Question: With the people living longer, healthier, active lives, isn't it possible that to have successful older demo radio station, with appropriate advertising that appeals to the demo? We'd have to get rid of the 54 year old advertising demo ceiling (isn't that age a bit dated as the cut off point)? I'm sensing the reason this hasn't happened is that the Corporations (Cumulus's of the world), who are run by middle aged guys don't want to take a risk on something like that. But as this huge Boomer demographic ages, isn't there an opportunity out there?
-
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
KFOG stays AAA with new PD Bryan Schock
- Thread starter david
- Start date
Question: With the people living longer, healthier, active lives, isn't it possible that to have successful older demo radio station, with appropriate advertising that appeals to the demo? We'd have to get rid of the 54 year old advertising demo ceiling (isn't that age a bit dated as the cut off point)? I'm sensing the reason this hasn't happened is that the Corporations (Cumulus's of the world), who are run by middle aged guys don't want to take a risk on something like that. But as this huge Boomer demographic ages, isn't there an opportunity out there?
It's not about their age, how long they live, or how much money they have. It has to do with how receptive they are to radio advertising.
If you have statistics that demonstrate that boomers have become more receptive to radio ads, let me know. From what I see on this board, they haven't.
If you have statistics that demonstrate that boomers have become more receptive to radio ads, let me know. From what I see on this board, they haven't.
The issue in the rated markets where ad agency business is critical to success is that there are essentially no ad buys for over-55 demos.
Any station programming to seniors would either have to depend almost entirely on local direct accounts or have no revenue. The problem in many markets is that the chain and franchise operators have driven out much of the local direct business. So appealing only to older people as opposed to younger consumers will put double restrictions on the ability to sell advertising.
Advertisers understand that the older a consumer is, the harder it is to sell a product. It takes more ads more often to make the sale than it does for younger demos. At some point, advertisers conclude that it costs more to make a sale than the profit on the sale.
Mainstream TV is even more restrictive, with the traditional networks and their buyers looking for 18-49. And what you see on more niche cable channels is often "Per Inquiry" advertising with no set ad rate and based on response. Those products that do target seniors on TV, such as prescription drugs and health care products don't generally buy radio because they sell the "image" of an improved life that their product offers... requiring a visual medium.
Or charge a monthly membership fee. However, as we've seen in public radio, less than 10% of actual listeners will become paying members of radio stations they enjoy. Call it the entitlement generation.
The fact that the population bulge represented by the baby boomers is unlike anything seen before or since is irrelevant, then? Or is that why the oldies/classic hits format hung on as long as it did while nostalgia formats targeting the much smaller "baby bust" generation ('80s and '90s music fans) quickly died?
Depends on the format. In some genres, playing 90s music is getting big numbers.
I would venture to add that the music quality from the 50's through early 80's is also responsible for its longevity. As proof, quite a few 20 and 30-somethings tune in to Oldies in preference to modern pop.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
As far as the national advertisers who tell the ad agencies what ages to focus on when buying air time, yes, we are irrelevant.
End of discussion. It's just going to get circular from here. I've seen it dozens of times here on RD.
I asked all those same questions a few years back, and was then schooled by the likes of David Eduardo and KM Richards. It seemed to me, as it does to you, that the Baby-Boomer generation are generally affluent, and still have (as you point out) a good two decades of life left in which we will be spending money. But one big factor seems to be that we are set in our ways. If we have owned three BMWs, it is likely that we'll go for a fourth, so advertising from Lexus and Mercedes to try to get us to switch is more likely to fall on deaf ears. Also, those big ticket items are more effectively advertised on TV, where we can see them.
As far as other (lower end products), not only are we stuck in our ways, but we tend to use less of them as we get older. For example, I use toothpaste, bar-soap, and deodorant, but no other hygiene products. I haven't needed shampoo for a long time now…sadly.
There actually is an ever-growing tsunami of boomer-focused advertising, but that’s for prescription drugs, supplements that purport to relieve knee and arthritis pain (probably mostly useless), step-in bath tubs, and mobility devices. I assume that's because we boomers are the largest aging generation in US history, will be living longer than our predecessors, and will be needing those things as we age. But again, except for prescription drugs, most of these products are advertised exclusively on TV. And that’s why Chuck Woolery still gets work. : )
If you're old enough to remember the 60s - the big non-youth radio music formats of that decade were "beautiful" music and MOR - and that stuff was either contemporary recordings at the time, or went back no more than the a decade or so to the early 50s. I don't remember hearing 1920s or 30s music on the radio in those days, and that would be the equivalent (in terms of age) to 60s and 70s music today. Those formats died in the 80s when their target demo was hitting their 50s and 60s. Big band music and MOR made a comeback on radio in the late 80s and early 90s, but it was usually on under-utilized AM stations, never got big ratings, and didn’t last long. So really, the slow death of Oldies, Classic Hits, and AAA on the radio was predictable.
If it makes you feel better, when your generation came along, it pissed off your parents, who as they age, found it harder to find things they liked on popular media of the day. It's the circle of life. The millennials will get the same treatment in 30 years.
KellerIII and I are about the same age. When RocknRoll came along in the mid/late 50's my parents (and grandparents) viewed it with some humor. I don't think they totally understood some of it but it wasn't that fundamentally different from the spastic-looking dances of their youth. And they had also been through the teen idol singers so that wasn't new either. My dad, who played a mean guitar, would try to emulate some of the slower songs and he was actually pretty good.
When I began listening to the radio in the early 50's it was common for them to play songs from the 40's and even some 30's. The problem with the older music seemed not to be the music itself but the quality of the recordings. Lots of scratches and buzz and humm don't make for a delightful song. Then, of course, there was the music of the war years which died pretty quickly after the war ended due to the themes. If today's youth could get beyond the technical disadvantages of those days they'd find some exceptional dance music.
Back then though we didn't have a cheap and easy way of saving our favorite music. A dollar for a 45 was a lot of money for me and most of my friends so I didn't buy too many (and I still have every one I did buy). Now days we can build a personal library of our favs no matter what generation they were part of. I know quite a few Boomers who have done this, myself included, but not too many Millennials. If they are into modern pop music at all it tends to be disposable. I won't be around in 30 years but if I could make a bet I would put money down that not much, if anything, from today's pop will be remembered with any fondness and will be played mostly at high school reunions (if, indeed, these people actually manage to graduate).
How are stations like Q102 doing in the market?
V101.1 in Sacramento is doing a very similar format.
Q102 is doing well -- they scared Kiss-FM into re-doing their format, much to the dismay of all their over-45 listeners
Who are you calling "about the same age," you old fart?
I remember those $1.00 45 RPM singles. According to the Inflation Calculator on line, $1.00 in 1965 is equivalent to $7.53 today. Given that iTunes charges me 99 cents or $1.29 per song, I guess I should be thankful.
Who are you calling "about the same age," you old fart?
I remember those $1.00 45 RPM singles. According to the Inflation Calculator on line, $1.00 in 1965 is equivalent to $7.53 today. Given that iTunes charges me 99 cents or $1.29 per song, I guess I should be thankful.
My 45 record buying days were in the mid-50's so I guess I deserved that. The difference then and now is about $8.85.
I have to agree with the assessment about today's music 30 years from now....it will be forgotten. Very to similar how we treat disco music today. I used to think all music aged similarly for all generations, but upon further thought, I don' think this is the case. Music does not have the same cultural influence and importance to young people as it did back in the '60s and '70s. Steve Jobs called music from that period the equivalent of the Impressionist era in painting. I'm starting to think he's right. A lot of the music from that era will stand the test of time. This will not be the case for most everything from next decades.
Listened to KFOG in the car a bit this afternoon and the music mix definitely seemed to have... shifted. Just looked at KFOG's TuneGenie for the last 12 hours, they are featuring more current songs and going VERY '90s-and-'00s-centric with their gold. Only a handful of '80s tracks all day (a couple U2 classics and "Orange Crush" from REM). All those endlessly overplayed alt/New wave chestnuts they've been hammering us with for the past year (Cars, Police, Tears For Fears, "Tainted Love" etc) appear to be gone.
Compare this to an older-skewing Triple-A like suburban NYC's The Peak, who in the last couple of hours played the Doors ("Soul Kitchen"), Stones ("Dead Flowers") and Beatles ("Hey Bulldog"). Makes you wonder what KFOG'd do if Bowie had waited 4 months before dying.
(They appear to be keeping the call letters, BTW -- this is going to be "KFOG: The Next Generation" apparently.)
Compare this to an older-skewing Triple-A like suburban NYC's The Peak, who in the last couple of hours played the Doors ("Soul Kitchen"), Stones ("Dead Flowers") and Beatles ("Hey Bulldog"). Makes you wonder what KFOG'd do if Bowie had waited 4 months before dying.
(They appear to be keeping the call letters, BTW -- this is going to be "KFOG: The Next Generation" apparently.)
Today, I heard "Sexy Back" on my local AC station, so I think anything is possible!
When Phil Spector was producing the Ronettes, did he, the singers, or anybody else think that music would be played and listened to in 10 years, let alone 50? People (including radio station managers) swore that once the teens of that era turned 18, they'd ditch the Beatles and Motown for Frank Sinatra and Ray Conniff. Didn't happen.
If the youth of today are going to forget all of the music of their youth, what do you think they're going to switch to?
If the youth of today are going to forget all of the music of their youth, what do you think they're going to switch to?
- Status