There just seems to be no room for creativity and innovation in the business now. It's all about copy what 20 other people in your market are doing...and somehow, my copy of what someone else is doing will BEAT them..... ??? I know this is a subject that's been beaten to death around here, but the changes at KPTK and KMCQ in 2012 seem like the final death knell of traditional radio.
-
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
KPTK 1090 to sports (KFNQ) in January???
- Thread starter jensenbay
- Start date
A
AQH
Guest
Lonely Summer said:
Respectfully, that's a conundrum around here.
Here's the way most people think about a new format: if it's easy to label, it's immediately deemed a copycat and an inevitable failure. If it's something even the slightest bit different, it's also deemed a failure because it doesn't sound like what everyone has heard in the market already.
There's a lot more to radio than whether a station is an AC, Rhythmic AC, Hot AC, CHR or whatever, Star 101.5 is a shining example. Remember a few years ago when everyone was saying Kent Phillips was too busy working on Northwest Afternoon and leaving the radio station at 10:01 a.m.? Anybody with access to the numbers sees that Star absolutely kills it in the female demos. Star obviously does something (or things) that consistently get them ratings.
It's those other things that radio stations do (or don't do) that make the difference. But nobody ever thinks about those things or even discusses them around here. It's all about feigned outrage and "Cheap Channel" comments.
That's not to say radio has done some really dumb moves of late, but there's a lot more to radio rather than judging it by a three song sweep. Radio has evolved, it's time the thinking about radio also change.
Flame away.
AQH said:
My question is whether the evolution is what is in the industry's own best interest. It feels to me that the mindset is about "business preservation" ... not growth. The people calling the shots are only worried about shareholders and debt payments, so the strategy is about protecting those objectives. So as more people leave the listening pool (and of course there are plenty of studies in the industry that demand that is not happening), the product becomes more homogenized, more sterile, more similar from station to station. Sure, that's giving "the masses" (who are still loyal to the medium) what they want, but not doing so much to preserve or grow an audience share.
If I weren't so thoroughlly disgusted with government mindset, I would suggest the FCC should work with the industry to come up with long-term strategy for the medium (e.g. one band, how licenses would survive, etc.; whether some licenses would be format repeaters, others local, etc.) and we'd have a clearer roadmap about how it moves forward. But more realistically, the large companies will tell the FCC what to do and it won't involve much strategy -- just ways to be able to meet those debt payments without offering any expensive service in return.
I never would have figured that it would take until 2013 for the FCC to finally seriously consider ownership rules that allow long-standing news print publishing assets to be in ownership bed with electronic ones ... but they will probably allow that to happen JUST as the last newspaper in the country is breathing its last gasp. So much for leadership.
S
stevensonair
Guest
Interesting to me is that other countries have stricter license application processes. You can't just outbid someone for a channel regardless of actual value.
In Canada, you have to provide research that backs up your business plan and compete with other applications. Admittedly, sometimes the final product ends up being different from what's pledged - but it does seem to have helped, there's not a glut of stations in most Canadian markets.
The UK also has similar procedures, though they've loosened up on enforcement in light of the recession and changing economy.
I'd be interested in the application of a competitive license procedure for terrestrial radio in the US, as opposed to the permit speculation we have currently.
I can think of numerous examples where a regional or out of state operator bid against a qualified local party who intended to actually construct and operate a local radio station. The non local bidder then won the permit for more than its practical worth and sat on it, attempting to shop it around. They'd run the permit out till the last minute, and renew it. Then, if they put it on the air, it would be off the satellite with minimal local content.
Your post makes me think there has to be more logical ways to ensure signals end up in the hands of those who intend to operate, not speculate.
In Canada, you have to provide research that backs up your business plan and compete with other applications. Admittedly, sometimes the final product ends up being different from what's pledged - but it does seem to have helped, there's not a glut of stations in most Canadian markets.
The UK also has similar procedures, though they've loosened up on enforcement in light of the recession and changing economy.
I'd be interested in the application of a competitive license procedure for terrestrial radio in the US, as opposed to the permit speculation we have currently.
I can think of numerous examples where a regional or out of state operator bid against a qualified local party who intended to actually construct and operate a local radio station. The non local bidder then won the permit for more than its practical worth and sat on it, attempting to shop it around. They'd run the permit out till the last minute, and renew it. Then, if they put it on the air, it would be off the satellite with minimal local content.
Your post makes me think there has to be more logical ways to ensure signals end up in the hands of those who intend to operate, not speculate.
AQH, good post, I can think of an example right off of a station doing a format that is not the same as another one. Look at KIXZ in Spokane, worst CHR sorry excuse for a CHR I have heard. Actually that's not true that title belongs to WZYP in Huntsville, but let's look at KIXZ for a minute. Listen to that station and you will find that there really isn't much to keep you there. CHR is supposed to be a lively format with high-energy personalities because that's the nature of the target audience, and something that KIXZ fails miserably at, it is the most boring CHR out there. On the other hand, KHKS in Dallas, which by the way is owned by the same company that owns KIXZ in Spokane, is a great station! So you are quite right AQH. Whether 1090 will pick up more listeners as a sports station than as a progressive talker is a question that will be answered by the January PPM when it is released, and if that doesn't provide a clear answer, then the following 2 or 3 books will for sure. I do wonder if for the reason that 1090 was flipped, that progressive talk and maybe conservative talk one of these days, is better suited for a noncommercial format? As for KMCQ, that prospect would certainly be better for a noncom station since audience contribution is the revenue source. That is not to say I don't understand the outrage of listeners to 1090 on here, 3 full market and 2 rimshot sports stations is serious overkill. I really don't understand the outrage towards KMCQ. I could probably count on one hand the songs I would like them to bring back from that format. I am not sure of the exact peramitors of licensing in this country, and I don't mind the number of signals, but I do think that added government regulation would make companies think a little harder about what formats they put on there stations, though I don't think it should be quite like Canada. If I were to put something like this in place, I would cap it at 3 stations per format in an area defined by Arbitron. So, there could not be more than 3 sports stations in the area that Arbitron defines as the Seattle market.
A
AQH
Guest
LITTLEBOYBLUE said:
Agree completely with your sentiment, and that's the part I referred to as radio making some dumb moves.
Un-ringing the bell, toothpaste back in the tube, whatever adage you want to use, I don't think we're going to go back to pre-1996 regulations anytime soon. Companies have just gotten too big to fold. The ownership rules is very germane to this discussion, but there is also a lot to be said about how technology has changed radio.
Is it fair to the people who own the Chevron station that sell gas a nickel more a gallon that people choose to go to the Arco station because gas is cheaper? People will go to Wal-Mart to save 14 cents on a giant bag of Doritos. is that fair to Safeway? Are consumers doing something wrong?
Is something wrong with companies, public or private, that want to save money? Read the Jerry Lee interview in All Access from a few months ago; he doesn't stream because he doesn't think it's in the station's best interest and it's a waste of money. Yet B-101 is a billing cash cow in Philadelphia.
I agree with a lot of people here that piping in people from California who don't know how to say Issaquah or Mukilteo isn't the best thing to do. On the other hand, today's radio listeners don't care about people talking up to the post or trying to be funny. There are talented people out there who can make something out of nothing on the air. Don't get me wrong, there ARE people who get the short end of the stick due to economics and corporate culture, and that's both not fair and very unfortunate. But there are stations out there where you really have to wonder whether it's better to have live talent, or even any talent, on the air.
Is Seattle just sports crazy? I don't see it. I mean, sure, people go wild for the Huskies and the Seahawks, but beyond that, nobody cares about the pathetic excuse for an AAA team the Mariners have become; we don't have an NBA team (not yet, anyway); okay, soccer is catching on a bit, and there is some kind of market for the Storm, but no, I don't see this as a sports obsessed region. We've got too many other things to do here. I don't get it.crainbebo said:
Exactly! I'm a long time baseball fan, but I finally lost interest in the M's last season when it became clear management was satisfied with their mediocrity. It was fun back in the glory years, 1995-2001 (even a bit before that, I suppose), but now? Not worth my time.crainbebo said:If not for Felix's perfect game in August, you would think the Mariners should play against the Aquasox in NWL MILB Baseball!
-crainbebo
crainbebo said:
Bizarrely enough, CBS Sports Radio has listed KRKO as well as KFNQ as an affiliate, at least according to their website; here's the Washington station list I pulled of the CBS Sports Radio website a couple days ago (you'll notice some were/are Fox Sports or ESPN):
KPUG-AM 1170 Bellingham WA
KRKO-AM 1380 Everett/Seattle WA
KALE-AM 960 Richland/Pasco WA
KFNQ-AM 1090 Seattle WA
KGA-AM 1510 Spokn/Coeur D'alene WA
KZNW-AM 1340 Wenatchee WA
1090 going to sports is a solid move for CBS. KPTK had a small audience and the programming was owned by others. CBS has leveraged its TV talent (as does ESPN and NBC) to create sports network. This allows them to monetize their talent over TV, Web and Radio. They can also sell nationally. Taking 1090, which made little local revenue and no national revenue for CBS to the company owned franchise is smart. They probably won't do much worse in the ratings, won't sell much less locally, while at the same time promote their national brand. Smart move. The fact the added some local shows is a bonus for Seattle.
Agree with AQH. There are a lot of factors that go into making a station win on the revenue side and ratings side. 1090 is a CBS revenue move. Little time is spent on this board looking at what stations do well. Yes, there is a reason KPLZ dominates in female demos sometimes in the 15-20 share range. KISW does the same thing in male demos. I doubt their PD's or staffs are "phoning it in" or leaving at 10:01am. These stations work because they seem to change quietly to appeal to their audience. No knee jerk programming or staff moves. Neither KPLZ or KISW sound anything like they did a decade ago, but they adjust each year with little fanfare. Slow moves keeping their core audience happy and growing a new audience. It is never a single thing that creates a winning radio station, it is getting a thousand little things right. (things Listeners rarely notice) BJ Shea show is the best example of a product that has adapted slowly from content, to adding music, to adjusting commercial breaks. Several little things done well lead to their success.
Agree with AQH. There are a lot of factors that go into making a station win on the revenue side and ratings side. 1090 is a CBS revenue move. Little time is spent on this board looking at what stations do well. Yes, there is a reason KPLZ dominates in female demos sometimes in the 15-20 share range. KISW does the same thing in male demos. I doubt their PD's or staffs are "phoning it in" or leaving at 10:01am. These stations work because they seem to change quietly to appeal to their audience. No knee jerk programming or staff moves. Neither KPLZ or KISW sound anything like they did a decade ago, but they adjust each year with little fanfare. Slow moves keeping their core audience happy and growing a new audience. It is never a single thing that creates a winning radio station, it is getting a thousand little things right. (things Listeners rarely notice) BJ Shea show is the best example of a product that has adapted slowly from content, to adding music, to adjusting commercial breaks. Several little things done well lead to their success.
The inverse (or maybe the same point) is a long investment in time builds heritage, loyalty and a core audience and takes forever to establish. The fastest way to completely screw that up is to appoint some corporate dumbkopf who insists s/he needs to "prove themselves" and start yanking heritage talent, programming, imaging, etc. to prove what a brain trust they are by "making changes".
As I recall, there have been several periods in history when CBS has been very good at that strategy as well (Houston, NY, LA, Seattle all come to mind right off the bat).
As I recall, there have been several periods in history when CBS has been very good at that strategy as well (Houston, NY, LA, Seattle all come to mind right off the bat).
Did some listening this morning and found that 1090 has horrible audio processing. Rome sounds like he is being played from one of those bass enhancing boom boxes that sound bloated and mooshy.
KIRO AM and KJR both sound much better quality wise.
850 KHHO is no longer running Rome, replaced with Fox Sports feed. KHHO HD audio is around 5db lower than analog, annoyingly quiet. Their website still advertises Rome in the time slot. Everyone is asleep at CC Seattle apparently.
KIRO AM and KJR both sound much better quality wise.
850 KHHO is no longer running Rome, replaced with Fox Sports feed. KHHO HD audio is around 5db lower than analog, annoyingly quiet. Their website still advertises Rome in the time slot. Everyone is asleep at CC Seattle apparently.
Giving a daytime listen to KRKO, still listed as a CBS station on their website.
They're still playing Fox Sports, and they're not playing Jim Rome. I think the guy on the air is a guy named Mohr.
http://radio.cbssports.com/affiliates.html
They're still playing Fox Sports, and they're not playing Jim Rome. I think the guy on the air is a guy named Mohr.
http://radio.cbssports.com/affiliates.html
Just one guy's opinon....but the imaging is both funny and annoying. It's a little bit JACK-like in that the liners are funny, but the whole "deep" "sneering" thing has become very, very, very tired to me. Maybe all sports formats do that (I don't listen, but my recollection is KJR used Vic Orlando imaging which was very good) ... but I would hope that after 30 years of that sneer (thanks, Mark Driscoll) we could try something NEW!!?
- Status