Interested in opinions from radio experts :)

[954]

In a way, radio is like Burger King.

Imagine any highway in any major town in the country.
Drive down the highway and you pass a whole bunch of fast food restaurants.
Most of them sell hamburgers: McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's. Often you find more than one of each.
Maybe in there you will see one of two pizza joints, a KFC (or another chicken place), a Taco Bell.
It's very rare you see a place specializing in hot dogs.

Why all those hamburger joints and no hot dog joints?
Hamburger places make money.
And there's only room for so many restaurants along a strip.
Oldies are like hot dogs.
Some of you like hot dogs and think one of those fast food joints SHOULD sell hot dogs.
Maybe McDonald's could take one of their multiple restaurants along the strip and convert it to hotdogs, even though they would lose money.
Some of you think all the fast food places should get together and apportion the restaurants so there is a diversity of food choices along the stip (no hamburger stands competing with each other).

Good hot dog analogy, Fred.

My main problem with it is that there are limited channels available on AM and FM.

A food court would be a better analogy than a highway.

If you were talking about a mall's food court, with a limited number of storefronts,
mall management would definitely balance the choices and avoid duplication, to
make the maximum number happy. McD and BK in the same food court would be
really dumb!

73s

 

[954]

My oldies format is a hybrid of what I call "the chart" (Oldies chart from mediabase) which has the old tired songs one must play to get good ratings, and what I feel is the true oldies format which includes a lot of 50s "birth of rock" music as well as the 60s lost hits type of stuff.

So anyway, here is the listen link: www.oldiesradionet.com/oldies56.asx

would appreciate your comments!

Matt...

I like it.

I just heard a Snoopy & The Red Baron sequel that I'd never heard before. That's neat!

So much for some people's contention that only the biggest hits can be played.
That philosophy makes for boring oldies radio. Nothing excites me more (musically,
that is) than hearing an oldie that I don't even remember. It's like a new friend.

73s

 

[fred flintstone]

Yes, in some ways radio is more like a food court.
A highway has its limitations, too. People are only going to go so far down the road for fast food. So the effective market area for highway fast food joints is limited - maybe a five or 10 minute drive. In effect, the road is a horizontal food court. Down the road is another fast food market area, mostly with same fast food outlets.

The difference between the roadside and the mall is the mall has management, as you point out, which may try to control the "balance of choices and avoid duplication." That's a role some people on this board often want to play with radio; to be the property manager of the mall "radio court." In radio, that's left to individual space holders - and to market forces.

Of course, many radio stations are part of market clusters and cluster managers may act to balance choices and avoid duplication within the cluster. Same happens with co-owned fast food restaurants, too.

But overall, radio does not work that hard to avoid duplication on the theory that it can be better (more profitable) to be number two or three in a popular format than alone in some other format.

Remember the pilot episode of WKRP in Cincinnati. Andy wants to flip from EZ Listening (a format with an OLDER audience) to CHR/Top 40. Mother Carlson says Cincinnati already has four other stations playing that music. Andy replies, why do you think that is? They are all making money. (Note: Even then, music on AM was not a good choice but the show was based on the writers' experiences at WQXI more than a decade earlier.)

 

[Anyacat]

My oldies format is a hybrid of what I call "the chart" (Oldies chart from mediabase) which has the old tired songs one must play to get good ratings, and what I feel is the true oldies format which includes a lot of 50s "birth of rock" music as well as the 60s lost hits type of stuff.

So anyway, here is the listen link: www.oldiesradionet.com/oldies56.asx

would appreciate your comments!

Matt...

Matt: Thanks for the link. I enjoy the music. However, I have a Mac and song titles are not available or do not register on my Windows Media Player. So, if possible, maybe you can include titles. I know 90% of the what I hear but once in a while something unknown shows up. Thanks!

 

[Dan_Arthur]

We just flipped KOOL 93.1 to a rhythmic AC here in Las Vegas. I've had numerous converstations with listeners who were genuinely upset over the change. I have two standard answers...

1) There's now a hole in the market. One that I'm sure will be filled in time

2) The old KOOL 93.1 can be heard on HD.

I've been surprised at the response to the second answer. People seem thrilled with that option. HD is still years away from fully developing. however, I've found that people are quite responsive to the idea of buying an HD radio rather than paying monthly fees to Sirius or XM. What's even better for the listener is the music rolls non-stop. It is just like satellite without the monthly fees. Here in Vegas, we're running the same imaging and the same music. right now, it doesn't have any jocks but eventually, it will. Oldies will continue to live on internet, satellite and HD. The hole will be filled somewhere....

 

[mikesingh]

This looks interesting... and it's from a friend of ours... (Bob Perry)

http://www.youroldies.com/

*"Real" Oldies, for people who grew up listening to the music in the 1950's and early 1960's, and for those just discovering its joys for the first time.
*Pre-Beatles-era Rock and Roll -- from Doo Wop through Rockabilly through ballads bordering on MOR -- defined the music of every generation to follow.
*The hits make 'em tune in, and the variety keeps 'em there.

"TARGET DEMO:
*35-64, skewing slightly male, who have been abandoned by "corporate" oldies stations.
*Secondary target of 25-44, who may not have lived through it the first time, but have been exposed to the sound through television (American Dreams, PBS), movies, and their parents."

MUSIC BREAKDOWN:
*100% 1954-1964

Sounds good in my book.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

"on the cutting edge of Radio's hottest new format "

What format is that??

Nooooo can't be talking about a station playing Elvis Presley, Connie Francis, the Platters, Dion & the Belmonts, Fats Domino, the Drifters, Ricky Nelson, the 4 Seasons, Brenda Lee, the Fleetwoods, Paul Anka, the Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, the Crystals, Chubby Checker, the Shirelles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Lesley Gore, Chuck Berry, the Coasters, Bill Haley and His Comets.

Anita Bonita is a consultant.. interesting. I'd listen and about .002% of everyone else would also listen 8)

 

[TheFonz]

"
I'd listen and about .002% of everyone else would also listen.

If that .002% keeps some radio station personel out of the soup line at St. Vincents, then what's wrong with that?

 

[SuperRadioFan]

I'm with ya Fonz ... It's just that IMO stupid "cutting edge of radio's hottest format" attached to the website. Not accurate. Right??

 

[DougD]

I'm with ya Fonz ... It's just that IMO stupid "cutting edge of radio's hottest format" attached to the website. Not accurate. Right??

It's certainly different, and going against the grain, as they say.
So, in today's environment, that would be cutting edge.

Just because radio owners have tired of the format...
Interesting how they don't get as tired with OTHER formats..

 

[radiofriend1]

c'mon gang let's be realistic. do u really think big radio companies decide format based on what the owners are tired of? if a format WINS LISTENERS and GENERATES REVENUE, they love it---that's the whole idea of being in business. find out what the consumers like, deliver it, profit from it

radio is definitely a form of show business but too many only look at the SHOW and forget the idea of being in business is, in the end, to.........MAKE MONEY

bet the businesses someof you all are in (or maybe even the biz you own) does it's best to MAKE MONEY

if u can't generate revenue and a profit u will be out of business pretty fast

 

[gunterm]

Well, for the ones who poo-pooed an alternative Oldies format as a non-money maker I can't disclose the exact number, but I pull in a few thousand in revenue per month (and that's just banner ads). One day the advertisers will wake up and send me some big money-making audio ads

BTW, for mac users, go into the Radio tuner portion of iTunes and you'll find "Oldies RadioNET" (the old name) under 50s/60s and that's me!

 

[DougD]

c'mon gang let's be realistic. do u really think big radio companies decide format based on what the owners are tired of? if a format WINS LISTENERS and GENERATES REVENUE, they love it---that's the whole idea of being in business. find out what the consumers like, deliver it, profit from it

All we hear AD INFINITUM on this board and elsewhere is how the listeners don't really matter... it's just the listeners the advertisers want.

Other formats can generate sales for radio- soft AC, 50s-60s oldies, but the revenue is measured by a narrow yardstick- Wall Street ad execs.

If it was as simple as what listeners would want, then there would be an oldies station in NYC. Listener demand is certainly high for that.
In fact, CBS-FM had twice as many listeners as its crappy suck-o replacement. Infinity, however, could care less and wants to stick it to its "consumers." It's antagonistic and go-to-he-- attitude shows its "consumers" never were the listeners. Just the big $$$.

And look what NYC got for it. An automated computerized station with no local news, weather or anything. Not even an announcer. So much for public interest, convenience, necessity.

If listener demand counted for anything, there would be more formats and not this feces sameness heard in nearly every market.

So the consumer opinion in radio by and large doesn't really amout to a hill of beans.

 

[radiofriend1]

All we hear AD INFINITUM on this board and elsewhere is how the listeners don't really matter... it's just the listeners the advertisers want.

Other formats can generate sales for radio- soft AC, 50s-60s oldies, but the revenue is measured by a narrow yardstick- Wall Street ad execs.

If it was as simple as what listeners would want, then there would be an oldies station in NYC. Listener demand is certainly high for that.
In fact, CBS-FM had twice as many listeners as its crappy suck-o replacement. Infinity, however, could care less and wants to stick it to its "consumers." It's antagonistic and go-to-he-- attitude shows its "consumers" never were the listeners. Just the big $$$.

And look what NYC got for it. An automated computerized station with no local news, weather or anything. Not even an announcer. So much for public interest, convenience, necessity.

If listener demand counted for anything, there would be more formats and not this feces sameness heard in nearly every market.

So the consumer opinion in radio by and large doesn't really amout to a hill of beans.

first of all only bitter skeptical radio hacks make statements like "listeners don't count"

secondly, much of the sour grapes here is cuz it was CBS-FM...........

third where in the "radio rule book" does it say all stations have to offer local news weather announcers, etc?

finally................whether u want to admit it or not, it is madison avenue who decided what ad dollars get spent where and if these agencies' clients say "we don't target 60+", what's the agency s'posed to do---ignore their client and get fired? no--- ad agencies don't work for radio listeners, they work for advertisers. it has always been that way and will always be that way.

i'll say it one more time--- if radio stations and owners and operators thought oldies listeners would get them ratings and revenue, more would still be doing the format. they OBVIOUSLY have very specific evidence that is to the contrary and are trying new things.

so...........if u really think radio by and large doesn't really amount to a hill of beans.............why are u spending so much time talking about it? if it sucks that bad, be done with it and move on

just quit boring us

 

[fred flintstone]

first of all only bitter skeptical radio hacks make statements like "listeners don't count"

secondly, much of the sour grapes here is cuz it was CBS-FM...........

third where in the "radio rule book" does it say all stations have to offer local news weather announcers, etc?

finally................whether u want to admit it or not, it is madison avenue who decided what ad dollars get spent where and if these agencies' clients say "we don't target 60+", what's the agency s'posed to do---ignore their client and get fired? no--- ad agencies don't work for radio listeners, they work for advertisers. it has always been that way and will always be that way.

i'll say it one more time--- if radio stations and owners and operators thought oldies listeners would get them ratings and revenue, more would still be doing the format. they OBVIOUSLY have very specific evidence that is to the contrary and are trying new things.

so...........if u really think radio by and large doesn't really amount to a hill of beans.............why are u spending so much time talking about it? if it sucks that bad, be done with it and move on

just quit boring us

What is your problem with proper capitalization and spelling out the word "you?" (And then you leave out the "u" in "suppose.") I know you can find the shift key because you occasionally use all caps for emphasis (Next Lesson: Format keys and codes). Your "style" says "slacker" in in baggy pants hanging dangerously low and a backward baseball cap. It makes it hard to take your posts seriously.

You seem to contradict yourself: You say, "Only bitter skeptical radio hacks make statements like 'listeners don't count'." Then you say ad agencies decide where dollars get spent - and "they don't work for radio listeners." Sounds like you are in agreement with the earlier post. Maybe you should go back and re-read that post.

And someone in radio being "bitter" and "skeptical." Oh, no! How could that happen? Maybe you haven't worked in radio yet but you think things will be different when you get there. Come back and report after you've spent a few years in the business - assuming the business is around long enough to allow that?

 

[radiofriend1]

first of all only bitter skeptical radio hacks make statements like "listeners don't count"

secondly, much of the sour grapes here is cuz it was CBS-FM...........

third where in the "radio rule book" does it say all stations have to offer local news weather announcers, etc?

finally................whether u want to admit it or not, it is madison avenue who decided what ad dollars get spent where and if these agencies' clients say "we don't target 60+", what's the agency s'posed to do---ignore their client and get fired? no--- ad agencies don't work for radio listeners, they work for advertisers. it has always been that way and will always be that way.

i'll say it one more time--- if radio stations and owners and operators thought oldies listeners would get them ratings and revenue, more would still be doing the format. they OBVIOUSLY have very specific evidence that is to the contrary and are trying new things.

so...........if u really think radio by and large doesn't really amount to a hill of beans.............why are u spending so much time talking about it? if it sucks that bad, be done with it and move on

just quit boring us

What is your problem with proper capitalization and spelling out the word "you?" (And then you leave out the "u" in "suppose.") I know you can find the shift key because you occasionally use all caps for emphasis (Next Lesson: Format keys and codes). Your "style" says "slacker" in in baggy pants hanging dangerously low and a backward baseball cap. It makes it hard to take your posts seriously.

You seem to contradict yourself: You say, "Only bitter skeptical radio hacks make statements like 'listeners don't count'." Then you say ad agencies decide where dollars get spent - and "they don't work for radio listeners." Sounds like you are in agreement with the earlier post. Maybe you should go back and re-read that post.

And someone in radio being "bitter" and "skeptical." Oh, no! How could that happen? Maybe you haven't worked in radio yet but you think things will be different when you get there. Come back and report after you've spent a few years in the business - assuming the business is around long enough to allow that?

there's nothing contradictory about what i said. Ad agencies work for THEIR CLIENTS, the businesses that spend money on advertising. their job is to buy time on media to get their message out to potential customers. it's RADIO STATIONS who work for advertisers AND for their audience-- the bigger audience u have the more people who get the message and the more they can charge for ad time on their stations.

it really is a pretty simple concept. the radio stations have to decide what format will get them the most listeners, so to state that "LISTENERS DON'T COUNT" is foolish, blind and useless.

and i stand by my statement that the only people who whine about "LISTENERS DON'T COUNT" are radio hacks who've either been displaced by a format change OR have had their fave station flipped...........which is the deal with oldies.

here's how the oldies rant comes off (mostly from radio people): "u flipped my favorite format, the stuff i grew up with and i still want to play it on the radio. to heck with profits and revenue---u just need to keep my music and my format on the radio!". well if those stations don't have listenership that generates revenue how do they expect the radio station to pay them and pay their bills?

it's mostly a matter of being stuck **BACK IN THE DAY** and not wanting to let go & move on

(PS: if u have a problem with the way i type please BE A MAN and send me a personal message vs. trying to appear superior by scolding somebody in public. it makes U look small)

 

[fred flintstone]

it really is a pretty simple concept. the radio stations have to decide what format will get them the most listeners, so to state that "LISTENERS DON'T COUNT" is foolish, blind and useless.

and i stand by my statement that the only people who whine about "LISTENERS DON'T COUNT" are radio hacks who've either been displaced by a format change OR have had their fave station flipped...........which is the deal with oldies.

here's how the oldies rant comes off (mostly from radio people): "u flipped my favorite format, the stuff i grew up with and i still want to play it on the radio. to heck with profits and revenue---u just need to keep my music and my format on the radio!". well if those stations don't have listenership that generates revenue how do they expect the radio station to pay them and pay their bills?

No, it's not about getting the "most" listeners. It hasn't been for over 40 years.
It's about getting the listeners advertisers will pay to reach - and pay more to reach.
All listeners are NOT created equal.
Ad rates are calculated on cost per thousand listeners.
Desirable demographic segments command a higher cost per thousand.
50 and 55 plus listeners are cheap.
For example, males 18 - 34, go for premium rates.
You can generate more revenue with fewer of the RIGHT listeners.
Unfortunately, the right listeners don't listen to Oldies.
Even more unfortunately, a lot of them have stopped listening to terrestrial radio.

And if you don't mind appearing illiterate before a readership that includes professional communicators, why should I care?

 

[gunterm]

I call thread hijack at this point...

 

[radiofriend1]

No, it's not about getting the "most" listeners. It hasn't been for over 40 years.
It's about getting the listeners advertisers will pay to reach - and pay more to reach.
All listeners are NOT created equal.
Ad rates are calculated on cost per thousand listeners.
Desirable demographic segments command a higher cost per thousand.
50 and 55 plus listeners are cheap.
For example, males 18 - 34, go for premium rates.
You can generate more revenue with fewer of the RIGHT listeners.
Unfortunately, the right listeners don't listen to Oldies.
Even more unfortunately, a lot of them have stopped listening to terrestrial radio.

And if you don't mind appearing illiterate before a readership that includes professional communicators, why should I care?

gee no kidding-all of what u say almost goes without saying. i was speaking in big-picture generalities.

but people are not listening to less terrestrial radio cuz there's less oldies on the radio.

having alternatives will naturally draw listeners from radio just as the 'net has done to newspapers. the big question is "how can we keep the most listeners reasonable possible and find new ways to generate revenue OTHER THAN just selling 30's and 60's".

the biz we are in is no longer one of tall towers in big fields, gentlemen and ladies

 

[fred flintstone]

gee no kidding-all of what u say almost goes without saying. i was speaking in big-picture generalities.

but people are not listening to less terrestrial radio cuz there's less oldies on the radio.

having alternatives will naturally draw listeners from radio just as the 'net has done to newspapers. the big question is "how can we keep the most listeners reasonable possible and find new ways to generate revenue OTHER THAN just selling 30's and 60's".

the biz we are in is no longer one of tall towers in big fields, gentlemen and ladies

Big picture generalities which are not accurate.
What I posted goes with saying because most people on this board don't seem to get this is how the business works.

No, it's not a business of tall towers. It's a business of short cell towers, satellites, and Internet audio servers.

How can "we?" What do you mean we, Kemo Sabe?
Do you own a radio station? I don't. And I sold my Clear Channel stock when it started tanking.
Many newspapers realize their future is on the Internet. The sooner the radio industry realizes it must adapt to new technology or die, the better. Times change; radio is not changing with them.

As Harvard marketing professor Ted Levitt pointed out three decades ago, the mistake the railroads made was thinking they were in the train business, not the transportation business.
They tried to get people to stop getting on the pesky airplanes and take trains again ("Getting there is half the fun!").
Now radio is trying the same approach and they are making the same mistake.