

Well, to the radio industry, it's a sign of successful programming. It's popular. It gets ratings. It brings in ad bux. It gives the listeners what they want. As for liberal talk, Air America, etc, the ratings prove that that's *not* what the listeners want. (Key word: "listener". If you don't like it, don't listen, and don't waste your breath griping.)

Consider that. Perhaps that's the cultural mentality you're working against. If you find it inconceivably callous, well..."that's your problem".

I guess it's like a wife dealing with an abusive jerk of a husband. Even if she's a success post-divorce, he'll still figure out some way to brand her a "failure" or "loser"...

What is it going to take for we broadcast professionals to convince you folks that there really is a reason why we do the things we do? Some of you people amaze me at the depth of your total misunderstanding of what goes on inside a radio station. Investigate it, please...then offer your opinions. Much of what has been said on this board is uneducated, uninformed, total nonsense...with a dose of paranoia to boot.

Does the above answer your question?

Air America failed because it was run by idealogues...for idealogues. Not run by professionals who understood that
you had to entertain to succeed...and that content is king.

People say it failed because it was on "bad sticks" with "poor coverage". Rush Limbaugh got ratings on those bad sticks.
Not what he gets on, say...WABC...but ratings that proved to the WABC's of the world of his potential. Air America did not do this. And that's why it failed (as 1.0).

I'm sorry...but I will not apologize for the fact that radio is ratings driven and is a business If you are in advertising, you understand this.

We're in business. And, yes...if someone can't figure that out, "that's their problem".

And, while I do apologize for my level of frustration with some people here, I stand by my opinions.

 

[davideduardo]

their reseach was the same as wABC AM, in the days before Soundscan; they actually paid attention to singles and albums sales from reporting stores(I was one of them, being in retail at the time as well)

That method died when you could no longer determine which audience group was driving sales. In the 60's, you had Top 40 stations, MOR stations and a few ethnic stations. You know which group was moving sales. Today, with the extreme fragmentation of formats, you have to contact actual listeners and find out what they like.

the research guys would have NEVER cleared many of the records that Z broke in the NY area back then, based on club play and actual sales, genuine heat from the street, not some lecture hall...

How many times do you need to be told that staitons do not test songs before playing them? The consensus is that you can get valid results testing after between 100 and 120 plays on the air, but not before.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh and, yes...you do occasionally find a "n'er do well" at a music test who's trying to screw up your results. What do you do? You delete his/her scores from the panel... What some of you don't understand is that radio station people are often watching what goes on inside these tests. You just don't know who they are or where they are.

Good point, also not recognized by those who have never done a music test.

The better tests in my very biased opinion are done with electronic dials now. This allows discreet monitoring of every respondent. Then, after the data is collected, it is inspected in what we call "data cleansing" where anyone who got in who did not meet the recruit specifications is blown out, and anyone who did not move the dial is eliminated, too. Every respondent is checked, and missed reads (reads are taken in the last second of each song) are replaced with the score with the one from one second prior... and so on.

This way "bad recruits" or liars are eliminated (someone who came to make the $75 when their friend could not come, etc) and you have a few people less but a good test. If there is a recruit imbalance, like too many women, we can generate a random number table and knock out the excess. This is why we generally over-recruit by about 15%.

 

[adma]

Air America failed because it was run by idealogues...for idealogues. Not run by professionals who understood that
you had to entertain to succeed...and that content is king.

People say it failed because it was on "bad sticks" with "poor coverage". Rush Limbaugh got ratings on those bad sticks.
Not what he gets on, say...WABC...but ratings that proved to the WABC's of the world of his potential. Air America did not do this. And that's why it failed (as 1.0).

I'm sorry...but I will not apologize for the fact that radio is ratings driven and is a business If you are in advertising, you understand this.

We're in business. And, yes...if someone can't figure that out, "that's their problem".

And, while I do apologize for my level of frustration with some people here, I stand by my opinions.

I do agree that a problem with Air America is that it's too self-conscious in its contrarian approach to "entertaining"...but more to the point may be that its target demo just isn't that hyperactively drawn to this kind of "entertainment". The net effect is awkward, like left-wingers in right-winger drag.

You're in business; but there are any number of ways to conduct a business. And I hate to say it, but the fact that you're defending Rush Limbaugh *at all* in the name of "business" or "entertainment" is enough to fatally tar you in the eyes of, well, the critics I'm inferring. In which case, speaking on behalf of the radio industry is down there with speaking on behalf of the used car dealer industry, the payday loan industry, etc. Sure, it's a business, you're making money, but...

And I'm not speaking on behalf of myself per se. I'm just reminding those who naively question issues re, say, oldies/classic hits/WCBS programming and why radio pros say what they do (JUST to get things back on topic)--just look at the bigger industry picture. Like, if something bothers you about your spouse, just look at his/her bigger life picture, family, etc. In a way, I'm doing *you* (the industry) a favour, by giving radio haters and puzzled-bys a solider excuse to say "good riddance".

Hey, if we're to blithely excuse things as "entertaining", just to strategically violate Godwin here, Hitler was an absolute master of the art.*

*Though I don't mean that simply as a Godwin-baiting cheap-shot; after all anyone from political scientists to Riefenstahl-besotted filmmakers have drawn surprisingly positive lessons from Hitler's methods, even if they're politically quite opposite. Maybe the problem with the Limbaugh crowd is that they're too lunk-headedly uncouth, or philistine, or just plain fearful-by-association, to see beyond the Godwin...

 

[Grindlfan]

Mr. Eduardo, out of curiosity, at what station are you the PD or MD and does it have live streaming capability? I would be very interested in listening to what you've put together. Seriously.

 

[adma]

Good point, also not recognized by those who have never done a music test.

The better tests in my very biased opinion are done with electronic dials now. This allows discreet monitoring of every respondent. Then, after the data is collected, it is inspected in what we call "data cleansing" where anyone who got in who did not meet the recruit specifications is blown out, and anyone who did not move the dial is eliminated, too. Every respondent is checked, and missed reads (reads are taken in the last second of each song) are replaced with the score with the one from one second prior... and so on.

This way "bad recruits" or liars are eliminated (someone who came to make the $75 when their friend could not come, etc) and you have a few people less but a good test. If there is a recruit imbalance, like too many women, we can generate a random number table and knock out the excess. This is why we generally over-recruit by about 15%.

Somehow, the term "data cleansing" reminds me of the term "ethnic cleansing", and it's not just me, I'll bet.

And to those who question the process, there's also some question as to what constitutes a "bad recruit"--sure, it might be a drunkard, but it might also be, at the other end of the scale, someone who "knows too much".

Methinks a lot of those who criticize music tests, might not qualify for music tests if asked...

 

[davideduardo]

Somehow, the term "data cleansing" reminds me of the term "ethnic cleansing", and it's not just me, I'll bet.

It's the standard research term for getting extraneous data out of any collection of data.

And to those who question the process, there's also some question as to what constitutes a "bad recruit"--sure, it might be a drunkard, but it might also be, at the other end of the scale, someone who "knows too much".

A recruit might be something like this

Ages 25-44
60% women 40% men
66% P1s for music
33% P2s for music
Listen minimum of 10 hours a week for P1 and 6 hours for P2.
No more than 25% of the P2s can be P1 to any single station.

If someone shows up who is not as recruited, they should be booted at the door by the recruiting company. If they get in, they are booted via cleansing.

Methinks a lot of those who criticize music tests, might not qualify for music tests if asked...

The objective is to get research friendly listeners, as they would be the same kind of listener who would also participate in an Arbitron survey.

Since you only need 100 listeners, the chances of finding a radio groupie are minimal.

 

[KevinFodor]

Air America failed because it was run by idealogues...for idealogues. Not run by professionals who understood that
you had to entertain to succeed...and that content is king.

People say it failed because it was on "bad sticks" with "poor coverage". Rush Limbaugh got ratings on those bad sticks.
Not what he gets on, say...WABC...but ratings that proved to the WABC's of the world of his potential. Air America did not do this. And that's why it failed (as 1.0).

I'm sorry...but I will not apologize for the fact that radio is ratings driven and is a business If you are in advertising, you understand this.

We're in business. And, yes...if someone can't figure that out, "that's their problem".

And, while I do apologize for my level of frustration with some people here, I stand by my opinions.

I do agree that a problem with Air America is that it's too self-conscious in its contrarian approach to "entertaining"...but more to the point may be that its target demo just isn't that hyperactively drawn to this kind of "entertainment". The net effect is awkward, like left-wingers in right-winger drag.

You're in business; but there are any number of ways to conduct a business. And I hate to say it, but the fact that you're defending Rush Limbaugh *at all* in the name of "business" or "entertainment" is enough to fatally tar you in the eyes of, well, the critics I'm inferring. In which case, speaking on behalf of the radio industry is down there with speaking on behalf of the used car dealer industry, the payday loan industry, etc. Sure, it's a business, you're making money, but...

And I'm not speaking on behalf of myself per se. I'm just reminding those who naively question issues re, say, oldies/classic hits/WCBS programming and why radio pros say what they do (JUST to get things back on topic)--just look at the bigger industry picture. Like, if something bothers you about your spouse, just look at his/her bigger life picture, family, etc. In a way, I'm doing *you* (the industry) a favour, by giving radio haters and puzzled-bys a solider excuse to say "good riddance".

Hey, if we're to blithely excuse things as "entertaining", just to strategically violate Godwin here, Hitler was an absolute master of the art.*

*Though I don't mean that simply as a Godwin-baiting cheap-shot; after all anyone from political scientists to Riefenstahl-besotted filmmakers have drawn surprisingly positive lessons from Hitler's methods, even if they're politically quite opposite. Maybe the problem with the Limbaugh crowd is that they're too lunk-headedly uncouth, or philistine, or just plain fearful-by-association, to see beyond the Godwin...

If you are going to stand here and claim that Rush Limbaugh has not been a success, you (and the critics you infer) are clouding your opinions with your own political biases. I am speaking fact here, not opinion. It's OK by me if you don't think Rush is entertaining...his audience figures over a 20 year period speak otherwise. Obviously, a whole bunch of "somebodies" think he is. And, if you actually listened to his show, you'd hear some very articulate, very well educated people, along with your "uncouth phillistines". They just don't believe what you, apparently, may believe, or not.

And you know what? Yeah...some people (predominantly in their 50's and 60's) will not like the new WCBS-FM, and may choose to leave to their XM, their CD's players, their i-Pod's etc. But, those are the listeners advertisers do not seek out.
Radio will not lose a dollar of advertising if those people choose to tune elsewhere.

Remember...it's a business.

 

[adma]

If you are going to stand here and claim that Rush Limbaugh has not been a success, you (and the critics you infer) are clouding your opinions with your own political biases. I am speaking fact here, not opinion. It's OK by me if you don't think Rush is entertaining...his audience figures over a 20 year period speak otherwise. Obviously, a whole bunch of "somebodies" think he is. And, if you actually listened to his show, you'd hear some very articulate, very well educated people, along with your "uncouth phillistines". They just don't believe what you, apparently, may believe, or not.

And you know what? Yeah...some people (predominantly in their 50's and 60's) will not like the new WCBS-FM, and may choose to leave to their XM, their CD's players, their i-Pod's etc. But, those are the listeners advertisers do not seek out.
Radio will not lose a dollar of advertising if those people choose to tune elsewhere.

Remember...it's a business.

But I think we're dealing with a couple of other things here, (a) the shift in mass perception of what the overriding concept of "radio" signifies (a generation or two ago, it might have been "cool music", today it might be "conservative talk"), and (b) the collapse of the universal, all-encompassing notion of "mass".

I'm not disagreeing about Rush Limbaugh's success, or the success of radio's current business model. But don't pretend it's "mass" in the classic cosmopolitan 50s60s70s sense--essentially, radio's currently serving a supertargeted superniche very well indeed. As I've said before, it's reinvented itself as Alt-Radio For The Silent Majority--and that carries through, in its way, into the oft-attacked "banality" of music radio.

The problem with too many radio industry spokespersons is that they present as "generic" what's actually quite specific to the commercial radio universe, re listenership, advertisers, etc. And the problem with too many innocent critics of radio programming is that they're viewing the medium too much through the rose-coloured glasses of their youth. Face it; whatever you once might have found "universal" or "cosmopolitan" has migrated elsewhere. If said critics want any of that, yes, indeed, they should "choose to leave to their XM, their CD's players, their i-Pod's etc."

Meanwhile, those conditioned within the past generation can't be bothered to bellyache so. Essentially, radio "is what it is". If they're inclined t/w that kind of fare, they are; if they aren't, they aren't. There's no past baggage involved.

If you really want to know what's up in a post-mass era, read the passage in here on "The big sort".

And relative to all of that, it's presumptious to use the "predominantly in their 50's and 60's" qualifier re those who will not like the new WCBS-FM. It doesn't account for the significant degree of those in their 30s and 40s who *might* have gravitated that way under the cultural conditions of 20 yrs ago, but certainly wouldn't now. Equally if not more so, *those* are the listeners [radio] advertisers do not seek out. And radio might not lose a dollar of advertising if *those* people choose to tune elsewhere. (Of course, that also says something about the kinds of advertisers who choose, or choose not to choose, radio...)

 

[davideduardo]

And relative to all of that, it's presumptious to use the "predominantly in their 50's and 60's" qualifier re those who will not like the new WCBS-FM. It doesn't account for the significant degree of those in their 30s and 40s who *might* have gravitated that way under the cultural conditions of 20 yrs ago, but certainly wouldn't now.

The fact is that, in market after market, oldies (60's base) gets very little under 45 listening. Classic hits (70's base) gets no under 35 listening. While there is a scattering of under 45 or under 35 listening for these two formats, it is not enough to compete for sales in those demos.

Equally if not more so, *those* are the listeners [radio] advertisers do not seek out. And radio might not lose a dollar of advertising if *those* people choose to tune elsewhere. (Of course, that also says something about the kinds of advertisers who choose, or choose not to choose, radio...)

The most frequently requested demos for ratings-driven advertisers are 18-49 and 25-54. Almost everything is one of these, or a subset limited by more specific age, sex or ethnicity. The group you say they do not seek out is actually the most requested... at least, part of it. On the other hand, there are practically no requests for 55+.

 

[adma]

The group you say they do not seek out is actually the most requested... at least, part of it.

Except that you're misconstruing my argument by turning it inside out. I'm not talking about a generic age group. I'm emphasizing about the specific "part of it" advertisers ***on the radio*** "do not seek out". A psychographic, not a demographic, argument...

 

[davideduardo]

The group you say they do not seek out is actually the most requested... at least, part of it.

Except that you're misconstruing my argument by turning it inside out. I'm not talking about a generic age group. I'm emphasizing about the specific "part of it" advertisers ***on the radio*** "do not seek out". A psychographic, not a demographic, argument...

When advertisers who buy based on ratings (essentially 100% of agency accounts and most big local direct accounts) plan their media buy, they do not consider "psychographics." The considerations are age, sex, ethnicity and occasionally income level.

And they definitely do not consider psychographics as that is not part of Arbitron radio ratings. The basis for buys of this kind is Arbitron data which allows for pricing based on the main standard, cost per (rating) point.

Sometimes they consider specifics such as station audience in ZIP code areas where a retailer has locations, etc., when a retailer does not have full penetration in a market. Or they may consider qualitative data derived from Arbitron diarykeeper follow up interviews regarding buying patterns.

 

[XM RADIO]

I go for the "REAL DEAL" Norm N Nite and Cousin Brucie,,, WCBS just cant compare to these 2 guys!! And XM has Bobby Ocean, for the 70s channel, WCBS lost out on these two!!! I dont hear alot of people terminating their subs!!
3 XMs
3 Sirius,,,,,
Kenny in Concord

 

[KevinFodor]

I go for the "REAL DEAL" Norm N Nite and Cousin Brucie,,, WCBS just cant compare to these 2 guys!! And XM has Bobby Ocean, for the 70s channel, WCBS lost out on these two!!! I dont hear alot of people terminating their subs!!
3 XMs
3 Sirius,,,,,
Kenny in Concord

Fine. We all appreciate your passion for the music you love.

Just understand, it doesn't work for the radio business anymore. Unless, that is, some reason brings about a serious change to the attitudes of ad buyers and clients. A 55 plus audience will not make you money.

 

[lalumia]

I thought that psychographics was the collected artwork of Charles Manson and Karl Rove, currently on display at the MOMA

 

[Don62]

I go for the "REAL DEAL" Norm N Nite and Cousin Brucie,,, WCBS just cant compare to these 2 guys!! And XM has Bobby Ocean, for the 70s channel, WCBS lost out on these two!!! I dont hear alot of people terminating their subs!!
3 XMs
3 Sirius,,,,,
Kenny in Concord

Fine. We all appreciate your passion for the music you love.

Just understand, it doesn't work for the radio business anymore. Unless, that is, some reason brings about a serious change to the attitudes of ad buyers and clients. A 55 plus audience will not make you money.

XM is right-on.
The satellite stations are running circles around terrestrial radio, whether you like or not, Kevin.

Anyone who spends but 10 minutes listening to one of their channels will be blowed away and despise what traditional radio seems unwilling or is unable to provide its listeners.

People here post suggestions for improvments to a flagging media, yet get slammed.

If FM oldies - and music FM as well - are doing so well, why is there talk of bringing TALK RADIO to FM to save the FM dial?

You'd think an aging, fast becoming old-fashioned medium would actually welcome suggestions and consider ways to serve its most loyal of customers, those who have some grey hair and are over 50 years old.

 

[KevinFodor]

So...why is it that if you took all of XM and Sirius's listeners together nationwide...you'd get an audience that would equal the #22 radio station in New York? (Not talking "subscribers" here, but "listeners".) Why is it that, on a bad day, it's been suggested that Howard Stern could have as few as 100,000 listeners nationwide? I understand, though...that the New York City area is (probably due to Howard's promotion of satellite radio), a hotbed of satellite radio listening in America, so that may be where you're getting the idea that it's big.

Both satcasters are having serious problems getting people to renew their subscriptions. And, when you consider that they are counting unsold cars sitting on lots with satellite radios installed as subscribers (because when they get sold, the car comes with a free subscription), you have to wonder about the accounting here.

Oh yeah...why the merger? Why can't they compete as separate entities? Could it be, perhaps, that they have had a faulty business model from the beginning? (Something which many terrestrial broadcasters wondered a long time ago.)

I listened to XM on an airplane. I have Sirius's music channels on my Dish Network (not by choice, it came free with the package). What do I hear? On some channels, obscure oldies that I, though with a lifetime of rock and roll music experience cannot recognize. Outside of some of the channels which will cater to specific tastes which, in an individual radio market would not garner a large enough audience that advertisers would support (think The Elvis Channel on Sirius), I don't see where it can gain a "mass appeal" audience, which is what you're going to need to sell commercials. (And if you think that's not going to eventually happen, you're fooling yourself.)

The 55 plus audience. I have written on these boards in the past three years dozens of posts about how I think the ad industry is completely wrong for not supporting the baby boomers. I know (and have seen plenty of articles and studies to back this up) today's boomers could be very valuable to a lot of advertisers. But, as I've said here, it's not the radio stations, it's the advertisers and the ad industry that is "writing them off". And, since radio is dependent upon them for our incomes, we have no choice but to follow.

I was the PD of an oldies station that was in a college town. We were top 3 adults 25-54 (and #1 adults 25-54 for 2 of the 5 rating periods that I worked there). We lost 50 cents on the dollar, because the perception of the advertising community there was that our station was "too old". Believe me, it was the most frustrating experience of my life. To have the freaking #1 station adults 25-54 and have advertisers ignoring it. I kept giving my salespeople literature about the benefits of advertising to the boomers. All they did was keep coming back to me asking, "The agency wants to know when are we going to start playing the 70's and 80's?"

Don't think that's possible? I was also the PD of the first "all 80's" station in America. Small station. Weak signal. A low powered Class A with a tower 12 miles north of the northern beltway in the city. Massive competition. And little in the way of promotional budgets. We still took 4 million dollars in ad money out of the market in about two and half years, despite the fact that we were, normally, around #12 in the market 12 plus. Why?

The demos were attractive to the advertisers.

I rest my case.