KLUV

[oldiesfan6479]

Now pardon me as I cue up the 8 commercials in a row so we can get back to the same 400 songs
our research shows people are familiar with.

Try 10, and 300.

As the stopset finally comes to a close and we do a cold segue into
Brown Eyed Girl. :

What, no jingle?

No, PPM hates jingles, jock talk, liners, and anything else that stops
the flow of music.

Well then why did you just make us--and our Purple People Meters--
sit through six minutes of increasingly annoying spots, including three
competing car dealers?

Because the song coming out of the stopset is one our research shows
people are familiar with, and they want to hear it six times a day!

And they wonder why some of us think radio is going in the toilet.

 

[RADIO TRUTH]

David...
Put your chin in my hands and follow along...
Remember when the fairness doctrine went away, and Rush Limbaugh arrived? At first, there weren't many listeners, but businesses THREW money at stations to get on board. It was a show, and a community, they wanted to be part of.
Now with all due respect for the man with the masters feces and the market research, I'm not talking about getting P&G, GM, or Consolidated Widgets to tell their agencies to buy some cockamamie local radio show. I'm not talking about passive impressions, brand awareness or the other metrics the big agencies subscribe to. I'm talking about bringing people together as a common market, a community, a body of interest. It's not as big as Madison Avenue, or even as big as GSD&M. It's a group effort, built around a common desire. Maybe it's a fishing show. Maybe it's a natural gardening expert. Maybe it's someone who knows all the car dealers in town. Maybe it's a blues show, or a Cajun show, or even something like National Public Radio. It's an active group who bring dollars with their loyalty. Maybe it's not enough $$ to service Lowry Mays legacy debt, but if and when radio station values come back down to earth, there will be effective and entertaining communication based on COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
Or, we can keep on doing the things that have put our industry into a death spiral.
Now pardon me as I cue up the 8 commercials in a row so we can get back to the same 400 songs our research shows people are familiar with.

Everything you have said above is correct and no community of interest group is easier to unite and mobilize than 50s and 60s
music lovers. The P & G reference is not a valid one. Products to sell to baby boomers are high end cars, high end wines, traveling to high end hotels and other things that 78,000,000 baby boomers would buy with all of their disposable income. If you want to create this community of interest, to do it, you need more than this cheap, crappy programming that is on all of the CBS O & O Classic Hits Stations. You actually have to have personalities who can adlib and talk much more than 4 times an hour. Why do you think conservative talk radio is popular? It's because the talk show hosts are the closest thing in 2010
that you are going to get to 1960s personality, top forty jocks. You have to have personalities who can entertain and present and sell the music and the station so it is attractive to the target audience and potential advertisers. You actually have to spend money (a lost concept) on contests, promotions, jingles, audio processing and on air talent. Liner card readers
like the Debi Diaz's of the world don't cut it. You need real personality djs who can really entertain. The rules of good, marketable, entertaining radio haven't really changed that much. It's just that the major broadcasting companies are either too cheap or too incompetent to do it. Radio also has other opportunities with all the new technology that they don't take advantage of. Most radio companies devote minimal money and time to promoting their product on internet other than rebroadcasting the station's signal. Fresh blood and some sideways thinking is needed to stop the radio industries slide into the toilet.

 

[cspotrun]

Was that the Old Gringo "dissing" himself? Isn't he in the
"geezer" demo? ;D

No dissing... just stating a fact about advertisers and 55+.

hey amigo, with this and your previous post about "Geezers" (plus the fact that the only thing that brings you out of your hole is ANYTHING to do with "Oldies Radio" and the opportunity to trash it and those who enjoy it leads one to believe you are an AGE BIGOT amigo.
and what was that about Change ..in your byline? you never change your opinion about something that enjoyed by millions.

 

[davideduardo]

Everything you have said above is correct and no community of interest group is easier to unite and mobilize than 50s and 60s
music lovers. The P & G reference is not a valid one. Products to sell to baby boomers are high end cars, high end wines, traveling to high end hotels and other things that 78,000,000 baby boomers would buy with all of their disposable income. If you want to create this community of interest, to do it, you need more than this cheap, crappy programming that is on all of the CBS O & O Classic Hits Stations. You actually have to have personalities who can adlib and talk much more than 4 times an hour. Why do you think conservative talk radio is popular? It's because the talk show hosts are the closest thing in 2010
that you are going to get to 1960s personality, top forty jocks. You have to have personalities who can entertain and present and sell the music and the station so it is attractive to the target audience and potential advertisers. You actually have to spend money (a lost concept) on contests, promotions, jingles, audio processing and on air talent. Liner card readers
like the Debi Diaz's of the world don't cut it. You need real personality djs who can really entertain. The rules of good, marketable, entertaining radio haven't really changed that much. It's just that the major broadcasting companies are either too cheap or too incompetent to do it. Radio also has other opportunities with all the new technology that they don't take advantage of. Most radio companies devote minimal money and time to promoting their product on internet other than rebroadcasting the station's signal. Fresh blood and some sideways thinking is needed to stop the radio industries slide into the toilet.

What you are totally missing is the fact that over-55's use radio as much as, let's say, 45-54 or 35-54. The reason is that many formats that are designed for the high end of 25-54 are just as attractive for 55-64 and beyond.

Country often has as many 55-64's as 45-54's. So does gold-based AC and Urban AC. Same for Classic Rock and a number of Spanish language formats. Naturally, classic hits, based on the 70s era CHR hits, has a strong component of 55-64. And talk, sports and all news in the spoken word area all have enormous 55-64 appeal.

So your complaint is that 50's and 60's Top 40 songs are not given their own format most places.

Let's be clear. You are NOT defending radio choices for seniors. You are using the senior class as an excuse to bitch about 50's and 60's oldies, which is not even the favorite of 55-64 boomers (no boomer is over 64, by the way... the start of the "era" was 1-1-46).

Let's, for the sake of argument, take the oldest boomer possible... age 64 and 3 months. That boomer was 13 in 1959, so most of the 50's Top 40 is not a "vivid memory" because it predates the time when musical tastes are embedded for life, in early adolescence (there are hundreds if not thousands of studies on this). So even the oldest boomers don't find that stuff particularly relevant to a great extent... it's music for 65+, not boomers.

And most boomers are not in 60-64... the boom peaked in the 50's, not the late 40's. So there is a good portion of the 60's stuff through the start of the British and Motown era that is also mostly for pre-boomers.

As to oldies, then, the classic hits format hits straight in the boomer demos, and your argument is specious when submitted to analysis.

 

[davideduardo]

hey amigo, with this and your previous post about "Geezers" (plus the fact that the only thing that brings you out of your hole is ANYTHING to do with "Oldies Radio" and the opportunity to trash it and those who enjoy it leads one to believe you are an AGE BIGOT amigo.
and what was that about Change ..in your byline? you never change your opinion about something that enjoyed by millions.

Commercial radio exists only if it can generate enough advertising revenue to sustain operations and justify the investment.

50's and early 60's oldies, appealing mostly the 65+ crowd, is a format that advertisers do not seek. In fact, even the first decade of boomers, 55-64, has essentially no agency ad buys placed against it.

So there is no way for stations that play music that only appeals to 55+ and mostly to 65+ to sustain operations.

There is no bias in stating reality. If you want to think I am against seniors, that's your right. Obviously you have not checked deeply enough into the subject and have made a snap decision.

 

[grantchester]

If you live by the agency, you die by the agency.

 

[lomax]

and this is exactly what chases the discriminating radio listener options like xm/sirius satellite radio.....all music genres with no self procalimed research analyst with a cheap leisure suit deleting songs every year and then listeners in a particulart market left to scramble. Favorite eras from 40's to 90's plus everything from jazz to classic country, blues, tons of rock channels..espn, fox news,cnn bbc...etc...digital stereo from Key West to Alaska...no 7 minute commercial sets...and even if by remote chance you simply adore kluv...it fades and begins to splatter outside the metroplex. ....plus with xm/sirius if you hear a song you like you can save it in your archives or click your replay button and listen to it as many times as you like.....it would take me light years to load my ipod with all the variety....for the price of a couple of lattes a month..WoW!

 

[little1]

Everything you have said above is correct and no community of interest group is easier to unite and mobilize than 50s and 60s
music lovers. The P & G reference is not a valid one. Products to sell to baby boomers are high end cars, high end wines, traveling to high end hotels and other things that 78,000,000 baby boomers would buy with all of their disposable income.

Google "biggest advertisers". You'll probably get a list a lot like this one that I got from CNBC
#1 P&G (Spends almost 5 billion)
#2 ATT, #3 GM, #4 Time Warner, #5 Verizon, #6 Ford, #7 Glaxo Smith Kline, #8 Disney, #9 Johnson and Johnson, #10 Unilever.
All spend at least 2 billion, rising to P&G's 4.9 bil. There' no high end wines in there, no high end hotels, and Cadillac and Buick are probably just a small part of GM's ad spending-

It's not that baby boomers don't have disposable income. It's that(As DE has repeated again and again) their buying habits are more ingrained and it takes more to make them switch. And, for someone like AT&T, they're going to make more selling iphones to the 20-somethings than Jitterbug phones (with the big numbers so it's easy to see) to the 60-something...

If you guys have that much trouble understanding return on investment, I'd hate to see your 401K balances...

 

[davideduardo]

If you live by the agency, you die by the agency.

In some cases, a station must look for agency business.

I had a station that did 95% agency business; at one point we eliminated direct selling as the clients who did not have agencies were slow pay / no pay and could not afford the rates. The success of the station required we focus only on those advertisers who could pay and who were reasonable credit risks.

 

[grantchester]

Understood, but I recall a station that had a couple of good books and did a lot of agency business... they neglected direct sales. Then a competitor launched a similar format, knocking them out of the top 5 in their demo, and they were left with nothing.
Also, it seems like the agencies are walking away from local radio these days.
Every station is different, of course. Changing conditions demand changing strategies... but it looks like radio is walking away from money on the table.

 

[little1]

. but it looks like radio is walking away from money on the table.

But often the money isn't on the radio table to start with. The client is deciding to put the money on the TV table, or the magazine table, or the blog table, or the direct mail table. Because it's using your money effectively. Not wasting marketing dollars.

So if I'm an investment firm targeting 55+, why spend my money on radio on, let's say a classic rock station. Half the audience is 45-54, not my target. More than Half of that half that's left doesn't have near the money that makes them my likely clients...And let's say it'll take $20K to have enough reach and frequency to get my message across.

Now for (let's say) 10K, I can buy a page in Money Magazine that is distributed in DFW (You do realize, don't you that most major magazines tailor advertising to different major markets? That the ads here in Time or Newsweek aren't the same ads you'd see in NY, LA, Chi, etc?) For half the money I hit 100% likely clients- people with money, interested/involved in investing. Not 20K wasted on the less than half teh half that MIGHT be interested.

They'r e not leaving it on the table, it was never on the radio table to begin with...

 

[grantchester]

Lil'one says:

But often the money isn't on the radio table to start with.

I say: Maybe we need to build a better table.

 

[cspotrun]

hey amigo, with this and your previous post about "Geezers" (plus the fact that the only thing that brings you out of your hole is ANYTHING to do with "Oldies Radio" and the opportunity to trash it and those who enjoy it leads one to believe you are an AGE BIGOT amigo.
and what was that about Change ..in your byline? you never change your opinion about something that enjoyed by millions.

Commercial radio exists only if it can generate enough advertising revenue to sustain operations and justify the investment.
50's and early 60's oldies, appealing mostly the 65+ crowd, is a format that advertisers do not seek. In fact, even the first decade of boomers, 55-64, has essentially no agency ad buys placed against it.
So there is no way for stations that play music that only appeals to 55+ and mostly to 65+ to sustain operations.
There is no bias in stating reality. If you want to think I am against seniors, that's your right. Obviously you have not checked deeply enough into the subject and have made a snap decision.

well, thank goodness we have YOUR knowlege and expertise :quote]
i manage a successful station appealing to 35+ adults, we make money and we have top ratings and AGENCIES BUY US!
its nice for any station to get an agency buy but LOCAL is where its at ,you put too much stock in agencies[/b] they don't carry much weight where i'm at, if a top 20 market means anything...
Oldies radio playing 50's music isn't very common anymore, so i don't know why you would bring it up unless you are trying to generalize this format which isn't fair.. the sweet spot for the format is late 60's with a few early 80's now.
i'll keep making money and ratings in this format while YOU pontificate your Tired old arguments and tired old "research".

 

[davideduardo]

well, thank goodness we have YOUR knowlege and expertise

You are welcome, particularly since you misread every single thing I said.

i manage a successful station appealing to 35+ adults, we make money and we have top ratings and AGENCIES BUY US!

Agencies buy plenty of stations that are strongest in 35-54. After all, 35-54 is part of the overall 25-54 sales demos.

What I did say is that agencies don't buy 65+ and don't specifically buy 55+, either. If they get some spillage into the upper demos, they won't complain, either.

its nice for any station to get an agency buy but LOCAL is where its at ,you put too much stock in agencies

[/b] they don't carry much weight where i'm at, if a top 20 market means anything...

If you are in a top 20 market and you don't "put too much weight" in agency buys, that would mean your ratings are too low to place on most such buys.

Oldies radio playing 50's music isn't very common anymore, so i don't know why you would bring it up unless you are trying to generalize this format which isn't fair..

Not only did you not read my post correctly, you did not read the thread.

I was replying to a person who I believe wants 50's and early 60's Top 40 oldies on the radio, and I was explaining why that is not going to happen.

the sweet spot for the format is late 60's with a few early 80's now.

And that is called "classic hits" and is doing well because it is a strong 35-54 performer. But I already said that.

i'll keep making money and ratings in this format while YOU pontificate your Tired old arguments and tired old "research".

Go back, please, and read the thread. I don't recall ever seeing a post so totally misread and misinterpreted.

 

[JRG440]

Well, I tell ya...I for one love music from the 50's and 60's. And I am NOT a boomer. I'm only in my 30's. There are quite a few folks in several age groups that like this kind of music, and it's sad that someone hasn't come up with a creative way to tap into all age groups who listen to this kind of music, especially the vast majority of the 79 million of the baby boomers born from 1947 to 1955 (uh, that's 55+ for those of you not paying attention...and I googled the statistics of baby births from '47 to '55 to confirm) ;D And, yes, folks from that group have the most cash to spend. This fact is not in dispute. To say that these folks are not marketable, well frankly is just plain stupid. And the fact that no one has tried to find a creative way to market to these people....well that's lazy.

If you listen to say KJKK and flip over to KLUV, you really can't tell the difference between the two anymore. What is the point of this? Just trying to find anything entertaining to listen to on the radio have it be music, talk, news, or whatever, is a monumental task not worth attempting. My radio is rarely used anymore. I tend to listen to my vast collection of CD's, or play my MP3 Player. Thank God for technology.

 

[MikeShannon914]

Speaking of, I don't get this recent "change" at KLUV. They will indeed cannibalize Jack, which is a big corporate no-no. I thought KLUV was turning in great numbers as-is. Are they going after 92.5's newfound success (since the advent of PPM took them out of the dumper)? Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the assumption would be that KLUV would go a little softer to bring over the Platinum audience--but they've done just the opposite.

Tho it's been a few years since I worked over there, I've NEVER seen listeners so passionate and dedicated to a music station in my life. Doing ticket drops and events and such, the KLUV listeners would chew my ear off telling me all about how much they love the station, the music, the imaging, the jocks, etc. I'm talking FIERCE loyalty. It was like they owned a piece of it. KVIL and KOAI listeners were never like that at any event. So it looks to me that KLUV is risking alienating their P-1's just to skew harder. Is it really worth it? Especially after stripping away Summers and Diaz, and playing revolving door games with Tom Kent...you're asking a LOT of your dedicated listeners to put up with.

 

[davideduardo]

... the vast majority of the 79 million of the baby boomers born from 1947 to 1955 (uh, that's 55+ for those of you not paying attention...and I googled the statistics of baby births from '47 to '55 to confirm)

The baby boom is generally considered to date from 1/1/1946. The United States Census Bureau considers a baby boomer to be someone born during the demographic birth boom between 1946 and 1964.[8] The Census Bureau is not involved in defining cultural generations, just population trends, so their definition is based on statistics. And it's the accepted one by marketers, too.

And, yes, folks from that group have the most cash to spend. This fact is not in dispute. To say that these folks are not marketable, well frankly is just plain stupid. And the fact that no one has tried to find a creative way to market to these people....well that's lazy.

This is not about how much money 55+ have. It's about how much it costs to create a sale... if it takes more ad investment than the profit on the sale, then there is no return on the investment. And that's the issue.

And this is why there are essentially no agency buys against 55+ for radio. There are local opportunities, which mean that the smaller the market, the better chance one has of actually doing some billing by selling to 55+.

If you listen to say KJKK and flip over to KLUV, you really can't tell the difference between the two anymore. What is the point of this? Just trying to find anything entertaining to listen to on the radio have it be music, talk, news, or whatever, is a monumental task not worth attempting. My radio is rarely used anymore. I tend to listen to my vast collection of CD's, or play my MP3 Player. Thank God for technology.

Are you over 55? That would be one explanation for the issues you have with those stations.

 

[surfdude]

My wife's 72 year old father is spending her substantial future inheritance like a drunken sailor.
Two new pick-ups and a new Cadillac in the past three years. A cruise to the South Pole.

He's a 55+ money spending machine. HE DOES NOT LISTEN TO THE RADIO. There's no radio station for him.

He enjoys his old Buck Owens and Marty Robbins records, though. This is reality.

 

[JRG440]

... the vast majority of the 79 million of the baby boomers born from 1947 to 1955 (uh, that's 55+ for those of you not paying attention...and I googled the statistics of baby births from '47 to '55 to confirm)

The baby boom is generally considered to date from 1/1/1946. The United States Census Bureau considers a baby boomer to be someone born during the demographic birth boom between 1946 and 1964.[8] The Census Bureau is not involved in defining cultural generations, just population trends, so their definition is based on statistics. And it's the accepted one by marketers, too.

And, yes, folks from that group have the most cash to spend.  This fact is not in dispute.  To say that these folks are not marketable, well frankly is just plain stupid.  And the fact that no one has tried to find a creative way to market to these people....well that's lazy.

This is not about how much money 55+ have. It's about how much it costs to create a sale... if it takes more ad investment than the profit on the sale, then there is no return on the investment. And that's the issue.

And this is why there are essentially no agency buys against 55+ for radio. There are local opportunities, which mean that the smaller the market, the better chance one has of actually doing some billing by selling to 55+.

If you listen to say KJKK and flip over to KLUV, you really can't tell the difference between the two anymore.  What is the point of this?  Just trying to find anything entertaining to listen to on the radio have it be music, talk, news, or whatever, is a monumental task not worth attempting.  My radio is rarely used anymore.  I tend to listen to my vast collection of CD's, or play my MP3 Player.  Thank God for technology. 

Are you over 55? That would be one explanation for the issues you have with those stations.

No I am not over 55.  I believe I said I was in my 30's, then again you would have known that if you read my post

You are right, the generation does run to 1964.  But as I said, the MAJORITY of the generation was born between 1947 and 1955, with births starting to trail off starting in 1957.  If you don't believe me, google birth rates by year in the US and you can find this info for yourself.

And finally, my point is that on advertising to this group, someone needs to come up with a different way of selling to this demographic.  It's obvious to me that the way it has been done to date isn't working, and no one seems to know how to make it work.  You say it's too expensive.  I say the way it's being done NOW, may very well be too expensive, etc...but find a way to think outside the box to get it done....that's all.  Not coming up with a way to tap into that potiential client base is again, LAZY. 

But then again, I feel that the current radio management doesn't know what they are doing anyway. There is a reason why thousands of radio employees are unemployed, stocks are in the crapper, and internet is running away with it all. Radio brass can not come up with a way of keeping audiences tuned in as opposed to going to an internet based media. You know, most baby boomers are not very technical savy. They don't have ipods, or invest heavly in computers, or download a ton of music. They don't know how to do it, nor do they want to learn. HELLO....push for their business. Am I the only one who sees this?

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

There is one HELL of an opportunity for a non-comm (KEOM comes to mind) to steal the 50-60s format and beg beg beg for money to keep the hits going. At this point in the game, it would make a wonderful listener supported format. Anyone that thinks otherwise should check many PBS stations and the way they fundraise on-air now. The normal shows they run are replaced with oldies music concerts and interviews to get people to donate. There's bucks in that demo just waiting to be harvested for a non-comm IMHO.