It's 2015! Time to get rid of the '70s.

[TheBigA]

I seriously disagree...it depends on the market.....

It's pretty obvious we're talking generally. You want to bring up one example? I once worked with a 70 year old legend, and he was having a lot of trouble connecting with his audience (who were younger) and the music in his format. Different life experience, like a May/December romance. The audience could hear the disconnect, and ratings started to drop. It was hard to keep him after that.

Consider Imus. Once popular in NYC, he was able to continue his popularity when he changed format. But he's toast now.

 

[ContinuousWave]

First, I have never heard "... Kick in the Head" so I searched for it. No thanks. It's way out of my demo.

David, you didn't search well....Google brought up this link first and its from the ORIGINAL movie "Ocean's Eleven"...

If you are as old as I think you are, you've seen the movie....I'm 56 and love this version of the movie with the entire Rat Pack in it....I was a kid when it came out...and watched Martin's comedy/variety show when it was on NBC...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKSm0tAvhs

 

[davideduardo]

Baby boomers have more disposable income:

But they are loath to spend it. The ones with any financial sense realize that they can't depend on Social Security. Yet about half of retired boomers live on Social Security along. They are not good consumers.

The reason that the "average" boomer seems to have money is the old "one percenter" issue: it only takes one person with a net worth of around $9 million (the more-or-less current cut off for one-percenters) to raise the apparent, average wealth of a hundred or so people with no savings o assets to $100 k. And if you take the wealth of the mid and upper range of high net worth individuals and each raises the average for hundreds of thousands of low net worth people.

Of course, for many boomers, their home equity is their only significant asset. To use the money, they have to sell he home.

As far as advertisers are concerned, they have proven to their own satisfaction that older consumers are more cautious and analytical. It takes more impressions to "get the sale" and often the cost of advertising is greater than the profit on the sale. That is why there are essentially no agency buys against persons 55 and older.

Brazen ageism according to the AARP:

They own a magazine that depends on ad revenues. Of course they believe that advertisers should sell to seniors.

As this says, the oldies draw in the heaviest concert crowds:

Terrific. I'd rather see Pitbull than some very old pop singers from the 60's and an Indian Gaming establishment.

And shows draw a few thousand people. It's not hard to fill up a venue, even if 99.9% of local folks stay away. That still does not have anything to do with the fact that advertisers do not use radio to target 55+, even though there are many stations that have huge 55+ audiences.

why-marketers-cant-afford-to-ignore-baby-boomers

Google it and you'll see plenty more about how baby boomers are being ignored.

Nielsen knows that expanding the sales demos for radio would increase their revenues. The CBS TV web has spent the last 3 years trying to convince large national advertisers and their agencies to target 35-64 as much as they do 18-49 (unlike radio, 18-49 is the key TV sales demo). There has been negligible success in this area which is key to CBS because so many of their scripted shows are very senior-heavy.

 

[davideduardo]

David, you didn't search well....

Oh, I found the song. And could only tolerate about 40" of it.

Google brought up this link first and its from the ORIGINAL movie "Ocean's Eleven"...
If you are as old as I think you are, you've seen the movie....I'm 56 and love this version of the movie with the entire Rat Pack in it....I was a kid when it came out...and watched Martin's comedy/variety show when it was on NBC...

No, I have never seen the movie in its original version. And when I do see a movie with older music, unless it predominates, I just ignore the things I don't like.

 

[Music Lover]

I don't think commercial radio will die completely but I do think more and more erosion will occur: http://www.minnpost.com/business/2013/02/terrestrial-radio-losing-listeners-and-industry-war

 

[Music Lover]

Terrific. I'd rather see Pitbull

Ewww. You just made me throw up.

 

[TheBigA]

Like the end of this says, I don't think commercial radio will die completely but I do think erosion will occur:

That article is THIRTEEN YEARS OLD and radio hasn't died. The numbers have held steady throughout those 13 years. So it sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else.

 

[ContinuousWave]

Oh, I found the song. And could only tolerate about 40" of it.

No, I have never seen the movie in its original version. And when I do see a movie with older music, unless it predominates, I just ignore the things I don't like.

Commercials only use about the first verse.....yet other Martins songs I like......(I find the Kick In the Head a novelty song)
The movie itself is good (was at the time too! In the original, they didnt get away with the money...only got away....an ironic ending which I wont reveal here)

 

[ContinuousWave]

Ewww. You just made me throw up.

I havent eaten...and I still want to throw up!

 

[Music Lover]

That post was being edited while you were busy typing your post. It now contains a more up-to-date article telling the same thing about losing listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

That post was being edited while you were busy typing your post. It now contains a more up-to-date article telling the same thing about losing listeners.

Everyone has an opinion. You have yours. I've read it, and I know how you feel. But it really doesn't change anything we do.

People have been predicting the demise of radio since the 1930s. We're still here, and so is the audience.

 

[JeffM]

Everyone thinks their era is the best, and their favorite music is timeless. The list of what qualifies for "timeless" changes as people's tastes. I can tell you as someone who visits music schools that the next generation of musicians are being inspired by today's music, just as today's musicians were inspired by the music of the 90s. It's an endless cycle, and while they may have respect for music from a few generations back, it isn't as inspirational as the music they can see, hear, and touch from the present.

One of the most sensible comments I've read on this board. Too bad nobody else seemed to notice.

 

[landtuna]

No, I have never seen the movie in its original version.

You really should view the original. Aside from having the Rat Pack in it (entertaining in itself), it is a very entertaining movie and a chance to see Las Vegas as it was years ago.

 

[semoochie]

The music industry, like the film business, targets younger consumers because they spend more money more often on their offerings so they go where the money is. The older a person gets, the less they spend in these categories even when good quality product is offered to them.

I just looked at the top 20 billing radio stations in the US. 14 of them target a core audience that is over 30. 9 target a core audience that is over 40. Only 4 are CHR stations.

In fact, the most common mass market advertising target is 25-54. Not 18-34 or 18-24. That means that 45-54 is just as important as 25-34 or 35-44. And stations try to target some subset of that broad age range... some go for the young end, some for the older end, some for the middle. Stations go where the money is.

When you say that 45-54 is just as important as 25-34 or 35-44, how do you mean that? I had suggested a soft AC with a 45-54 target and was told it wasn't broad enough and too old. I think I actually started at 42. Clearly, that is not a viable subset.

 

[davideduardo]

When you say that 45-54 is just as important as 25-34 or 35-44, how do you mean that? I had suggested a soft AC with a 45-54 target and was told it wasn't broad enough and too old. I think I actually started at 42. Clearly, that is not a viable subset.

If an agency buys Persons 25-54, they are interested in all the subsets. That's why they buy several stations deep. They might pick several stations with good 35-54 or even 45-54, several that are 25-44 or 25-34 dominant, and they would also balance the stations for gender. So to complete the buy, they would want to reach as many 45-54's as 35-34's or 35-44's to have a balanced buy.

Obviously, not all buys are as broad as P 25-54. They might be very specific such as English Dominant Hispanic women 25-44. Or men 25-54. But there is no predominance of 25-34 buys, just as there is n o predominance of 45-54 buys. The idea that stations and advertisers target "under 30" listeners is just not correct.

 

[davideduardo]

You really should view the original. Aside from having the Rat Pack in it (entertaining in itself), it is a very entertaining movie and a chance to see Las Vegas as it was years ago.

The idea of seeing Vegas years ago is interesting. But the idea of seeing the Rat Pack is nauseating.

 

[davideduardo]

Ewww. You just made me throw up.

He's amazingly talented, and very creative. His record label, named appropriately "305" after the Miami area code, has given a first chance to many South Florida artists. Plus he is a nice cross-cultural phenomenon, proving that people can get along and share... those cool videos with Chris Brown and Christina Aguilera are a case in point. I love his sampling of some of the 80's songs that he has employed in some of his songs.

Plus he is a really nice person.

 

[davideduardo]

I don't think commercial radio will die completely but I do think more and more erosion will occur: http://www.minnpost.com/business/2013/02/terrestrial-radio-losing-listeners-and-industry-war

Or, more likely, the platform will change from AM and FM to streams. There will be a reshuffling of the leaders, but that happened in the 50's when radio, also, was predicted to die.

 

[TheBigA]

Or, more likely, the platform will change from AM and FM to streams. There will be a reshuffling of the leaders, but that happened in the 50's when radio, also, was predicted to die.

The bad news is there are costs that consumers will pay for streaming. Maybe not now, but there will be. They may not be pay for play, they might be bundled in with other services, but music costs will have to be passed on to the consumer. Almost all of the issues brought up in this thread would be taken care of if consumers would embrace some form of subscription service. But they continue to cling to the idea of free music. Any streaming service has to pay the bills, just like broadcast. So at some point, even streaming will become as tightly formatted as OTA radio, and the only way consumers will get personalized service is to pay for it.

 

[Music Lover]

He's amazingly talented, and very creative. His record label, named appropriately "305" after the Miami area code, has given a first chance to many South Florida artists. Plus he is a nice cross-cultural phenomenon, proving that people can get along and share... those cool videos with Chris Brown and Christina Aguilera are a case in point. I love his sampling of some of the 80's songs that he has employed in some of his songs.

Plus he is a really nice person.

I never have been a fan of rap or hip hop.