Jack down 12+ in trend

[OldiesCat]

paranoid

Well it sure sounded like it. Are you backpeddling now?
> >
> Now that really didn't cross my mind, I don't think. Is
> that really what I was thinking? I wonder. Hmm...
>

 

[OldiesCat]

jack replaced:

Jay- did you actually read my post? I didn't say "all the stations Jack replaced were dogs"- I said (read below) "most cases".

> How about WGLD/Indianapolis? They were certainly not a d-o-g
> and they DID get instant results. They did not go down at
> all (as many expected they would), I would guess their demos
> improved as well.
>
> Maybe the Indy Jack is an exception, a station that had an
> especially smooth transition. Then it's fair to say the NY
> Jack had an especially rough transition. I still say it
> would have done better on another frequency. In other
> markets, Jack doesn't come with negative baggage, it's a
> fresh new format and approach to radio. In NY, in many
> listeners minds Jack represents evil.
>
>
> The "instant results" you see are the exception, not the
> > rule.I agree. Every format is different, some take awhile to
> > > grow. But this is one that has seen instant results in
> > > several markets. If it stays at this level for the next
> > few months, it probably won't get any better. Although I'm
> > sure Infinity will give it plenty of time.
> >
> > But in most cases, JACK replaced a d-o-g. go look it up.
> > > As others have speculated, Jack might have gotten off to a
> > > better start in NY on another frequency. Even some
> > listeners who might like Jack are biased to hate it because it
> took the place of a loved station that had a special place in
> > > peoples hearts.
> >
>

 

[JustinCase]

Re: Jack down

> How about WGLD/Indianapolis? They were certainly not a d-o-g
> and they DID get instant results. They did not go down at
> all (as many expected they would), I would guess their demos
> improved as well.
>
> Maybe the Indy Jack is an exception, a station that had an
> especially smooth transition. Then it's fair to say the NY
> Jack had an especially rough transition. I still say it
> would have done better on another frequency. In other
> markets, Jack doesn't come with negative baggage, it's a
> fresh new format and approach to radio. In NY, in many
> listeners minds Jack represents evil.
>

Reality is New York City is a news and personality strong market... dropping both for any format is a death sentance... CBS-FM was a franchise of its own, the name meant oldies, the personalities were known well by the target ages and it had decent ratings in important demos. Infinity gambled on a fast format that was truly unproven and not properly researched for NY. <P ID="signature">______________
Can I sleep now?</P>

 

[musicloverII]

Re: $ $ $ $ $

Did it ever occur to you that INCREASING REVENUE is the ticket to MAKING MONEY. You can only cut costs so much. If you bill HALF of what you billed before and can't INCREASE REVENUE from there then it's a failure.

In other words, there's not much left to cut so their costs should be close to Nil for O.E. If their billing doesn't maintain the amount required to make the station more PROFITABLE (which is the reason why a station flips formats - to make MORE MONEY) then it was before then it's a loser. That's what I believe and I don't think it will take long for the suits making all the wrong moves to know it, but they'll never admit it.

Say WCBS billed 25 million, it's O.E. were 17 million, the station is running over 30% profit.

If they cut O.E. down to 8 million but only bill 15 million? You do the math. Bad move magnified. What's the point? The only thing lowered was total revenue. Since when does billing less equate to better?


> Geez, here we go again.
>
> JACK was not done as a cost-cutting move. Has it ever
> occoured to you the amount of money it's costing to pay off
> existing talent contracts PLUS the revenue you automatically
> lose when you make a format flip? PLUS the cost of
> marketing an all-new product? PLUS the cost of resources to
> actually execute the flip?
>
> Of course not, because it's easier on the brain to think
> "corporate consultants anti-DJ conspiracy".
>
>
> >
> > I just think it will take some time before the suits
> realize
> > that in a market like NYC, it's the top line that matters
> a
> > lot more than the money that can be saved from
> cost-cutting.
> >
>

 

[peppertree]

Re: $ $ $ $ $

In the case of Jack, Infinity got a record amount of free publicity.

> Geez, here we go again.
>
> JACK was not done as a cost-cutting move. Has it ever
> occoured to you the amount of money it's costing to pay off
> existing talent contracts PLUS the revenue you automatically
> lose when you make a format flip? PLUS the cost of
> marketing an all-new product? PLUS the cost of resources to
> actually execute the flip?
>
> Of course not, because it's easier on the brain to think
> "corporate consultants anti-DJ conspiracy".
>
>
> >
> > I just think it will take some time before the suits
> realize
> > that in a market like NYC, it's the top line that matters
> a
> > lot more than the money that can be saved from
> cost-cutting.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[peppertree]

Re: Jack down

Says who?

What you state may be true for New York City but to the chagrin of my fellow New Yorkers the city is becoming more like the rest of the country. Popular music without jocks has been around outside of New York, though usually not near the top of the ratings.


I remember WNBC-FM in 1973 without jocks eighteen hours every day with a format called The Rock Pile. But it did not last.


I wish the city was not becoming more like any other place. My favorite knish place is turning into a Starbucks.


> I admit, I like Jack sometimes. The music variety is great
> and some liners are funny, but radio is supposed to have
> jocks, contests, information, etc.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[OldiesCat]

Re: $ $ $ $ $

> In the case of Jack, Infinity got a record amount of free publicity.

That's correct- and good for them.

 

[OldiesCat]

$ signs

cat- why are you yelling at me? I am with you about cutting costs- READ MY POSTS.

I have been saying (about jack) all along that this concept isn't being done just to save money by cutting jocks (which the paranoid cynics would have us believe) but to increase revenue by performing better 25-54 (than, for instance Oldies).

Short-term, they'll take a bit of a revenue hit because almost all flips do.
So, go back and re-read my previous posts- this twice in a row you have miscaracterized what I represent.

> Did it ever occur to you that INCREASING REVENUE is the
> ticket to MAKING MONEY. You can only cut costs so much. If
> you bill HALF of what you billed before and can't INCREASE
> REVENUE from there then it's a failure.

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack down

right, Mike- but in professional radio (vs. high school radio), nobody expected them to be successful the first month, first book or even in the first year. The move was made with the long-term in mind. I doubt the "suits" are reading posts like yours and fuming that they aren't #1- THEY EXPECTED THIS.

> >
> I have to be honest. I'm sitting here laughing.
> WCBS has dropped 8 places. not a good thing for
> the suits.
>
> Mike Dane
> WSTB-FM 88.9
> www.SundayOlsiesJukebox.com
>

 

[KlunkLetter]

Re: Jack down

> right, Mike- but in professional radio (vs. high school
> radio), nobody expected them to be successful the first
> month, first book or even in the first year. The move was
> made with the long-term in mind. I doubt the "suits" are
> reading posts like yours and fuming that they aren't #1-
> THEY EXPECTED THIS.
>
Long term in radio? You're kidding us, right?
> > >
> > I have to be honest. I'm sitting here laughing.
> > WCBS has dropped 8 places. not a good thing for
> > the suits.
> >
> > Mike Dane
> > WSTB-FM 88.9
> > www.SundayOlsiesJukebox.com
> >
>

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack down

I'm not talking 5-10 years or longer. In today's radio, long-term is a few years.


> Long term in radio? You're kidding us, right?