JACK FM

[davideduardo]

You know, this is all terribly amusing to read, but, in actuality, makes little to no sense.

Yours is an unusually well thought out post, irrespective of my personal point of view, so I'd like to at least attempt to show you how the thinking goes on in, perhaps, a different sector of the industry. And I say this because I really believe that your feelings and mine are not nearly as opposed as you have so far concluded. In fact, I am wondering if the difference is based on the size of the market we are each involde in; in smaller markets, most clients can also be listeners. In bigger markets they are usually not even in the same state.

The thread started about the JACK-FM format on CBS-FM, then to the ratings, then to how JACK-FM in NYC has not fulfilled it's goal of surpassing what it did in ratings and billings as an oldies station.

I think the thread is still focused on its original subject. Keep in mind that radio only makes money if listeners are satisfied and copious. So if a broadcaster analyzes the economics, we are taking into account that to achieve certain goals, it is necessary as part of the process to make some listeners happy.

What is at issue is really simple: CBS-FM was declining in salable audience, and its revenues had declined significantly in recent years. If one projected the revenue and audience declines out another couple of years, there would be fewer "useful" listeners and lower income. So it all boils down to an analysis of whether Jack is on a better track to future revenue than the old format would have produced in the same time frame. The answer is a very clear "yes."

David - As broadcasters, we listen in one ear as just that, and with the other, as a listener. With one eye, we look at the current revenue of what the result of that listening is and with the other, we look at the bottom line. From that, we determine success, failure or "are we on the right track?"

My opinion differs. I see programming as product development, in today's market driven mode. I see sales and revenue as marketing. I see managers as orchestrating the two... making sure there is a good product, and pushing for the maximum sales. This attitude satisfies both listener needs and makes the station sustainable.

You, in 90% of your many posts, some educated, some way off the radar,

I'm curious... what do you consider "off the radar?"

look at everything from a book of computer sheets culled from BIAfn. You see only finances. You see only revenues. You make comparisons of one station to another, from one station in ranking based on those revenues to a station across the country.

The fact is that revenues are our "report card." They determine, on a personal level, our income and employment. They also determine what is feasable programming-wise and what is impractical. The success of a station is the ability to monetize listenrship.

Rather than suppositions and guesses, is it not better to use the most accurate tools available, such as BIA, Arbitron, and other mesurements of both revenue and ratings success? This is a business, not fine art.

You also have a demonstrated bias against people over the age of 50.

I have most certainly not. I have explained that a commercial radio station in nearly all but the smallest of the rated markets can not sustain itself by programming to persons over 55.

The fact that you have several times used the "50" figure demonstrates that you have not read my posts. "Buys against 55+ are virtually non-existent" has been what I have said over and over. This is because such buys are so uncommon as to be mere exceptions to the rule. And the reason, as I have said, is that advertisers instruct their agencies on who to buy against, and 55+ is not in those instructions. In essence, radio is powerless to change this because there is no prejudice involved... just the return on investment of ad dollars spent.

If there were lots of 55+ buys, then there would be lots of stations targeting 55+. The fact that formats are dropped or changed or modified when they deliver too many older listeners over 55 shows that radio responds to advertiser needs. We'd do a great job serving 55+ listeners if there were a way to do so an make money. But there is no such way.

That is not personal bias... that is simple fact.

Rankings are one thing. Markets across the country are, in fact, quite different.

Not in sales. You are paid in proportion to the number of listeners you have and the desirability of those listeners. This is why Coke buys out of one national agency, not 400 local ones.

What works in one doesn't always work in another. One sales effort in New York may not measure the same kind of effort in Seattle. You, of all [people, know that.

I do disagree here. Selling at its best is showing an advertiser or their agency that they get good value. Value is a strict dollar spent to dollar earned in new sales relationship in most campaigns. I have sold in a half dozen countries, and many US markets and Demonstrating value, service and honesty work anywhere.

quote]Not all the pieces of the radio puzzle fit just from your "numbers," including both revenues or ratings. [/quote]

But the numbers are the only effective measurement of a station's ability to get listeners (ratings) and sales (revenue). Everything else is subjective. There are dozens of ways to get ratings. Were it simple, every staitons would be tied for first.

That's the way radio is from market to market. If they all worked as well everywhere, there would only be one sales staff, we'd all be guaranteed the same or similar revenues and a lot of radio people on these boards would be happy working. But they aren't, and rightfully so.

I have to ask how many markets you have worked in in either sales or programming. I've had quite a lot of expereince in different sized markets (nearly all top 100 in the US) and I find it hard to believe that there is any difference in the basics, from El Paso to New York. Sure, the energy level and intensity of some markets is different from the more relaxed or slower paced manner of others, but the business is the same.

One station's $25 million doesn't equal another station's $25 million in many respects.

Nobody said they were. Even two similar billers in the same market will have different expenses and a different BCF depending on both format and management style. But the point is that, generally, it is a pretty accurate assesment to say the staiton with increasing revenues is a better station than the one on the slide or that the one with $10 million in billings is better than the one with $5 million.

In fact, I can tell you a few million dollar properties who make far less than $25 million but are quite a bit more profitable than those that are ... and so can you.

Who said this was not true. News fomrats are the most expensive, while some ACs or Smooth Jazz ones are the least expensive among major formats. That's part of why we see very few all newsers outside the top 10 markets... not enough cume, not enoough revenue. But every market is the same int hat you program to the larger available audience segments, preferably uncontested ones.

We, as listeners, can tell the "tale of the tape" by what we see, without analyzing everything to death. Sure, "power ratios" and "CPM" can all be done automatically, but you know as well as I, that many agency buys are based on what's hot and what's not. They could care less about all that crap. They look at the demo cell numbers important to their client(s), the best deals they can get and a fair return on a cost-per-thousand basis, based on the number of stations and the number of dollars to divide for a successful buy for the client.

In other words, they evaluate the CPP (I have not seen CPM used for much more than a decade) where a target CPP is established for each buy based on the demo and market size (in other words, the delivery of each pint). CPP is used as it forms the basis for market R&F analysis to achieve the actual impression goals of the campaign.

"Power ratio" is not a sales term. And agency buyers are not interested in hunches or unquantifiable qualities. Their job is to place buys in each market that, together, achieve the goals of the campaign for R&F. Buyers are, for tehmost part, low on the agency food chain and safe buys are always preferred. In fact, this is why 2 to 4 book averages are used, not single books, in many shops.

Some, while, thankfully, not using the 12+ beauty contest numbers, still use the "horse race game" in sizing up a market. and the buyers could care less about "ratios" and such. They're looking to make affordable buys with a decent return from the market they are buying and that's it.

First, there are no "ratios" in agency sales. It is all about meeting CPP... either by rate, bonus spots, adding merchandising or remotes or some other quantifiable aspect. And then it is about running R&F on the whole buy to make sure that the goals are reached for the total market buy in terms of coverage (reach) and individual impressions (frequency). The CPP concept is the measure of "affordable" and is set in advance. Meet the goal, and get the buy. Don't meet it and you take a pass.

Usually, those buys are in the top 10 stations and always in the top five.

... in the target demo. If the goal is 35-44 women, then there is one set of stations. If it is 21-44 men, another. This is why 15th ranked WFAN in NY can be the second or third highest biller. In markets like LA, NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc. where there are lots of dollars ($400 million to $1.1 Billion) there may be 25 stations that are top 5 in some buying demo based on ages, sex, ethnicity or even geographic location of a client's locations.

After that, it's a crap shoot depending on the working between station and buyer, not just sitting around waiting for the phone to ring.

Where did you get the idea I might think that you can sell agencies based on waiting for the phone to ring? In my last GSM / NSM positon, we had 144 agencies in our market, ranging from McCann and Y&R to little affairs with two or three employees. Selling was a combination of service, honest scheduling, accurate and timely invoicing, building relationships of trust and offering competitive value pricing.

You tend to mix things a lot.

I'm sorry but I don't see this. Perhaps if you got a grasp on the terms and the metrics of radio you would not be confused. CPM is not used. CPP is. Power Ratios are not a sales metric. There are dozens of buying demos inside 18-54, not just one. Radio is a business, not a charity.

We're either "irrelevant" on points you don't grasp

Name one. So far, as I am trying to explain, you don't grasp the concepts and underpinnings of sales. You are making quiete an accusation (you said, slightly more politely, that I am either stupid or ignorant) which you don't explain.

or I, for one, find you "generalizing" too much. But it's a "live by the numbers, die by the numbers" game and the posters have every right to look at it that way because that how most people understand and play the game. They buy what's good for their clients.

Yes, it is a numbers based proposition when you sell to agencies. That is why we call such ratings based, CPP measured business called "transactional sales" because they are pure numbers plays. Local direct is often less transactional, but in bigger cities clients that can afford radio are pretty smart and also quantify the buys, although they may be less rigid on demos and such.

A last place baseball team might still pull 3 million people a year, but that doesn't make them "good," or a World Series champ.

Really bad analogy. Only one team can win the series. But in the markets I have named, 25 or 30 stations can all be big winners, and there can also be smaller winners as well. In fact, there can be 8 or 10 stations with very similar BCF.

In my opinion, JACK-FM, a gutted talent-less vast wasteland of iPod on shuffle, is not what New York listeners want, and the ratings and revenues show that.

Golly. In March (actuals) Jack was #7 in NY in both 12+ and 25-54, and #3 in 10-3 in 25-54. It's billings are rising, and are probably now ahead of what the old format would have been doing were it to have continued in its revenue slide and ratings losses in sales demos.

See, this is where a rational analysis of numbers trumps an emotional reaction that is based on personal taste or resentment over a lost format.

JACK-FM has it's fans ... Just not enough of them.

Top 10 25-54 is not good enough? It's good enough to bill $35 million or more.

The suits want to see $25-million in revenues now...not $16-million like last year.

They told you this personally? Actually, the station is on track to do maybe $27 this year. Depending on the overall market revenues, maybe $30. The first year of a format is rough... buyers do not want to go with one or two books, so they wait for a 4-book average or get very low rates and point delivery guarantees.

An increase overall of .1 doesn't equal a five-share, or a four, probably close to a three, maybe, if that, in the 25-54 cell.

#7 25-54. Nicely over a 3 share.

But it's far from being number 1.

Again, this is not a horse race, a basball series or a NASCAR event. There are dozens of winners in NY. When the # 15 station can bill $50 million, it is not even necessary to be #1.

And oldies did a lot better with a 4 share, even with and extra $7 million thrown in.

Revenues from 2000 to 2004 were off way over 20%, and they would have been down to about $20 this year... while listeners were getting older and older. The 25-54 today is greater than the age vs. time projection of oldies would have been.

Obviously, this is not about sales or programming per se. It is about your favorite station. A format that was becoming a liability, not an asset.

Why don't you get a satellite radio?

 

[adma]

Why don't you get a satellite radio?

Well, satellite is just one of many media options out there. But I fear the trouble is, that the ways in which the best satellite is "superior" to old-school terrestrial oldies is a little too geekish and highfalutin for old-school oldies fans--especially those for whom pre-Jack WCBS was like mother's milk--to grasp. Cousin Brucie vs Little Steven, y'know.

Likewise, the issue may not be over-55s being neglected at large, but that the over-55s being neglected are so-called middle-to-lower-grade, culturally speaking, and hence "undesirable"--at least when it comes to music radio. (Talk radio is another matter.) Then again, it's the middle-to-lower-graders who're more likely to stick to terrestrial, so it's a Catch-22 there...

 

[BACKnUSSR]

Golly. In March (actuals) Jack was #7 in NY in both 12+ and 25-54, and #3 in 10-3 in 25-54. It's billings are rising, and are probably now ahead of what the old format would have been doing were it to have continued in its revenue slide and ratings losses in sales demos.

So are you deeming this a success in NY?

Top 10 25-54 is not good enough? It's good enough to bill $35 million or more.

So, are you suggesting JACK will bill $35 million or more....or is that number just anothe rof your "red herrings"?

The suits want to see $25-million in revenues now...not $16-million like last year.

They told you this personally? Actually, the station is on track to do maybe $27 this year. Depending on the overall market revenues, maybe $30. The first year of a format is rough... buyers do not want to go with one or two books, so they wait for a 4-book average or get very low rates and point delivery guarantees.

Well than, according to your logic, CBS Radio should have indeed waited until its oldies format downtrended revenue-wise until it matched or feel below what they thought JACK should bill in its first couple of years. Common sense tells you that they absolutely expected more in billing on JACK than they're at.

 

[davideduardo]

"In March (actuals) Jack was #7 in NY in both 12+ and 25-54, and #3 in 10-3 in 25-54. It's billings are rising, and are probably now ahead of what the old format would have been doing were it to have continued in its revenue slide and ratings losses in sales demos. "

So are you deeming this a success in NY?

Of course it is a success. There are 73 stations in the metro. Being Top 10... or Top 15... or even Top 20 is pretty much a guarantee of high profitability.

"Top 10 25-54 is not good enough? It's good enough to bill $35 million or more."

So, are you suggesting JACK will bill $35 million or more....or is that number just anothe rof your "red herrings"?

So far, you have yet to find one red herring. But thanks for playing.

Every one of the top 10 in 12+ in NY bills $35 million or more. If Jack is top 10 in the core sales demos, it will definitly be able to do that much if it sustains a top 10 position.

Well than, according to your logic, CBS Radio should have indeed waited until its oldies format downtrended revenue-wise until it matched or feel below what they thought JACK should bill in its first couple of years.

They probably wanted to sieze an opportunity, and not wait for the station to start bleeding red ink. The 2005 projection was about $22 million, which is probably not very profitable for that expensive format. They knew what was coming, and the choice was to lose money with oldies or invest time in building another format.

Common sense tells you that they absolutely expected more in billing on JACK than they're at.

Why? We all know that it takes a long time to convert ratings into revenue, because buys are planned in advance on old data... often 4-book averages. So the big growth of most new formats is in the second year. KCBS FM in LA went very quickly to the top non-Hispanic spot in 25-54, but it was not until into the second year that their billings increased. And they went up dramaticall after about 15 months, but were down the first 9 months, and then started slowly moving up until narly a year and a half after the change.

 

[wgliradio]

Of course it is a success. There are 73 stations in the metro. Being Top 10... or Top 15... or even Top 20 is pretty much a guarantee of high profitability.

So would you say, in Boston, with Oldies WODS in 25-54

Overall it was 6th with a 4.5
Mornings it was 7th with a 3.7

12+ it was 8th with a 3.8

Would these be good numbers for YOU? Would this guarantee high profitability? According to you it should.

 

[wgliradio]

A last place baseball team might still pull 3 million people a year, but that doesn't make them "good," or a World Series champ.

] Really bad analogy. Only one team can win the series. But in the markets I have named, 25 or 30 stations can all be big winners.

Actually it's the best possible analogy. The more I know about you David, the more I am surprised that instead of conforming to the system that you don't try and use the influence you have to try and manipulate the system for the benefit of radio as a whole, not just as a business today but for its survival in the future.

What you are allowing here is poor product. Eventually, that baseball team that puts out a bad product in, lets say, a new ballpark will eventually have an empty new ballpark. Same goes for radio. In this time with other gadgets and devices to drag attention AWAY from radio, radio should be playing on its strong suits... localism, formats that connect with real people AND numbers. And don't give me this hogwash about your research nonsense because you've washed it down and micromanaged it to the point where you don't even know what to do anymore... and all you have to do is spin a dial to see that.. or hear the struggles of stations in major markets that have no clue what to air anymore.

Don't lie about it. Face up to it. You've become so swamped in numbers, books, trends, percentages that you can't even step out from behind that and use a bit of common sense... At one time you had it, because this type of data didn't exist like it did... and the earth revolved and stations made money. Now, there is too much data, too much known, not enough risks, poor programming and an overall lack of talent and creativity from all corners.

Stations took risks. Where do you find the next Howard Stern? Goddamn, think outside the box, you need people to think outside the box. You need local programmers who don't have national ideas thrown at their feet. What works in LA DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK IN NY. When you figure that out, you can take the first step at coming back to reality, closing your books and laptop and maybe actually listening to what's on the air from the standpoint of a listener for a change... but maybe you've sold that part of your soul, so it's no longer there.

Honestly, every programmer, jock, engineer etc that came out of the 60's that I know... and I know quite a few who worked at some big stations (WHN, WNBC, WABC, CKLW to name a few) can't figure out what's the matter with the next generation. You, who came from this same time, have gone from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vadar. Seriously, just listen to yourself and how you cast away the human aspect and the special bond between the listener and the radio station, something that can last for decades, and toss it away like a piece of sh*t.

I was asked in college why I was interested in radio when there were so many more technical opportunities in television. I asked them.. "what is your favorite television station"? No answer. "what is your favorite radio station?" Got it? The bond between the radio station you work for and the listener was special. I don't know how special it is anymore. Radio has removed the human elements and the next generation doesn't know what it's like to connect with radio anymore. It's just a jukebox.

 

[davideduardo]

"Really bad analogy. Only one team can win the series. But in the markets I have named, 25 or 30 stations can all be big winners. "

Actually it's the best possible analogy. The more I know about you David, the more I am surprised that instead of conforming to the system that you don't try and use the influence you have to try and manipulate the system for the benefit of radio as a whole, not just as a business today but for its survival in the future

Survival of radio in the future is almost 100% a technology issue revolving around delivery of content. This will be determined by the very top executives and owners of boty systems and broadcast groups. In the meantime, most of us have radio stations to take care of, or we won't have content at all irregardless of the pipes we use to deliver it.
.

What you are allowing here is poor product.

You are mistakenly generalizing about poor product. Do you know for a fact that the product I am in part responsible for is poor?

Eventually, that baseball team that puts out a bad product in, lets say, a new ballpark will eventually have an empty new ballpark. Same goes for radio.

As I said, there is no winner/loser situation in radio. There are many winners, particularly in the larger markets where the revenue gets to even lower tier stations as long as they have a claim to some demo that is asked for by agencies and clients. On the other hand, in some markets there is not enough money to go around, and too many staitons chasing it, so very, very few win and the quality of programming suffers as there are just too many staitons.

But there is no situation where just one staiton wins and all else lose. For about two decades, smooth jazz stations were not commonly in the top stations in a market, but they had good demos and made lots of meney (although the demos are ageing, and fewer are doing as well as there were). There are quite a few formats that can not be number 1 in their markets, but at #8 or #11 or #7 make good money and have a format that is unlikely to be challenged, meaning less promotion and marketing costs... so they may make as much as the stations in the top 5.

There is no single winner. There are many winners. And those that loose are generally those with bad-signal AMs or rimshot or class A FMs that can not, no matter how good they are, serve the full market. This is why, even back to the 50's, half of US radio stations were not profitable. No profits = mediocre or bad programming.

In this time with other gadgets and devices to drag attention AWAY from radio, radio should be playing on its strong suits... localism, formats that connect with real people AND numbers. And don't give me this hogwash about your research nonsense because you've washed it down and micromanaged it to the point where you don't even know what to do anymore... and all you have to do is spin a dial to see that.. or hear the struggles of stations in major markets that have no clue what to air anymore.

As said before, we have the technology and techniques to effectively talk to local listeners by the tens of thousands and find out what is really of interest and what is not. No matter how you try to dismiss research, all that word means is talking to the local staiton listener and discovering what pleases and displeases them. Previously, we guessed or found out what songs got played on jukeboxes. Now we can profile an individual in many ways, including favorite songs, but also interest in news, sports, weather, humor, etc.

Don't lie about it. Face up to it. You've become so swamped in numbers, books, trends, percentages that you can't even step out from behind that and use a bit of common sense... At one time you had it, because this type of data didn't exist like it did... and the earth revolved and stations made money. Now, there is too much data, too much known, not enough risks, poor programming and an overall lack of talent and creativity from all corners.

Actually, as I said, staitons, most of them, did not make money. Probably a higher percentage are profitable today than at any time in the last 50 years because we have learned to go after smaller pieces of the audience and serve them well becasue we have a better knowledge of the wants and needs of each listener. I can remember doing paper surveys and hand tabulating them in the 60's... and checking requests and record sales and other stuff. Today, we can see much more clearly indvidual tastes, and that makes the way to entertain, amuse or inform tem easier.

Stations took risks.

Still do. There is no way to 100% research a new format, as people can not tell you what they will do... only what they are doing or have done. Every new song we play is steeped in risk. Every time the morning team does a bit, it is a risk. Every time we move an upcoming talent into a better daypart it is a risk. Every time we do a startup it is a risk.

In the past, stations took dumb risks, becasue they did not have access to enough data. Today, we have plenty of ways of finding out general interests. But it takes a great PD to combine the science with the art to make a staiton sound good, to create a mood, to be fun, or relaxing, or imformative.

Where do you find the next Howard Stern?

Easy question, as I have found a number of them in my market. The highest rated Spanish langauge morning show in 25 markets was my overnight jock at KWIZ in Santa Ana 15 years ago... he talked too much, so when the morning guy was arrested (yeah, it happens) instead of shutting him up, I gave him a go at morning drive. He is now in 6 of the top 10 markets, and is #1 in Spanish in every market he is in.

A number of years ago, I was consulting in a market of about 3 million where there were a number of staitons in the same format (about 12 to be exact) and I told the owner we needed to stand out by being personality driven, starting with mornings. That afternoon, I interviewed a dozen or so jocks who had been fired from major stations; I found two who could not keep a job because they were hard to handle. We demoed the show the next day, and it went on formally the next Monday. Today, 20 years later, it is still the #1 radio show in the market with the same talents I picked two decades ago.

So we don't take risks? I can give you a dozen more stories like that.

Goddamn, think outside the box, you need people to think outside the box.

No, you need people to think like listeners, not like magers who make more money and have a different lifestyle than the average listener. The way to do that is to talk to listeners a lot.

You need local programmers who don't have national ideas thrown at their feet.

Jay Leno. Seinfeld. Lost. American Idol. SOme ideas are national, and some, while being national, can be localized too. But in any one country, there is vastly more in common than not. You just mentioned Stern, a national talent who beat all comers locally in his target because he is so good in that areana.

What works in LA DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK IN NY.

But most things are the same everywhere, just with different seasoning. There is a reason why we received an A in both Summer and Fall of 2006 in the Lehman Bros. Ratings report card, and nobody else did... in nearly every local market we are leaders in our formats and clusters. That is done by knowing what works ont he grand scale and what is a local factor that tempers the national trend.

When you figure that out, you can take the first step at coming back to reality, closing your books and laptop and maybe actually listening to what's on the air from the standpoint of a listener for a change... but maybe you've sold that part of your soul, so it's no longer there.

It's as simple as this: when I did not have much research, and had to do crude, local studies, I would have died for what I have today. If I had good stations then, I can imagine how much better they would have been if we had known more about the things we thought were right but which the listeners actually hated.

Honestly, every programmer, jock, engineer etc that came out of the 60's that I know... and I know quite a few who worked at some big stations (WHN, WNBC, WABC, CKLW to name a few) can't figure out what's the matter with the next generation. You, who came from this same time, have gone from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vadar. Seriously, just listen to yourself and how you cast away the human aspect and the special bond between the listener and the radio station, something that can last for decades, and toss it away like a piece of sh*t.

You are making assumptions. We are listener driven and a strong developer of talent, and the ratings show it. But I am not going back to checking the sales of 45 rpm singles. Sorry.

I was asked in college why I was interested in radio when there were so many more technical opportunities in television. I asked them.. "what is your favorite television station"? No answer.

Nobody has a favorite TV staiton. They have favorite TV shows. TV staitons offer dozens and dozens of different shows for different people each week. Radio staitons offer one format. People identify radio staitons, as each has a flavor. TV has programs, some we love, some we detest.

"what is your favorite radio station?" Got it? The bond between the radio station you work for and the listener was special.

Not really. the bond of the format is special, but if a new staiton comes on that plays the same kind of music, but better selections, or with fewer commercials or a better signal, your listeners are so loyal and bonded that they will go away in a few weeks and never remember you.

I don't know how special it is anymore.

It really never was. We loved our "favorite" station because it had our favorite music. If the same jocks started spinning country instead of Top 40, we would have all been gone in about 10 minutes. So much for favorite staitons. Some PDs put together better packages, of course, which made it harder for competitors to gain a toehold or even discouraged them from trying. But the love is of the format, not the staiton, then and now.

Radio has removed the human elements and the next generation doesn't know what it's like to connect with radio anymore. It's just a jukebox.

I'll be sure to tell our talent that on Sunday when we expect 120,000 listeners to come and see them just at our LA staitons.

 

[davideduardo]

Of course it is a success. There are 73 stations in the metro. Being Top 10... or Top 15... or even Top 20 is pretty much a guarantee of high profitability.

So would you say, in Boston, with Oldies WODS in 25-54

Overall it was 6th with a 4.5
Mornings it was 7th with a 3.7

12+ it was 8th with a 3.8

Would these be good numbers for YOU? Would this guarantee high profitability? According to you it should.

Yes, this is one of the better performing Oldies stations left. But it's revenue has been slipping or flat every year of the last 6, as its demos age and its ratings decline in sales demos. Obviously it has life left, perhaps a number of years. But at some point, the declining revenue is going to drive a modification towared even more of a classic hits format, or a full switch.

 

[amfmsw]

Dave, you miss the point, as usual. You seem to be so wrapped up in research and rebuttal, and thinking up your next defensive reply, that you have totally missed the intent of this thread.

These people, I included, MISS OUR RADIO STATION. CBS-FM made a connection with us. It was part of our lives. The music was comforting in a dangerous world. The personalities were our childhood companions. Radio USED to be a companion. Consultants have made radio mechanical. Of course, we all agree that stations need to make profit. But, instead of dumping on all of the Boomers, and our stations, why don't you consult the sales teams?

You seem to have an answer for everything else. Teach the ad agencies that 25-54 is nice, but 35-64 is the money sweet spot.

Sorry, but I agree, your bias against older people is evident all over this board.

 

[OldiesCat]

Dave, you miss the point, as usual. You seem to be so wrapped up in research and rebuttal, and thinking up your next defensive reply, that you have totally missed the intent of this thread.

These people, I included, MISS OUR RADIO STATION. CBS-FM made a connection with us. It was part of our lives. The music was comforting in a dangerous world. The personalities were our childhood companions. Radio USED to be a companion. Consultants have made radio mechanical. Of course, we all agree that stations need to make profit. But, instead of dumping on all of the Boomers, and our stations, why don't you consult the sales teams?

You seem to have an answer for everything else. Teach the ad agencies that 25-54 is nice, but 35-64 is the money sweet spot.

Sorry, but I agree, your bias against older people is evident all over this board.

First of all, David seldom misses the point.

Secondly, it's understandable you and others miss CBS-FM. But, the fact nobody else has put Oldies on the air in NYC is pretty good evidence that it's not exactly a format in-demand right now. This has nothing do with "dumping on boomers", it has to do with fulfilling audience demand. The backlash against CBS for dumping Oldies came almost exclusively from radio people, not radio listeners.

Finally, you don't "teach ad agencies". Ad agencies do what they are told by their clients, the advertisers. And, advertisers don't see that the 25-54 cell from 10 years ago is now 35-64- or, maybe they do but just don't care. They give marching orders to agencies, so this is not about educating anybody.

There is no "bias against older people" but there are some of us who see what's going on in the real world of radio, who aren't blinded by "I wanna play 'The Shoop Shoop Song' again!".

The run rises in the east, we pay taxes and advertisers aren't targeting 55+. All facts, so get used to it.

 

[davideduardo]

Dave, you miss the point, as usual. You seem to be so wrapped up in research and rebuttal, and thinking up your next defensive reply, that you have totally missed the intent of this thread. These people, I included, MISS OUR RADIO STATION.

The last few posts have had scant little to do with CBS FM and have moved on to a more traditional "shoot the messenger" line of reasoning.

CBS-FM made a connection with us. It was part of our lives. The music was comforting in a dangerous world. The personalities were our childhood companions. Radio USED to be a companion.

The last time I did some perceptual research, for an oldies station in DC, we found something interesting: many oldies listeners were attached to their station because it represented the only truly happy or carefree days in their lives. One interview I conducted was with a (then) near-50 year old woman who worked for the DoJ and filed briefs all day long in a basement. She had a comfortable GS level, but her life had little meaning escept for the period of the 60's. The radio station was, in essence, her snapshot of another time. She was also representative in one or another way of the majority of the listeners I intedrviewd (one on one hour-long interviews, not focus groups, not telphone chats)

So for many such listeners, the station was not music or DJs or contests. It was a reliving of a certain period in time. Unfortunately, as the DJs of the era and the folks who talked the original 60's talk croaked (and the DJs were older than the listeners, remember, so most are dead or in their 70's at least) the mood of the stations started changing. Part of that bond was gone, forever.

This attachment also meant that these listeners were in high school or college in the 60's, and are all now between 55 and about 65.

Advertisers, as I have said over and over, tell their agencies what to buy. It is seldom, or never, 55+ listenership.

Consultants have made radio mechanical.

I'm sure some have. And others stress talent, relating to listeners, coaching, and lots of contact with the listeners to find out what they are in need of.

Of course, we all agree that stations need to make profit. But, instead of dumping on all of the Boomers, and our stations, why don't you consult the sales teams?

Ah, again we are in the "the sellers don't know how to sell oldies" which will be followed by "the young media buyers at the agencies don't buy older demos." Both are absolute lies. The simple truths are;

1. Agencies buy wha tthe client orders as a demo.
2. Agency campaign demos are determined outside the media department.
3 Station sellers can not generally talk to the decision makers, just the buyers and planners.
4. Radio is only 8% of the ad revenue world. Neither the industry nor the stations can change how it is bought.
5. Radio has bigger challenges than trying to sell a demo nobody wants.
6. Advertisers do not buy 55+ beecause they have proved that there is no return on investment from it; the conversion costs more than the profit on sale.
7. Agencies have no format bias. Often they buy without knowing the format of the staitons... just the numbers.

You seem to have an answer for everything else. Teach the ad agencies that 25-54 is nice, but 35-64 is the money sweet spot.

Again, when the clients have designed a product for some part of 18-54, you can not change the packaging, the creative and the rest of the campaign to favor a couple of remaining oldies staitons. Advertisers, except for special use products (Depends, Fixodent, etc) do not design many products for the over-55 crowd, and when they do, they don't use radio for it. For all other goods and services, advertisers know there is disposable income, but they also know that in the over 55 crowd, it takes more advertising to create change and consumption than in younger crowds. Ususally, the ad expenditure to create the sale is greater than the profit. So the advertisers don't use 55+ radio because the ROI is not there.

Sorry, but I agree, your bias against older people is evident all over this board.

As I said, this thread is about shooting the messenger who bears bad tidings. I am telling you, simply, that radio can not do anything about the fact that advertisers have found there is no profit in using radio to reach 55+. So there is no money to support 55+ formats, and radio can not afford to create or sustain such formats. It's as simple as that.

 

[leethalweapon]

Honestly, every programmer, jock, engineer etc that came out of the 60's that I know... and I know quite a few who worked at some big stations (WHN, WNBC, WABC, CKLW to name a few) can't figure out what's the matter with the next generation. You, who came from this same time, have gone from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vadar. Seriously, just listen to yourself and how you cast away the human aspect and the special bond between the listener and the radio station, something that can last for decades, and toss it away like a piece of sh*t.

Have you stopped to think that technology play's a part in all of this? Why do you think JACK came about? It was to try and counter the biggest threat to radio so far, The MP3 player. Like it or not, radio is a business and business has to do what it can to survive. It may take another year or two, but at least they had the gut's to do something that could shield them from a more bleek reality in the future. Radio is still apart of our live's. Time's have changed. In the 10 years I have been in the industry in Australia, I have seen great change (some good, some bad). People don't use radio the same way they use to. There is NO loyalty these day's. Consultant's didn't do it, I think modern living has more to do with it. Cosultant's only help companies to give the audience what they want in the limited time they have.

 

[wgliradio]

Survival of radio in the future is almost 100% a technology issue revolving around delivery of content. This will be determined by the very top executives and owners of boty systems and broadcast groups. In the meantime, most of us have radio stations to take care of, or we won't have content at all irregardless of the pipes we use to deliver it.

Incorrect. Survival of radio is 70/30 content driven. I don't think the average person has a problem manipulating a standard AM FM radio. The 30% that is tech driven is being driven down the wrong pipe. Project Acorn was born in the late 1980's before the internet as we know it existed. Time to throw it away.

Now, my next question. Do you think those top executives are qualified and, based on what you see and hear? I don't think so? I think to line their own pockets they've cut radio off at the knees

You are mistakenly generalizing about poor product. Do you know for a fact that the product I am in part responsible for is poor?

Yes. When all you use is data to program your stations, which is what it seems like you do from your posts, I can safely say that your programming, no matter what language it is in, is probably no different than the other mailed in programming you'll find on the dial.

As I said, there is no winner/loser situation in radio. There are many winners, particularly in the larger markets where the revenue gets to even lower tier stations as long as they have a claim to some demo that is asked for by agencies and clients. On the other hand, in some markets there is not enough money to go around, and too many staitons chasing it, so very, very few win and the quality of programming suffers as there are just too many staitons.

What would you suggest in a metro like New York, where there are too many stations going after the same prize?

There is no single winner. There are many winners. And those that loose are generally those with bad-signal AMs or rimshot or class A FMs that can not, no matter how good they are, serve the full market. This is why, even back to the 50's, half of US radio stations were not profitable. No profits = mediocre or bad programming.

I'm talking about bad programming on major FM's in major markets. Actually, in NY, the AM's (WFAN, WCBS, WINS) have some of the best programming and biggest bucks.

As said before, we have the technology and techniques to effectively talk to local listeners by the tens of thousands and find out what is really of interest and what is not. No matter how you try to dismiss research, all that word means is talking to the local staiton listener and discovering what pleases and displeases them. Previously, we guessed or found out what songs got played on jukeboxes. Now we can profile an individual in many ways, including favorite songs, but also interest in news, sports, weather, humor, etc.

But you cannot rely on that alone, which is what too many people do. And many times when companies push formats, this research comes from out of town on formats that have done well in other cities. If I were the head of a cluster in NY, I sure wouldn't want someone from St Louis programming my station in NY, I would want someone who grew up in NY and has programmed in NY to program my station, someone who has won the battle here in the past, even if he/she costs more. I'd also want my music director and basically everyone on the creative team from the hometown.

Actually, as I said, staitons, most of them, did not make money. Probably a higher percentage are profitable today than at any time in the last 50 years because we have learned to go after smaller pieces of the audience and serve them well becasue we have a better knowledge of the wants and needs of each listener. I can remember doing paper surveys and hand tabulating them in the 60's... and checking requests and record sales and other stuff. Today, we can see much more clearly indvidual tastes, and that makes the way to entertain, amuse or inform tem easier.

That's fine, but you've taken it to the levels that are way too extreme.

Still do. There is no way to 100% research a new format, as people can not tell you what they will do... only what they are doing or have done. Every new song we play is steeped in risk. Every time the morning team does a bit, it is a risk. Every time we move an upcoming talent into a better daypart it is a risk. Every time we do a startup it is a risk.

No it's not.. It's a softball lob safe 25-54 small playlist researched format that will appeal to just enough people to be somewhat popular for a little while, but never spectacular. Then we have people like you to come along to manipulate numbers to make it profitable. It's lifespan is 2-4 years... then you blow it up and start over.

In the past, stations took dumb risks, becasue they did not have access to enough data.

That they still do. You just never hear about great stations being born anymore. There isn't a Z-100 or a CBS-FM or a Hot 97 being born anymore. Just flashes in the pan the die. Where is the next ENGLISH LANGUAGE legendary station being born?

Easy question, as I have found a number of them in my market. The highest rated Spanish langauge morning show in 25 markets was my overnight jock at KWIZ in Santa Ana 15 years ago... he talked too much, so when the morning guy was arrested (yeah, it happens) instead of shutting him up, I gave him a go at morning drive. He is now in 6 of the top 10 markets, and is #1 in Spanish in every market he is in.

Well, you got that part right, you find them sometimes where you least expect them... and end up giving them a shot, which is something I wish we'd see more of.

A number of years ago, I was consulting in a market of about 3 million where there were a number of staitons in the same format (about 12 to be exact) and I told the owner we needed to stand out by being personality driven, starting with mornings. That afternoon, I interviewed a dozen or so jocks who had been fired from major stations; I found two who could not keep a job because they were hard to handle. We demoed the show the next day, and it went on formally the next Monday. Today, 20 years later, it is still the #1 radio show in the market with the same talents I picked two decades ago.

So we don't take risks? I can give you a dozen more stories like that.

That was 20 years ago... a different lifetime in radio. And perhaps SBS and Univision do take more risks with programming, which is good for them and the people who listen. I'm not one of them, I don't understand a word being said.

No, you need people to think like listeners, not like magers who make more money and have a different lifestyle than the average listener. The way to do that is to talk to listeners a lot.

Well, there is not enough of that going around, and if my talking to listeners you mean research, forget it. Too indirect.

Jay Leno. Seinfeld. Lost. American Idol. SOme ideas are national, and some, while being national, can be localized too. But in any one country, there is vastly more in common than not. You just mentioned Stern, a national talent who beat all comers locally in his target because he is so good in that areana.

But when it comes to tastes in music, there is nothing more important than getting the local appeal. If I were programming a Jack in Dallas, I would probably have some Country cuts thrown in, that would die in New York

But most things are the same everywhere, just with different seasoning. There is a reason why we received an A in both Summer and Fall of 2006 in the Lehman Bros. Ratings report card, and nobody else did... in nearly every local market we are leaders in our formats and clusters. That is done by knowing what works ont he grand scale and what is a local factor that tempers the national trend.

Is this Univision? It may be easier in this case because the cultural differences with Hispanic based programming do not show up as much market to market as they would with English based programming.

Nobody has a favorite TV staiton. They have favorite TV shows. TV staitons offer dozens and dozens of different shows for different people each week. Radio staitons offer one format. People identify radio staitons, as each has a flavor. TV has programs, some we love, some we detest.

No kidding. That was the romance the dreq me to radio, the intimate relationship between listener and station. But I feel that people are moving away even from that and radio stations are becoming more like TV stations and songs becoming like TV shows, you stop for 4 minutes and move on.

Radio has removed the human elements and the next generation doesn't know what it's like to connect with radio anymore. It's just a jukebox.

I'll be sure to tell our talent that on Sunday when we expect 120,000 listeners to come and see them just at our LA staitons.

Let's be realistic, you know what I am talking about here. You know how detached many stations have become. If you are still holding on to personality radio, that's fine. If you can lose the attitude about demos and playlists, even better

 

[wgliradio]

Yes, this is one of the better performing Oldies stations left. But it's revenue has been slipping or flat every year of the last 6, as its demos age and its ratings decline in sales demos. Obviously it has life left, perhaps a number of years. But at some point, the declining revenue is going to drive a modification towared even more of a classic hits format, or a full switch.

With programmers who know their markets and know what they're doing, why couldn't we have these in a few majors? I personally guarentee in New York, this would be Top 10 in 12+ and 25-54.

So as you say:

There are 73 stations in the metro. Being Top 10... or Top 15... or even Top 20 is pretty much a guarantee of high profitability.

Are you on board now, or should we just fire up another boring AC or Rock station that doesn't work?

 

[davideduardo]

With programmers who know their markets and know what they're doing, why couldn't we have these in a few majors? I personally guarentee in New York, this would be Top 10 in 12+ and 25-54.

A traditional 60's oldies station appeals to people who are, in their majority, over 55. And as years go on, the audience will become older. No woner is going to risk a station on a format that is guaranteed to expire in a few years.

In many markets, oldies staitons have become Classic Hits stations by de-emphasizing the 60's and adding lots of 70's and 80's non-hard-rock tunes. That variant works in lots of places (interestingly, mostly where the ethnic population is very low) and still has a reasonable life expectancy. In a few cases, they are actually #1.


/quote]

There are 73 stations in the metro. Being Top 10... or Top 15... or even Top 20 is pretty much a guarantee of high profitability.

Are you on board now, or should we just fire up another boring AC or Rock station that doesn't work?[/quote]


If you are talking traditional oldies, no way. The markets that still have a decent 25-54 showing have th eproblem that the billing is declining, like Boston, because the stations are ageing and probably good for only a few more years. To do a start-up, where the real revenue is two years out, is impossible.

 

[wgliradio]

Then you are saying that your statement above is a lie.. that Top 10, 15 or 20 does not mean profitability?

In New York a startup would not be a traditional startup when the right factors are in place, you and I both know that.

 

[davideduardo]

Then you are saying that your statement above is a lie.. that Top 10, 15 or 20 does not mean profitability?

In New York a startup would not be a traditional startup when the right factors are in place, you and I both know that.

It's two years later.... oldies listeners are 2 years older, and the lifespan of the format is not long enough for it to achive profitability, which comes 12 to 18 months out. Further, after 2 years, many listeners have been weaned of oldies as a format, and have moved on. It is unlikely that, were an oldies to launch today, it could be top 15 in two years in 25-54.

Look at the oldies that launched in Chicago soon after WJMK went Jack, WZZN. It is currently 20th in 25-54, and 23rd in revenue in its second year. It has nowhere the listenership of WJMK prior to the switch which is typical when an old station dies and somewopne wants to capture the audiencce... it never come intact. WJMK is now billing more than twice what WZZN is billing.

After two years following the end of CBS-FM, it is unlikely that the billing, the ratings or anything else close to it could be recreated in NY.

 

[davideduardo]

"You are mistakenly generalizing about poor product. Do you know for a fact that the product I am in part responsible for is poor? "

Yes. When all you use is data to program your stations, which is what it seems like you do from your posts, I can safely say that your programming, no matter what language it is in, is probably no different than the other mailed in programming you'll find on the dial.

So, in your opinion, having direct inpout from listeners is worng? Finding out how much news or how little is needed during different times of the day is wrong? Discovering which songs are valid and which are stiffs is wrong?

The opposite of a listener driven station... one where even the talent participates in discovering what listeners want... and the opposite is that the oppoiste is the PD in the office who thinks he or she knows what listeners want due to their golden ears and feeling for the market. That is not only arrogant but it is rubbish.

What would you suggest in a metro like New York, where there are too many stations going after the same prize?

Under 18, is regonizable, not an advertiser target on radio. And 55+ is not, either. So all stations that want to compete for ad dollars go after some part of 18-54. That is hardly narrow, and it is hardly the "same prize" as there are numberous subsets like 18-34 or 35-54 or 25-44 or women 25-44 or Hispanic women 18-34 or suburban women 35-54 that each are targets. Again, this is nowehere close to being "the same prize" since several of th enamed cells have several million persons in them.... more than the population 12+ of market #30.

And there are nearly $900,000,000 dollars targeted at that 18-54 group, and about zero at those above and below on radio in NY today. That's plenty of opportunity, money and different groups to go after.

But you cannot rely on that alone, which is what too many people do. And many times when companies push formats, this research comes from out of town on formats that have done well in other cities.

Just not true. When a format variation comes up, the research used to put it on in any local market is local research.

If I were the head of a cluster in NY, I sure wouldn't want someone from St Louis programming my station in NY, I would want someone who grew up in NY and has programmed in NY to program my station, someone who has won the battle here in the past, even if he/she costs more. I'd also want my music director and basically everyone on the creative team from the hometown.

KHJ's Bill Drake camo out of the deep south, and Ron Jacobs was a Poi Boy from Hawai'i. The general market, particularly the non-Hispanic white market in the US is surprisingly homogonized, no doubt due to the influences of network radio going back to the 20's and network TV to the late 40's.

In my experience, never having worked in Argentina, I helped Emmis produce a #1 staiton in 30 days with a format that was 100% Home grown rock. In fact, the largest local paper siad, "it took a foreigner to show us Atrgentines that we liked our own rock." Or Ecuador... 6 months living in Quito and a number 1 radio station. same thing in Puerto Rico, but in 4 months. As a guy I consulted on a new FM in Karachi said, "we knwo the religious issues, the language and the culture. But we don't know radio. Tell us how to do it."

No it's not.. It's a softball lob safe 25-54 small playlist researched format that will appeal to just enough people to be somewhat popular for a little while, but never spectacular. Then we have people like you to come along to manipulate numbers to make it profitable. It's lifespan is 2-4 years... then you blow it up and start over.

Nobody is going to do a format that hits somewhere in 18-54 because there is no money outside that demo. Your point of it being "safe" is absurd... there is no other target.

And playlists are determined by listeners, not programmers. We all really want more songs, but we have to stick with the ones most listeners want to hear.

"A number of years ago, I was consulting in a market of about 3 million where there were a number of staitons in the same format (about 12 to be exact) and I told the owner we needed to stand out by being personality driven, starting with mornings. That afternoon, I interviewed a dozen or so jocks who had been fired from major stations; I found two who could not keep a job because they were hard to handle. We demoed the show the next day, and it went on formally the next Monday. Today, 20 years later, it is still the #1 radio show in the market with the same talents I picked two decades ago. "

That was 20 years ago... a different lifetime in radio. And perhaps SBS and Univision do take more risks with programming, which is good for them and the people who listen. I'm not one of them, I don't understand a word being said.

20 years is fair game, especially since the same show proved itself, via risk taking, and is still #1 on Z-101 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The entire base of the show is getting the government to respond to the needs of the working class, by the way.

"No, you need people to think like listeners, not like magers who make more money and have a different lifestyle than the average listener. The way to do that is to talk to listeners a lot. "
Well, there is not enough of that going around, and if my talking to listeners you mean research, forget it. Too indirect.

You don't know much about research, as you seem to think it is removed, distant and unrepresentative of the local listeners.

In the larger markets (and that means even places like Huntsville and Daytona) music and perceptual research is done locally. And in most cases, the non-music part is done with personal interviews with listeners... some as long as an hour. But there is a purpose to each project, so that the sme questions can be asked of each person, as a base, so that trending can be spotted. It is like a bar conversation but is also so much more... that is what research is: talking to a local listener.

But when it comes to tastes in music, there is nothing more important than getting the local appeal. If I were programming a Jack in Dallas, I would probably have some Country cuts thrown in, that would die in New York

If you wanted any chance of success, you would have tested the music, including lots of country songs. Then you would have your answer. Music testing for Dallas is done in Dallas.

"But most things are the same everywhere, just with different seasoning. There is a reason why we received an A in both Summer and Fall of 2006 in the Lehman Bros. Ratings report card, and nobody else did... in nearly every local market we are leaders in our formats and clusters. That is done by knowing what works ont he grand scale and what is a local factor that tempers the national trend. "

Is this Univision? It may be easier in this case because the cultural differences with Hispanic based programming do not show up as much market to market as they would with English based programming.

The Hispanic audience is vastly more regionalized and differentiated than non-Hispanic white audiences in the US ever will or could have been. They are from different countries, often from countries that had total isolation from each other until recent decades. They are from different parts of Mexico, where tastes and music styles are 100% NON-overlapping. English playlists are extremely overlapping in the same format from mone part of the US toanaother. Hispanic format lists may be 100% different between just Albuquerque and Phoenix. So every market needs frequent local research. The market to market differences are many times more extreme than in general market, in fact.

Example: only 1 of the 16 formats in Spanish in LA would work in NY, and only by changing half the music.

 

[wgliradio]

Look at the oldies that launched in Chicago soon after WJMK went Jack, WZZN. It is currently 20th in 25-54, and 23rd in revenue in its second year. It has nowhere the listenership of WJMK prior to the switch which is typical when an old station dies and somewopne wants to capture the audiencce... it never come intact. WJMK is now billing more than twice what WZZN is billing.

WZZN is a disaster and WJMK was not WCBS. Shannon's True Oldies Channel is not a replacement for any top notch major market oldies format and you know it. While they have added personalities now like Landecker (is he live), having Shannon middays with that poor presentation is not anything special. The True Oldies concept is for 250 watt daytimers who need to fill hours between block sales.

After two years following the end of CBS-FM, it is unlikely that the billing, the ratings or anything else close to it could be recreated in NY.

Totally disagree. It would not only be a PR coup, the talent is still in one place to put it back on as if it never left.

 

[wgliradio]

First of all, David seldom misses the point.

Secondly, it's understandable you and others miss CBS-FM. But, the fact nobody else has put Oldies on the air in NYC is pretty good evidence that it's not exactly a format in-demand right now. This has nothing do with "dumping on boomers", it has to do with fulfilling audience demand. The backlash against CBS for dumping Oldies came almost exclusively from radio people, not radio listeners.

And you know this how? Who were those people listening in the last book?

Finally, you don't "teach ad agencies". Ad agencies do what they are told by their clients, the advertisers. And, advertisers don't see that the 25-54 cell from 10 years ago is now 35-64- or, maybe they do but just don't care. They give marching orders to agencies, so this is not about educating anybody.

This is about too many stations serving too few people.