R
Radiowaves
Guest
Redirecting
barrettnewsmedia-com.cdn.ampproject.org
-
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
You're right. It's an interesting read. It talks about PPM, and then interviews a guy in a diary market (Syracuse) who doesn't use Nielsen. He probably gets better information directly that he would from a diary. If it works, then that's what you do.
But here's something the article doesn't say: The ONLY reason radio stations use Nielsen is because it's what the advertisers want. If a station has advertisers who don't care about Nielsen, and get their information directly from customers, then by all means, drop your subscription to Nielsen. But radio has no love for Nielsen, as you've seen here from one very popular local station owner.
But here's something the article doesn't say: The ONLY reason radio stations use Nielsen is because it's what the advertisers want. If a station has advertisers who don't care about Nielsen, and get their information directly from customers, then by all means, drop your subscription to Nielsen. But radio has no love for Nielsen, as you've seen here from one very popular local station owner.
That article is not exactly correct. The biggest inaccuracy is saying that subscribers in radio and at agencies don't see the results for non-subscribed stations. They do. But those stations can not use the data in any way to help sales.
Second is the fact that Meruelo has a cluster of mediocre-rated stations and they were trying to get concessions on how much they paid for the service.
Third, the article says ratings are the next biggest expense at stations after payroll. Wrong. Sales commissions are the next largest expense, amounting to about 20% to 25% of gross sales at most major stations.
Wouldn't sales commissions be included in payroll? BTW, how many stations have cut commissions because "salespeople were making too much money" and losing good salespeople in the process? Anybody "making too much money" is doing it by bringing a lot more money to the enterprise.
One line in that article absolutely remains true:
"For the past 15 years, radio companies have been cutting expenses, no matter how much it has damaged the business’s long-term strategic viability."
It's not just radio companies, but radiohas certainly felt the effects of all the cuts. The model has been created:
1. Buy a lot of radio stations by paying too much money.
2. Cut to the bone and suck out the marrow.
3. Add a digital component to try to pay off the oversized debt service.
4. Declare bankruptcy, screw the shareholders, and shed massive debt, effectively revaluing the stations closer to their actual value.
5. Upper (mis)management takes their golden parachute and leaves the bones in the hands of the vulture capitalists.
One line in that article absolutely remains true:
"For the past 15 years, radio companies have been cutting expenses, no matter how much it has damaged the business’s long-term strategic viability."
It's not just radio companies, but radiohas certainly felt the effects of all the cuts. The model has been created:
1. Buy a lot of radio stations by paying too much money.
2. Cut to the bone and suck out the marrow.
3. Add a digital component to try to pay off the oversized debt service.
4. Declare bankruptcy, screw the shareholders, and shed massive debt, effectively revaluing the stations closer to their actual value.
5. Upper (mis)management takes their golden parachute and leaves the bones in the hands of the vulture capitalists.
What would you suggest in a business where the only revenue stream is :30 commercials, and the users are rebelling against the sole source of revenue?
Costs go up every year. Where does that money come from? Radio stations can't add more commercials, and they can't increase spot rates. So what's the alternative?
The other question is: Just say you did pass a law forcing stations to retain all staff and not cut expenses. How would that change the fact that people simply want to get their music from other places? Did keeping Dan Ingram in afternoon drive at WABC change the fact that ratings dropped because listeners were changing from AM to FM? No. Same with radio. Retaining staff or investing more in broadcast content will not cause people to throw away their phones and stop using the internet. Cutting expenses really won't change the long-term strategic viability. All it does is kick the can down the road.
Even if radio stations were owned by Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, they would still be forced to cut costs because of declining revenues. That's what happens when revenues decline.
R
Radiowaves
Guest
You are not correct. Non-Subscribers, unless they are minority owned businesses will not show up anywhere at all, like they don’t even exist. You can confirm this yourself with Nielsen. Not directly, not to agencies, not to national agencies….nowhere. It’s like they don’t exist.
It is a total misrepresentation of the entire market.
It is part of Nielsens subscriber first policy established in 2020.
UNLESS you’re a minority owned company.
R
Radiowaves
Guest
:30 second commercials are not the only revenue stream. Be creative.
Again: What would YOU suggest? They're selling naming rights to their studios, they're selling ads on their RDS, they're leasing out their HD channels, they're investing in numerous non-broadcast platforms such as podcasts and other digital. But none of those things rise to the level of :30 spots. They're now selling tower land. We are at a point now where even Spotify, Sirius, and other digital services have had to lay off 15% of their staff (which means cut expenses) because of losses in advertising. This is not a fake problem.
Last edited:
How can Nielsen enforce that? What's to prevent a non-subscriber's ad sales people and representatives of potential advertisers from discussing those numbers over the phone, or in person over lunch, one on one? Unless Nielsen has a mole in the room or a fly on the wall, they'll never know. Moral code? Come on, man. We're talking about American capitalism here!
Getting back to the article: What is the value of Nielsen?
Subscribers get a lot more than the free 12+ numbers we all see. They get very specific demographic data on their listeners. Ed Levine says he gets that information in other ways. But that's not exactly true. The only way to get actual user demographics is to have subscribers to your radio station. That's what WBFO/WNED does. They know the demographics of their subscribers. They use Nielsen to compare their subscriber demos with actual user demos. But imagine if the only way you could hear WBFO was to subscribe. That's the situation Sirius has. They know actual demographic information of all their users. That's why Sirius doesn't need Nielsen.
Subscribers get a lot more than the free 12+ numbers we all see. They get very specific demographic data on their listeners. Ed Levine says he gets that information in other ways. But that's not exactly true. The only way to get actual user demographics is to have subscribers to your radio station. That's what WBFO/WNED does. They know the demographics of their subscribers. They use Nielsen to compare their subscriber demos with actual user demos. But imagine if the only way you could hear WBFO was to subscribe. That's the situation Sirius has. They know actual demographic information of all their users. That's why Sirius doesn't need Nielsen.
But SXM can only glean that demographic data on listeners to individual channels from those subscribers who listen online. The home and car radios are one-way, dumb devices. Do SXM and its advertisers assume that satellite listeners and internet listeners' preferences are identical? Might be a dangerous assumption. I listen to sports play-by-play in the car often, but seldom at home, where I'm usually watching the games on TV or via streaming. My at-home listening is usually to the upper-tier niche music channels I can't get in the car. SXM, thus, has no idea that I ever listen to sports.
They also poll users on channel usage. They only need demo data for channels that carry advertising.
Right, but as I said, I listen to their ad-supported channels in the car, and it's been years since I've gotten any survey. The last one I got was about music channels. Previous surveys were "push polls" with Mad Dog Radio and Howard Stern at the top of the list, an obvious ploy by SXM to pump up the numbers for their expensive, in-house channels to squeeze more money out of the advertisers. Of course, I seldom returned those crooked surveys completed anyway, since I'm no sucker.
Do they have demographics on you? Regardless of specific channel usage, they have a profile on you, which is more than a broadcast station has on its users.
I'd imagine they know how old I am and where I live, probably can guess my race and ethnicity. But they also might surmise that a white, rural male in his 60s would listen to Stern or maybe a right-wing talk channel, and they'd be dead wrong. Advertising relies on generalizations and, to a certain extent, stereotyping, so I guess that enough SXM subscribers conform to the assumed profile, and that's all the advertisers need to know.
Not agency commissions and rep firm commissions. Generally, we look at commissions as a separate item from payroll. Everywhere I have worked it's been part of sales department expense because it's (to some extent) a controllable item that management watches.
The stories about that are, I think, not representative of actual conditions. When a few good sellers are let go for "making too much" it makes the news. Most managers know how to distinguish between a good seller and an irrational commission agreement.
This discussion goes way back. In the 60's group owner Richard Eaton was known for firing sellers who made too much and giving their accounts to the manager as "house accounts" with no commission. In one case, the sellers at successful WFAB in Miami all had sailboats or little yachts and when they were at "quota" they went out to sail or fish in Biscayne Bay for the rest of the month to avoid selling "too much".
And that is because inflation-adjusted radio revenue has declined about 70% in the same time period, irrespective of good or bad management. So it is natural that expenses be cut.
R
Radiowaves
Guest
Yes, everything you mentioned is in play.
Keep expenses at bay
Deliver an exclusive content format
Purchase a station for a realistic amount
Market your product
Keep ad prices resonable for what you paid to own the station with a decent margin, not usary prices
ETC
Large companies are far worse at running these companies than local owners. There are local station owners all over the country printing money with their stations. They HAVE to be run right. Running a station for the benefit of a shareholder no longer works because shareholders just want more and more.
The industry ON WALL STREET is in trouble. Same with TV. Same with print.
The industry on MAIN STREET is doing fine if run properly
R
Radiowaves
Guest
They can't enforce it.
Who enforces when Johnny's Pizza says on the pizza box, "World's #1 Pizza"?
That's how dumb some of these companies are. They actually think Nielsen is more powerful than the FCC. They drink the cool-aid
Printing money is a tired trope. Some local stations are certainly viable under the right circumstances. A lot of them are in trouble irregardless of local or Corporate ownership. Radio is not immune from the challenges that are affecting TV and Print media.
As you started this thread, obviously no station is required to pay for Nielsen. Those who can find clients without it will save a big expense. A certain owner that was banished from this forum constantly railed against Nielsen when he didn't like the results...😑
Last edited:
Buddy Shula is the best salesman in Buffalo. He is running his one station right. But Buddy will tell you that if all he had was spots on WECK, he wouldn't be making money. What helps Buddy is that he also owns an ad agency, and reps spots for clients on other radio and TV stations in town. As long as the only revenue stream is advertising, radio owners have to do whatever those advertisers want.
As Bob Dylan said, Everybody gotta serve somebody. The shareholders don't matter anymore. That's the lesson of Audacy. The founder of the company was it's biggest stockholder, and he lost everything. So stations don't work for stockholders. They work for advertisers. If the advertisers want you to flip formats, then that's what you do. The advertisers trust Nielsen. They don't trust anyone else. So stations pay for Nielsen. Cumulus and iHeart don't work for stockholders. They work for the banks and lenders who got all the equity in the bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, take a walk down Main Street for a minute. What do you see? Local department stores or Target? Local hardware stores or Home Depot. This country gave up on Main Street 50 years ago.
- Status