-
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 are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jack FM 'down the drain' in latest NYC ratings
- Thread starter erwin33
- Start date
> > Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
>
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
> 12+ = no ratings...
>
> 12+ doesnt count..
>
> revenue more important than ratings!! radio 101
>
WLTW #1 12+
WLTW #1 revenue station
Of course no one sells 12+ numbers, but keep in mind the various demos are what makes up the 12+. There is no way to spin this as anything but a horrible book for Jack.
Two things might give Infinity hope. 1. Jack is doing well in other markets. 2. WNEW finally caught on.
>
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
> 12+ = no ratings...
>
> 12+ doesnt count..
>
> revenue more important than ratings!! radio 101
>
WLTW #1 12+
WLTW #1 revenue station
Of course no one sells 12+ numbers, but keep in mind the various demos are what makes up the 12+. There is no way to spin this as anything but a horrible book for Jack.
Two things might give Infinity hope. 1. Jack is doing well in other markets. 2. WNEW finally caught on.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Jack FM 'down the drain'
they'd be idiots to give up on it at this point, but they totally, 100% botched this one. They are at a point of no return and the 3rd trend of the book did show an increase (who knows if that's a trend or just a luck-out). They really have no choice now but to stay the course and be super-extra patient. They shot themselves in the foot and this wound will take a long time to heal.
Had they brought Oldies back to another freq, they could have saved the day. Problem with that premise: it made sense.
> Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
> going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
>
they'd be idiots to give up on it at this point, but they totally, 100% botched this one. They are at a point of no return and the 3rd trend of the book did show an increase (who knows if that's a trend or just a luck-out). They really have no choice now but to stay the course and be super-extra patient. They shot themselves in the foot and this wound will take a long time to heal.
Had they brought Oldies back to another freq, they could have saved the day. Problem with that premise: it made sense.
> Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
> going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
>
O
OldiesCat
Guest
latest NYC ratings
No doubt about that. And somebody commented that at least WNEW is up. How embarrassing that has to be, a perrenial dog like WNEW beating CBS-FM.
Yecch.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by DiamondJoe on 10/18/05 01:18 AM.</FONT></P>
No doubt about that. And somebody commented that at least WNEW is up. How embarrassing that has to be, a perrenial dog like WNEW beating CBS-FM.
Yecch.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by DiamondJoe on 10/18/05 01:18 AM.</FONT></P>
T
That_Guy
Guest
Re: latest NYC ratings
Hows about this... It's a fad (and horribly bad) format, in a decidedly un-hip radio market.
Doomed to fail before it began (even before they screwed the oldies audience, and anyone who ever cared about WCBS.)
Hows about this... It's a fad (and horribly bad) format, in a decidedly un-hip radio market.
Doomed to fail before it began (even before they screwed the oldies audience, and anyone who ever cared about WCBS.)
O
OldiesCat
Guest
NYC ratings
Totally disagree.
Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it- very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong station and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or 92.3) they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM. At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as well chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past the fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
Totally disagree.
Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it- very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong station and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or 92.3) they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM. At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as well chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past the fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
O
OldiesCat
Guest
no, you love saying it
You MAY end up being right, but it IS really still very early in the game. Most successful stations take years to build and in this case it's been less than 6 months. Botched- yes. Total failure- still too early to tell.
> I TOLD YA SO,I TOLD YA SO,etc....
> > Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
You MAY end up being right, but it IS really still very early in the game. Most successful stations take years to build and in this case it's been less than 6 months. Botched- yes. Total failure- still too early to tell.
> I TOLD YA SO,I TOLD YA SO,etc....
> > Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
A
AQH
Guest
Re: NYC ratings
You can't blame Jack's failure in New York to simple frequencies...that's ridiculous. That's borderline faulting the listeners.
Face it, Jack does not work in every market. In Denver (the first US Jack market), it is in the lower eschelon of stations. The luster has been fading in Dallas, the results are so-so in Chicago.
I have no problem saying that it is doing very well in markets such as LA and Seattle (both having jumped over within the past six months). But in Seattle, they dumped a million bucks into advertising for its launch, and we know that ain't gonna continue.
Ad agencies are all very leery about this format, and rightfully so. There are numbers out there that prove after 12-18 months, the ratings tend to go south (as seen in Dallas and Denver). That might bode well for the first four-book average, but when it comes to the second year of Jack's existence, there is clearly an inevitable sopohomore slump.
The argument about how WNEW came around and saying Jack can do that is beyond moot. WNEW was able to wiggle around with formats. Jack prides itself on being an anti-radio thing, leaving very little wiggle room without simply sounding like the rest of the radio stations or a really bad station in the Adirondacks.
Jack couldn't be more cookie-cutter, and that is enabling The Fat Lady to sing in Manhattan.
Jack failed in the largest Canadian market, Toronto. It's not a complete surprise it failed in the largest US market.
> Totally disagree.
>
> Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it-
> very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong station
> and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or 92.3)
> they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM.
> At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as well
> chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past the
> fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
>
> All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
> not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception
> and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
>
You can't blame Jack's failure in New York to simple frequencies...that's ridiculous. That's borderline faulting the listeners.
Face it, Jack does not work in every market. In Denver (the first US Jack market), it is in the lower eschelon of stations. The luster has been fading in Dallas, the results are so-so in Chicago.
I have no problem saying that it is doing very well in markets such as LA and Seattle (both having jumped over within the past six months). But in Seattle, they dumped a million bucks into advertising for its launch, and we know that ain't gonna continue.
Ad agencies are all very leery about this format, and rightfully so. There are numbers out there that prove after 12-18 months, the ratings tend to go south (as seen in Dallas and Denver). That might bode well for the first four-book average, but when it comes to the second year of Jack's existence, there is clearly an inevitable sopohomore slump.
The argument about how WNEW came around and saying Jack can do that is beyond moot. WNEW was able to wiggle around with formats. Jack prides itself on being an anti-radio thing, leaving very little wiggle room without simply sounding like the rest of the radio stations or a really bad station in the Adirondacks.
Jack couldn't be more cookie-cutter, and that is enabling The Fat Lady to sing in Manhattan.
Jack failed in the largest Canadian market, Toronto. It's not a complete surprise it failed in the largest US market.
> Totally disagree.
>
> Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it-
> very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong station
> and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or 92.3)
> they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM.
> At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as well
> chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past the
> fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
>
> All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
> not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception
> and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
>
Re: NYC ratings
> All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
> not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception
> and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been having those problems.
I need to do a little more research on the others but I think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a city with a large transient population. And if you observe it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland, and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
> All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
> not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the exception
> and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga happened.
I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been having those problems.
I need to do a little more research on the others but I think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a city with a large transient population. And if you observe it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland, and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
> WLTW #1 12+
>
> WLTW #1 revenue station
What about WFAN?
>
> WLTW #1 revenue station
What about WFAN?
Re: NYC ratings
> > All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> > all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
>
> > not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the
> exception
> > and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga
> happened.
>
> I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the
> Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for
> two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful
> at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the
> massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it
> doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been
> having those problems.
>
> I need to do a little more research on the others but I
> think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you
> that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin
> Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a
> city with a large transient population. And if you observe
> it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
>
> And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there
> including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland,
> and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
>
Keep in mind that the Denver Jack is in Fort Collins CO. The signal doesn't fully cover the Denver market. From what I understand the signal sounds better in Cheyenne Wyoming than it does in the Southern half of the Denver metro.
I do agree that Jack and it's copycats are seeing a wide range of success and failures. While you listed most of the duds, you left out some of the success stories such as Jack/Nashville and the Arch/St Louis.
As for NYC, an additional reason for it's rough start could be sister station WXRK. Jack might be doing better if XRK was still alternative. Their current format might be too close to Jack, especially since the NY Jack leans rock,perhaps in an effort to distance themselves from Mix?
> > All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> > all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
>
> > not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the
> exception
> > and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga
> happened.
>
> I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the
> Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for
> two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful
> at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the
> massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it
> doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been
> having those problems.
>
> I need to do a little more research on the others but I
> think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you
> that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin
> Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a
> city with a large transient population. And if you observe
> it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
>
> And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there
> including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland,
> and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
>
Keep in mind that the Denver Jack is in Fort Collins CO. The signal doesn't fully cover the Denver market. From what I understand the signal sounds better in Cheyenne Wyoming than it does in the Southern half of the Denver metro.
I do agree that Jack and it's copycats are seeing a wide range of success and failures. While you listed most of the duds, you left out some of the success stories such as Jack/Nashville and the Arch/St Louis.
As for NYC, an additional reason for it's rough start could be sister station WXRK. Jack might be doing better if XRK was still alternative. Their current format might be too close to Jack, especially since the NY Jack leans rock,perhaps in an effort to distance themselves from Mix?
O
OldiesCat
Guest
Re: NYC ratings
OK, let's look at the entire country's Jack/V.H. station scorecard:
L.A.- #1 25-54
Nashville- #1 25-54
Indianapolis- #1 25-54
Minneapolis- Top 5 25-54
St. Louis- #1 25-54
Phoenix- #2 25-54
Seattle- Top 5 25-54
Dallas- Top 7 25-54
Baltimore- Top 8 25-54
Austin- #2 25-54
And those are just the stations who've been on for more than a few months.
I could keep going, but it's pretty obvious that other than New York and just
a few other markets where Jack has been on for more than a few months, Jack is
doing very well.
>
> I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the
> Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for
> two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful
> at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the
> massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it
> doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been
> having those problems.
>
> I need to do a little more research on the others but I
> think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you
> that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin
> Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a
> city with a large transient population. And if you observe
> it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
>
> And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there
> including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland,
> and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
>
OK, let's look at the entire country's Jack/V.H. station scorecard:
L.A.- #1 25-54
Nashville- #1 25-54
Indianapolis- #1 25-54
Minneapolis- Top 5 25-54
St. Louis- #1 25-54
Phoenix- #2 25-54
Seattle- Top 5 25-54
Dallas- Top 7 25-54
Baltimore- Top 8 25-54
Austin- #2 25-54
And those are just the stations who've been on for more than a few months.
I could keep going, but it's pretty obvious that other than New York and just
a few other markets where Jack has been on for more than a few months, Jack is
doing very well.
>
> I don't think you can say that at all. I would NOT call the
> Denver Jack (first one in the U.S. and now on the air for
> two years) or the Chicago Jack (still pretty new) successful
> at all. Even beyond that, the history shows that after the
> massive TV and marketing barrage is over initially, it
> doesn't necessarily hold its numbers. Dallas Jack has been
> having those problems.
>
> I need to do a little more research on the others but I
> think you very much overstate your point. I will grant you
> that L.A. is doing very well.. and this is because Kevin
> Weatherly is very sharp and is tailoring it smartly in a
> city with a large transient population. And if you observe
> it, the marketing is quite a bit different from the others.
>
> And then there are the clones... a lot of duds out there
> including Entercom's Mike in Boston and Charlie in Portland,
> and Bonneville's horrible Max in San Francisco.
>
O
OldiesCat
Guest
NYC ratings
I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. You're right it's not as simple as frequencies- it's how those frequencies were/are being used. Their feeling was that if they put Jack on 102.7, it would be just another doomed format on a doomed frequency and they'd not have gotten much bang for their buck from a PR angle. Unfortunately, they got a TON of PR by putting Jack on 101.1 but it was all BAD PR and I truly don't think they counted on that. They could have saved themselves by bringing the Oldies back on another frequency ("we listened to you, New York!") but pride often gets in the way. Now, it's too late.
Most of the blame, and I've been very outspoken about this, does fall to Viacom/Infinity for the way they botched this whole thing.
In Dallas, they're Top 7 25-54 (hardly "luster fading") and in Chicago, it's just too early to tell (though until Phase 3 of the Summer book, they'd been on a slow but consistent rise 25-54). It is way, WAY too early in this game to start talking about sophomore slumps, especially when most Jack-type stations have been on-air less than a year.
My suspicion is that had just about any other station in NY (other than the top 5 or so biggies) flipped to Jack, the negative feelings toward the format would be far less.
> You can't blame Jack's failure in New York to simple
> frequencies...that's ridiculous. That's borderline faulting the listeners.
>
> Face it, Jack does not work in every market. In Denver (the
> first US Jack market), it is in the lower eschelon of
> stations. The luster has been fading in Dallas, the
> results are so-so in Chicago.
>
> I have no problem saying that it is doing very well in
> markets such as LA and Seattle (both having jumped over
> within the past six months). But in Seattle, they dumped a
> million bucks into advertising for its launch, and we know
> that ain't gonna continue.
>
> Ad agencies are all very leery about this format, and
> rightfully so. There are numbers out there that prove after
> 12-18 months, the ratings tend to go south (as seen in
> Dallas and Denver). That might bode well for the first
> four-book average, but when it comes to the second year of
> Jack's existence, there is clearly an inevitable sopohomore
> slump.
>
> The argument about how WNEW came around and saying Jack can
> do that is beyond moot. WNEW was able to wiggle around with
> formats. Jack prides itself on being an anti-radio thing,
> leaving very little wiggle room without simply sounding like
> the rest of the radio stations or a really bad station in
> the Adirondacks.
> Jack couldn't be more cookie-cutter, and that is enabling
> The Fat Lady to sing in Manhattan.
>
> Jack failed in the largest Canadian market, Toronto. It's
> not a complete surprise it failed in the largest US market.
>
>
>
>
> > Totally disagree.
> >
> > Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it-
> > very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong
> station
> > and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or
> 92.3)
> > they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM.
>
> > At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as
> well
> > chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past
> the
> > fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
> >
> > All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> > all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
>
> > not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the
> exception
> > and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga
> happened.
> >
>
I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. You're right it's not as simple as frequencies- it's how those frequencies were/are being used. Their feeling was that if they put Jack on 102.7, it would be just another doomed format on a doomed frequency and they'd not have gotten much bang for their buck from a PR angle. Unfortunately, they got a TON of PR by putting Jack on 101.1 but it was all BAD PR and I truly don't think they counted on that. They could have saved themselves by bringing the Oldies back on another frequency ("we listened to you, New York!") but pride often gets in the way. Now, it's too late.
Most of the blame, and I've been very outspoken about this, does fall to Viacom/Infinity for the way they botched this whole thing.
In Dallas, they're Top 7 25-54 (hardly "luster fading") and in Chicago, it's just too early to tell (though until Phase 3 of the Summer book, they'd been on a slow but consistent rise 25-54). It is way, WAY too early in this game to start talking about sophomore slumps, especially when most Jack-type stations have been on-air less than a year.
My suspicion is that had just about any other station in NY (other than the top 5 or so biggies) flipped to Jack, the negative feelings toward the format would be far less.
> You can't blame Jack's failure in New York to simple
> frequencies...that's ridiculous. That's borderline faulting the listeners.
>
> Face it, Jack does not work in every market. In Denver (the
> first US Jack market), it is in the lower eschelon of
> stations. The luster has been fading in Dallas, the
> results are so-so in Chicago.
>
> I have no problem saying that it is doing very well in
> markets such as LA and Seattle (both having jumped over
> within the past six months). But in Seattle, they dumped a
> million bucks into advertising for its launch, and we know
> that ain't gonna continue.
>
> Ad agencies are all very leery about this format, and
> rightfully so. There are numbers out there that prove after
> 12-18 months, the ratings tend to go south (as seen in
> Dallas and Denver). That might bode well for the first
> four-book average, but when it comes to the second year of
> Jack's existence, there is clearly an inevitable sopohomore
> slump.
>
> The argument about how WNEW came around and saying Jack can
> do that is beyond moot. WNEW was able to wiggle around with
> formats. Jack prides itself on being an anti-radio thing,
> leaving very little wiggle room without simply sounding like
> the rest of the radio stations or a really bad station in
> the Adirondacks.
> Jack couldn't be more cookie-cutter, and that is enabling
> The Fat Lady to sing in Manhattan.
>
> Jack failed in the largest Canadian market, Toronto. It's
> not a complete surprise it failed in the largest US market.
>
>
>
>
> > Totally disagree.
> >
> > Biggest factor in all this is how Viacom orchestrated it-
> > very, very badly. They certainly flipped the wrong
> station
> > and I suspect that if they'd flipped another (102.7 or
> 92.3)
> > they wouldn't have created so much bad will for 101.1 FM.
>
> > At this point, it's too late to go back so they may as
> well
> > chew on the humble pie and hope New Yorkers can get past
> the
> > fact they blew up a radio station many loved.
> >
> > All that aside, however- Jack isn't a "fad" format. Look
> > all over the country- in nearly every market it's on, it's
>
> > not only doing well, it's doing GREAT. NYC is the
> exception
> > and it can all be chalked up to HOW the whole saga
> happened.
> >
>
A
AQH
Guest
Re: NYC ratings
> I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. You're right
> it's not as simple as frequencies- it's how those
> frequencies were/are being used. Their feeling was that if
> they put Jack on 102.7, it would be just another doomed
> format on a doomed frequency and they'd not have gotten much
> bang for their buck from a PR angle. Unfortunately, they
> got a TON of PR by putting Jack on 101.1 but it was all BAD
> PR and I truly don't think they counted on that. They could
> have saved themselves by bringing the Oldies back on another
> frequency ("we listened to you, New York!") but pride often
> gets in the way. Now, it's too late.
If they put CBS-FM back on the air, which I think they will end up doing by Summer 2006, they'll be forgiven.
> Most of the blame, and I've been very outspoken about this,
> does fall to Viacom/Infinity for the way they botched this
> whole thing.
I assume 'botched' you mean putting Jack on in the first place, right?
> In Dallas, they're Top 7 25-54 (hardly "luster fading")
It is when you were once top three.
> in Chicago, it's just too early to tell (though until Phase
> 3 of the Summer book, they'd been on a slow but consistent
> rise 25-54).
Look at the history of Jack stations. It's clear that if they don't get a big spie in the beginning, there's nothing to be had in terms of ratings.
It is way, WAY too early in this game to start
> talking about sophomore slumps, especially when most
> Jack-type stations have been on-air less than a year.
When I say 'sopohomore slumps' I mean that in the second-year sense. It's fair game in Dallas and Denver.
> My suspicion is that had just about any other station in NY
> (other than the top 5 or so biggies) flipped to Jack, the
> negative feelings toward the format would be far less.
How about maybe that New York listeners don't like such a cookie-cutter format?
> I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying. You're right
> it's not as simple as frequencies- it's how those
> frequencies were/are being used. Their feeling was that if
> they put Jack on 102.7, it would be just another doomed
> format on a doomed frequency and they'd not have gotten much
> bang for their buck from a PR angle. Unfortunately, they
> got a TON of PR by putting Jack on 101.1 but it was all BAD
> PR and I truly don't think they counted on that. They could
> have saved themselves by bringing the Oldies back on another
> frequency ("we listened to you, New York!") but pride often
> gets in the way. Now, it's too late.
If they put CBS-FM back on the air, which I think they will end up doing by Summer 2006, they'll be forgiven.
> Most of the blame, and I've been very outspoken about this,
> does fall to Viacom/Infinity for the way they botched this
> whole thing.
I assume 'botched' you mean putting Jack on in the first place, right?
> In Dallas, they're Top 7 25-54 (hardly "luster fading")
It is when you were once top three.
> in Chicago, it's just too early to tell (though until Phase
> 3 of the Summer book, they'd been on a slow but consistent
> rise 25-54).
Look at the history of Jack stations. It's clear that if they don't get a big spie in the beginning, there's nothing to be had in terms of ratings.
It is way, WAY too early in this game to start
> talking about sophomore slumps, especially when most
> Jack-type stations have been on-air less than a year.
When I say 'sopohomore slumps' I mean that in the second-year sense. It's fair game in Dallas and Denver.
> My suspicion is that had just about any other station in NY
> (other than the top 5 or so biggies) flipped to Jack, the
> negative feelings toward the format would be far less.
How about maybe that New York listeners don't like such a cookie-cutter format?
A
AQH
Guest
Re: NYC ratings
The current numbers can't be denied (although I will point out that Dallas Jack used to be top three 25-54).
The proof in the pudding will be how those stations are doing in 12-18 months. Ad agencies are going to be skeptical until then.
Sure, some of these stations will enjoy some short-term success, but there are indications that some of these markets will not hae these numbers this time next year.
> OK, let's look at the entire country's Jack/V.H. station
> scorecard:
>
> L.A.- #1 25-54
> Nashville- #1 25-54
> Indianapolis- #1 25-54
> Minneapolis- Top 5 25-54
> St. Louis- #1 25-54
> Phoenix- #2 25-54
> Seattle- Top 5 25-54
> Dallas- Top 7 25-54
> Baltimore- Top 8 25-54
> Austin- #2 25-54
>
> And those are just the stations who've been on for more than
> a few months.
> I could keep going, but it's pretty obvious that other than
> New York and just
> a few other markets where Jack has been on for more than a
> few months, Jack is
> doing very well.
>
The current numbers can't be denied (although I will point out that Dallas Jack used to be top three 25-54).
The proof in the pudding will be how those stations are doing in 12-18 months. Ad agencies are going to be skeptical until then.
Sure, some of these stations will enjoy some short-term success, but there are indications that some of these markets will not hae these numbers this time next year.
> OK, let's look at the entire country's Jack/V.H. station
> scorecard:
>
> L.A.- #1 25-54
> Nashville- #1 25-54
> Indianapolis- #1 25-54
> Minneapolis- Top 5 25-54
> St. Louis- #1 25-54
> Phoenix- #2 25-54
> Seattle- Top 5 25-54
> Dallas- Top 7 25-54
> Baltimore- Top 8 25-54
> Austin- #2 25-54
>
> And those are just the stations who've been on for more than
> a few months.
> I could keep going, but it's pretty obvious that other than
> New York and just
> a few other markets where Jack has been on for more than a
> few months, Jack is
> doing very well.
>
Re: no, you love saying it
> You MAY end up being right, but it IS really still very
> early in the game. Most successful stations take years to
> build and in this case it's been less than 6 months.
> Botched- yes. Total failure- still too early to tell.
>
In today's environment, you've got weeks, not years, to succeed.
> You MAY end up being right, but it IS really still very
> early in the game. Most successful stations take years to
> build and in this case it's been less than 6 months.
> Botched- yes. Total failure- still too early to tell.
>
In today's environment, you've got weeks, not years, to succeed.
Re: Jack FM 'down the drain'
> they'd be idiots to give up on it at this point, but they
> totally, 100% botched this one. They are at a point of no
> return and the 3rd trend of the book did show an increase
> (who knows if that's a trend or just a luck-out). They
> really have no choice now but to stay the course and be
> super-extra patient. They shot themselves in the foot and
> this wound will take a long time to heal.
>
> Had they brought Oldies back to another freq, they could
> have saved the day. Problem with that premise: it made
> sense.
K Rock's days are numbered, they should flip that station to oldies, but its not happening.
>
>
> > Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
>
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
> they'd be idiots to give up on it at this point, but they
> totally, 100% botched this one. They are at a point of no
> return and the 3rd trend of the book did show an increase
> (who knows if that's a trend or just a luck-out). They
> really have no choice now but to stay the course and be
> super-extra patient. They shot themselves in the foot and
> this wound will take a long time to heal.
>
> Had they brought Oldies back to another freq, they could
> have saved the day. Problem with that premise: it made
> sense.
K Rock's days are numbered, they should flip that station to oldies, but its not happening.
>
>
> > Down the drain, it's dramaticly for Jack FM. What are they
>
> > going to do with this ratings. This is not good.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.