Looks like KBZT is no longer winning the alternative crowd their share is now down to a paltry 1.3 for the holiday book . Either they need to freshen up the playlist or blow up the station. Blowing it up might be risky as there are plenty of the 25 and over crowd already having plenty of choices here in San Diego. What does everyone else think?
-
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
KBZT in dire straits overall share now at 1.3?
- Thread starter 30james
- Start date
Rock is dying. It's a rhythmic world, even in the suburbs where rock had ruled for nearly six decades.
If that were true, KGB wouldn't be doing as well as it is.
91X and KIOZ aren't setting the world on fire, but they're doing considerably better than Alt 94.9.
Interesting to note that 91X, KIOZ and Alt 94.9 have about the same cume. The implication would be that people are still checking it out; they're just not staying as long. Also, Alt 94.9's numbers went off a cliff in October. That was about a month after it made its changes at its country and alternative properties. My first thought would be that regionalizing that format might not be working, though there could always be another explanation, like a fan or two of the station dropping off the panel.
Classic rock is still strong, but it carries with it a lot of 55+ listeners that advertisers don't want to bother spending to reach. It's current rock that is losing to hip-hop and rap among the younger males who used to listen to nothing but rock. They don't have guitar heroes anymore; those were Dad's and Grandpa's gods. Anyone can craft crude rhymes in street language. That's what inspires youth about hip-hop: It's raw, uncensored, angry and you don't need to learn to play an instrument or even sing to get into the game and dream of making money at it yourself.
Most classic rock stations are doing fine 25-54, and many are even doing well 18-34. I agree that current rock has its share of problems, and alternative has had a dearth of product for a long time that isn't getting any better.
Fair enough, though, in San Diego, 91X doesn't appear to have been particularly affected by that trend. 91X has been relatively flat since the end of the summer. Granted, the holiday book is usually not friendly to rock formats, but KBZT was seeing a decline beforehand. Again, there are plenty of potential explanations for that decline. Entercom is unlikely ready to hit the panic button yet, and time will tell if the recent programming changes explain what's been happening.
Pretty sure afternoon drive on Alt 94.9 is still local. That's likely the only local day part on the station, though.
Do you think geography makes a difference? All they have to do is hire local talent and audiences will return?
Depends if the local talent is actually talented or garbage. (Mikey was local - his ratings on 94.9 stunk.)
Music choices on 94.9 are subpar compared to 91X, so that needs to be fixed, too. Someone in a remote city *should* be capable of getting the music right, but my guess is Entercom is investing very little in local music research for its Alternative stations.
Personally, I think Entercom is perfectly content with 94.9 being an "also ran." They have zero desire to maximize 94.9's ratings. It's a clearing house for Entercom's regional & national formatic programming and associated national advertising and little more. Very sad. Yet another example of FM corporate radio's race to the bottom.
Music choices on 94.9 are subpar compared to 91X, so that needs to be fixed, too. Someone in a remote city *should* be capable of getting the music right, but my guess is Entercom is investing very little in local music research for its Alternative stations.
Personally, I think Entercom is perfectly content with 94.9 being an "also ran." They have zero desire to maximize 94.9's ratings. It's a clearing house for Entercom's regional & national formatic programming and associated national advertising and little more. Very sad. Yet another example of FM corporate radio's race to the bottom.
You're making a qualitative statement based on your own personal taste.
It sounds the way it needs to sound to retain listeners (in the Sacred Sales Demo, that is) who are now used to having other choices that bring them only the music they love with few, if any, interruptions. Radio can never truly replicate that, but garrulous disc jockeys and playlists spiked with unfamiliar, genre-stretching music or local bands that only too-cool-for-the-room club goers know about just ain't gonna get it done. Focused playlists, tight production, jocks as functional accessories rather than a big deal in themselves -- that's what works today. Does it "sound as good as" radio of 25 years ago? It's not aiming for that particular standard of "good." The audience and its world have changed.
The thing that amazes me is the number of people who believe radio stations are doing just what the listener doesn't want. Radio is a business. Businesses, especially the larger businesses, spend large sums of money on finding out what works and what doesn't in radio. They have a clear idea of how to embrace as much of a demographic target audience as possible. When a person does not like a station it is always because they liked it at one point but don't now because the station is "trying to chase off their listeners". That's the dumbest statement I have ever heard and I hear it. That's like saying you liked McDonald's as a kid but now McDonald's serves food that intentionally causes customers to stop eating there. Obviously McDonald's is not trying to do that at all, your tastes have changed. The same with radio...your tastes have changed. A few stations don't get it right but most do because it's how they stay in business.
Radio is likely much better today than it was 25 years ago. We know more about the audience and what they want. Programming is better controlled and most companies have the money or line of credit to do a format 100% versus 50% (Covid-19 excepted). Personally, I grew up on 1960s and 1970s. The high energy jock, talking intros and such is radio I love. When I went back to listen to some stations and jocks I thought were amazing, those stations and those jocks sure were not as thrilling as I recall them being. Personally most formats don't stand out to me but I grew up listening to radio differently than the demos radio targets today. From being in the business I look at the results, not my personal likes and dislikes. I'd say radio is better now than 25 years ago because we know more and have better consistency today.
Radio is likely much better today than it was 25 years ago. We know more about the audience and what they want. Programming is better controlled and most companies have the money or line of credit to do a format 100% versus 50% (Covid-19 excepted). Personally, I grew up on 1960s and 1970s. The high energy jock, talking intros and such is radio I love. When I went back to listen to some stations and jocks I thought were amazing, those stations and those jocks sure were not as thrilling as I recall them being. Personally most formats don't stand out to me but I grew up listening to radio differently than the demos radio targets today. From being in the business I look at the results, not my personal likes and dislikes. I'd say radio is better now than 25 years ago because we know more and have better consistency today.
Do you think programming in the 90s was as good as it was in the 60s? These kinds of comparisons are always based on people's recollections and mythology. It's a function of one's age and circumstance. The programming itself adapts to the marketplace, the music, the ratings, the budgets, and everything else going on.
You're making blanket statements about radio as though it's one thing, and it's not. Lots of formats, lots of owners, lots of target audiences involved, both commercial and non-commercial.
When looking principally at one format area, such as the different varieties of rock in this case, can make one lose their perspective on radio overall. Specifically, rock's interest among the newer generations is much lower than previous eras, and the younger a demo you look at, the more minimal any kind of rock is in appeal.
On the other hand, ask country artists if they would like "life without radio". Or regional Mexican and reggaetón fans. And even, when dismissing the lyrics that can't be broadcast issue, hip hop artists and followers. Even the core CHR listener, the 25-44 woman, is nowhere nearly as engaged by alternatives.
The biggest challenge for on-to-many broadcasting is commercial load. When FM CHR stations began rolling over AM versions of the format in the early 70's, we ran 8 minutes, tops, of spots an hour... two minutes in each quarter hour or 3-3-2 ever 20 minutes. Today, stations are killing themselves with 15 minutes of spots an hour, generally in two 7 to 8 minute roadblocks.
That's only an issue for commercial stations. If commercial load was killing radio, you'd see non-coms at the top of the ratings in all cities, and you don't.
How many non-comms are playing CHR, AC, country and urban hits, or classic rock/classic hits, for that matter? It's still the music that's attracting the lion's share of however many people are still listening to FM radio, no matter how the ads are placed. The ad marathons are annoying, but either the listeners wait them out or add to some other station's share for the next half hour or so. If country is their first choice and AC is their second, they'll eventually come back to the country station anyway, maybe even as soon as the AC alternative plays something they don't like.
- Status