But Hispanic population in Seattle is under 10%. There isn't even one Hispanic radio station. So clearly this market hasn't been affected as much as Houston or other places. San Francisco is close to 20% Hispanic. Three times as many Hispanics in San Francisco as Asians. Asian population in Seattle is 13%. Twice as many Asians in Seattle as Hispanics.
-
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
Is nobody interested in ratings anymore?
- Thread starter bobdavcav
- Start date
But Hispanic population in Seattle is under 10%. There isn't even one Hispanic radio station. So clearly this market hasn't been affected as much as Houston or other places. San Francisco is close to 20% Hispanic. Three times as many Hispanics in San Francisco as Asians. Asian population in Seattle is 13%. Twice as many Asians in Seattle as Hispanics.
I'm not talking about Hispanics specifically. Hispanics are approaching... but not at... 20% of the population. There is another 30% that is from all the rest of the world.
Hispanics are the largest single group, but even they are not of a single taste in radio programming and music. For example, in highly assimilated San Antonio, the two major country stations have about half of their cume among Hispanics.
Today you have an issue beyond national origin which is family size. While non-Hispanic Whites are reproducing at a negative rate, other groups have enough families with more than two children, thus increasing their percentage of the total population. And then you have immigration, which is overwhelmingly not non-Hispanic White.
In the 19th Century we got, first, the Irish. Then the Germans, and then the Italians. All were white Europeans, most were of a relatively similar culture and all were of the same race. That is not the case today.
For OTA buys, I, as a buyer, still look at demographics. I will also consider ranking by county (if needed for the client) as well as whatever other information the station wants to provide - sometimes they will show research on hand raisers or intent to buy categories. Those, for me, are secondary- radio (and OTA TV) are mass reach (compared to digital) products and there are many other tools I can use to 'target' more specifically.
If you've seen enough ratings, you know which stations target which audiences and then 6+ can show trends (you know KISW and KZOK target the same audience, KBKS and KQMV, the country stations, as so on) and then it's useful that way. Also, I take all of it with several grains of salt (and may be a shot of vodka). We KNOW the ratings are not accurate- we know that Nielsen is having a harder and harder time getting the data- look at trends over time- not one book. I mean did KING FM really do from a 3.5 to a 5.1 in 3 months? It's more likely sampling error and will correct itself over time.
I don't see anything remarkable in the lastest update- news stations are up (no surprise look at what's happening) WARM had a bad book, KKWF at the level it's at appears to be holding it's own against it's increased competition,
In my view zone casting is a solution looking for a problem- nothing more than an experiment considering the formats and regions it's in. Let's take the only advantage radio still has- reach- and cut it into slices.
If you've seen enough ratings, you know which stations target which audiences and then 6+ can show trends (you know KISW and KZOK target the same audience, KBKS and KQMV, the country stations, as so on) and then it's useful that way. Also, I take all of it with several grains of salt (and may be a shot of vodka). We KNOW the ratings are not accurate- we know that Nielsen is having a harder and harder time getting the data- look at trends over time- not one book. I mean did KING FM really do from a 3.5 to a 5.1 in 3 months? It's more likely sampling error and will correct itself over time.
I don't see anything remarkable in the lastest update- news stations are up (no surprise look at what's happening) WARM had a bad book, KKWF at the level it's at appears to be holding it's own against it's increased competition,
In my view zone casting is a solution looking for a problem- nothing more than an experiment considering the formats and regions it's in. Let's take the only advantage radio still has- reach- and cut it into slices.
Perhaps David can shed a bit more light on why the classical format tends to have significantly more dramatic swings than most other formats, but from what I understand, it has to do with the fact that the classical audience is extremely loyal, so will be there month in and month out, whereas other formats have significant change month to month and season to season. What I'm surprised at is how steady KZOK has been. They lost their morning show in October I think it was, but that hasn't affected them at all.
KING-FM's listenership is constant (slowly declining) it's the reporting that shows variables. This is why every media buyer I've ever worked with that knows their salt asks for multiple ratings books (ie: last 3, exclude holiday) to smooth the data.
On that note, there were some pending changes to how Nielsen measures CUME no longer 15 minutes something like 5 now? Someone knows more about this than me but that will affect comparing data. It's designed to 'more truly measure' listenership which coincidentally will make radio as a medium look better.
Generally stations with relatively low share tend to wobble because the sample is far more erratic at that level.
That is a valid point, but it makes me think that listeners may have fairly active lives, which cut into their listening at certain times of the year. Of course, in PPM markets the panel remains the same for as much as two years, but in diary, markets the sample is different every week And that could count for some of the variation outside of market number 50.
Again, that is in a PPM market and the panel is far more stable
there is no change in the way cume is measured. The change is in how each quarter hour of listening is credited. In the past a listener had to cause their PPM device to register in five discrete minutes in a quarter hour for credit, and now it is just three discreet minutes.
Seattle has been a PPM market for years now. If the panel doesn't change for a year or two, then why do we see such dramatic swings on 98.1?
Or it could be people trying to shift away from the corporate aspect of radio. I just saw evidence of this in social media with people listening to KING-FM and giving it a big thumbs up. It's more anecdotal, but I'm willing to bet there's some correlation here. Yes, KKWF is weathering the storm of competition, but they've been established over the years which tells me one of the other Country stations may flip again, not anytime soon but the writing will be on the wall by next year.KQMV likely continues to perform well with the 18-34 demographic, maintaining its hold on younger listeners in the metro area. KRWM seems to stay on top for female 25-54 demo, KZOK is still on top in male demos which is strange considering they dumped out a bunch of staff, and KUOW is doing great since people are looking for more indiependant voices that aren't tied to corporate media and all the happenings going on in the US.
flat but steady performance. KIRO-FM has been stable, if not a growing, audience considering the lineup changes, KISW has also hovered near the 4.0 mark, showing it still has a solid base even if growth has stalled, I don't see any major shakeups there.
flat but steady performance. KIRO-FM has been stable, if not a growing, audience considering the lineup changes, KISW has also hovered near the 4.0 mark, showing it still has a solid base even if growth has stalled, I don't see any major shakeups there.
The panel is changing every month, from as low as 4% to as high as around 8%. Households end their time on the panel, drop out or are removed due to non-compliance. So, if a lower rated station loses an active household, and they are not replaced with a similar one, that station can suffer .
A lot of those lower-rated wobbles have to do with sample. You loose a big household, and getting another one that "likes you" may take months... or never.
There are differences, probably geographical as well as cultural, that counteract the similarities.
Seattle has rural areas a lot more closer to the urbanized core. If you drive out to those areas -- Arlington, Enumclaw, Maple Valley, Duvall, Fall City, Monroe, etc., and even south of the metro where the FM signals from Seattle still reach, you see more farms and agricultural areas, and chances are high that if you hear a station being played in a store or on a car stereo it's country. There always have been country music fans in the city and suburbs as well. But the proximity of the rural areas is a lot closer than you see in the Bay Area. Enumclaw and Fall City (the Snoqualmie Valley) are 30 miles or less from the urban core. In the Bay Area, the closest rural areas are probably 50-60 miles away.
Also, today's country music has a lot of pop and urban influences included, so it's not as 'rural' sounding as it may have been in the 1960's or 70's. So a lot of the difference between country music's popularity in SFO and Seattle-Tacoma may actually be just cultural. After all, Seattle has a longer history of being isolated from the rest of the country than SFO. Up until the 1990's, Seattle was more of a backwater. Can't say that about SFO, even in the early 20th Century it was a vital urban center in the US.
Exactly this. The Seattle FMs reach a ton of areas that are not “urban.” I can speak for personal experience on this one, as I grew up in an area that would be considered rural compared to Seattle.
These areas exist outside of San Francisco as well, but I don’t think the FMs that exist in the Bay Area are equipped to target these areas very well. A station transmitting from Mount Sutro or San Bruno mountain won’t hit these areas effectively.
This, and terrain aside, SF is limited to class B FM signals, which aren't going to hit the areas where country would do well. I don't know if 104.5 would do well as a country station in Seattle or if you would need a larger class C signal to hit the more rural areas of the market, but that's the only comparable signal to most of what SF has.
104.5 might do decently well (assuming that there was attractive programming there to begin with). It’s strong in east king country and reaches most of the key parts of the market well. However, if your advertisers want core populations that exist in more rural areas, it’s a tougher sell. 100.7, 98.9, and 101.5 all have signal parity across the market and into the outer regions of the market.
The fringes of the market are not likely to matter too much, but I’d definitely want to have strong coverage in places like Everett and Marysville. Also Pierce county is critical with the military population. There are many other examples, but I think it’s safe to stay most of the suburbs and smaller communities near the edges of the market matter.
All in all, I wouldn’t want to give potential listeners in any of these hotbeds a reason to choose a different station. If you’re an advertiser, and you know that potential listeners can’t really hear 104.5 all that well around JBLM (for example), maybe you’d do business with the competition.
- Status