KSAN vs KFRC The Golden Years

[michael hagerty]

Pretty much. The difference with KHJ was multiple competitors, and some not even in the same format. KHJ was always defending against KGFJ, and after 1974, against KDAY, because R&B records were big in that market at that time. And KLOS's rise after launching the Rock n' Stereo format in fall of '71 prompted KHJ to adjust to defend against them for the rest of that year and most of 1972.

That's in addition to direct Top 40 competition from KBLA (1965-67), KFWB (1965-1968), KRLA (1965-1971), KDAY (1968-1971), KGBS (1968-1974)*, KKDJ (1971-1975), KROQ-AM (1972-74), KIQQ (1973-1980) and KIIS-FM (1975-1980), as well as occasional intrusions into the L.A. ratings from KEZY in Anaheim.

As a result, KHJ never really had a moment in the 70s where they had vanquished the competition and saw their numbers climb prior to the big crash as KFRC did once KYA finally faded. Arguably, KHJ's moment came in 1968 when KFWB went news and KRLA automated for the better part of a year. That gave KHJ a 13.0 (12+ total audience) in the fall '68 book.

They held a 12.8 for fall '69, then slipped to a 9.0 in the fall of '70. Fall '71 was a 9.3.

From there, a 6 share was aspirational. 5.8 in fall '72. 5.4 in fall '73. A 6.3 in fall '74.

Then it became about staying above a 5.

Fall '75---5.4. A 5.3 in fall '76. Then a 3.5 in the fall of '77 and a 2.7 in the fall of '78---but still number one within the format (KFI had a 2.6, KIIS-FM and KTNQ a 2.1, and KIQQ a 1.8). KHJ fell to KFI in the fall of '79, 3.3 to 2.4 .

What happened in L.A. that didn't happen in San Francisco is that there was a gap of about two years between the death of a dominant AM Top 40 (KFI only enjoyed a year in the top ten and never got anywhere near top five, much less number one) and the arrival of a dominant FM.

That said, there were two FMs that damaged KHJ most. KMET, which took its teens and young adult males, and KRTH, which took its young adult females. KMET was AOR and KRTH, KHJ's sister station, was, according to RKO, a Gold-based AC, but R&R didn't buy that argument and listed KRTH alongside KHJ as a CHR (at that time R&R's term for Top 40).







*KGBS swore it wasn't Top 40, but the more I listen to the tapes, the more I have to disagree. Even a Hot AC (a term that didn't really exist yet) was not gonna be playing Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild".

Pretty much. The difference with KHJ was multiple competitors, and some not even in the same format. KHJ was always defending against KGFJ, and after 1974, against KDAY, because R&B records were big in that market at that time. And KLOS's rise after launching the Rock n' Stereo format in fall of '71 prompted KHJ to adjust to defend against them for the rest of that year and most of 1972.

That's in addition to direct Top 40 competition from KBLA (1965-67), KFWB (1965-1968), KRLA (1965-1971), KDAY (1968-1971), KGBS (1968-1974)*, KKDJ (1971-1975), KROQ-AM (1972-74), KIQQ (1973-1980) and KIIS-FM (1975-1980), as well as occasional intrusions into the L.A. ratings from KEZY in Anaheim.

As a result, KHJ never really had a moment in the 70s where they had vanquished the competition and saw their numbers climb prior to the big crash as KFRC did once KYA finally faded. Arguably, KHJ's moment came in 1968 when KFWB went news and KRLA automated for the better part of a year. That gave KHJ a 13.0 (12+ total audience) in the fall '68 book.

They held a 12.8 for fall '69, then slipped to a 9.0 in the fall of '70. Fall '71 was a 9.3.

From there, a 6 share was aspirational. 5.8 in fall '72. 5.4 in fall '73. A 6.3 in fall '74.

Then it became about staying above a 5.

Fall '75---5.4. A 5.3 in fall '76. Then a 3.5 in the fall of '77 and a 2.7 in the fall of '78---but still number one within the format (KFI had a 2.6, KIIS-FM and KTNQ a 2.1, and KIQQ a 1.8). KHJ fell to KFI in the fall of '79, 3.3 to 2.4 .

What happened in L.A. that didn't happen in San Francisco is that there was a gap of about two years between the death of a dominant AM Top 40 (KFI only enjoyed a year in the top ten and never got anywhere near top five, much less number one) and the arrival of a dominant FM.

That said, there were two FMs that damaged KHJ most. KMET, which took its teens and young adult males, and KRTH, which took its young adult females. KMET was AOR and KRTH, KHJ's sister station, was, according to RKO, a Gold-based AC, but R&R didn't buy that argument and listed KRTH alongside KHJ as a CHR (at that time R&R's term for Top 40).







*KGBS swore it wasn't Top 40, but the more I listen to the tapes, the more I have to disagree. Even a Hot AC (a term that didn't really exist yet) was not gonna be playing Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild".

Hey—I need to clarify something here—-the L.A. numbers I have from 1966 to 1974 are Pulse. After 1975, it’s Arbitron.

Thanks to Huff for pointing up the discrepancy. Given that he has a much more thorough set of numbers, going forward, I’ll be asking him to post particulars.

 

[chuckmcmillan]

Other than KYA, what stations were considered competitors to 610/KFRC?

 

[michael hagerty]

Other than KYA, what stations were considered competitors to 610/KFRC?

For the first few months of KFRC’s run as a Top 40, KEWB. It changed format and call letters to KNEW.

KGO-FM (103.7) was automated Top 40 for a little over a year beginning in 1967, but was no threat. The same station tried again in 1973 as KSFX, but went nowhere and became one of the first dance/disco stations in 1974.

The next attempt was in 1979, when KCBS-FM dropped disco and tried Top 40, but that never gained traction.

After that, Gerry Cagle chose to defend against KSOL and A/C stations like K-101 and KYUU became closer to mainstream CHR.

When Cagle was replaced by Mike Phillips in early 1984, Phillips tried to ditch rhythmic and found that those listeners were largely on the two FMs. KFRC station continued to sink in the ratings, and went Standards less than two and a half years later.

 

[Radiopaw]

Hey—I need to clarify something here—-the L.A. numbers I have from 1966 to 1974 are Pulse. After 1975, it’s Arbitron.

Thanks to Huff for pointing up the discrepancy. Given that he has a much more thorough set of numbers, going forward, I’ll be asking him to post particulars.

Pardon the probably silly question but what’s Pulse? Former company that ran numbers or something else?

And we’re 6+ numbers more relevant in the more golden era of Radio?

 

[michael hagerty]

Pardon the probably silly question but what’s Pulse? Former company that ran numbers or something else?

And we’re 6+ numbers more relevant in the more golden era of Radio?

Hooper and Pulse were the dominant radio ratings companies in the 1950s and 60s. ARB came along in the mid-60s, rebranded as Arbitron in the 1970s and since 2012 has been known as Nielsen Media.

Ratings began as total audience. TV broke out 2-12 when kids’ programming grew along with baby boomers.

For many years in radio, the total audience was 12+. I believe 6+ numbers came into use with PPMs (David or Huff can correct me if I’ve got that wrong).

But even by the 60s, advertisers were interested in targeting demographics —so total audience has been less valuable to them than specific demos for 60-plus years.

 

[davideduardo]

Hooper and Pulse were the dominant radio ratings companies in the 1950s and 60s. ARB came along in the mid-60s, rebranded as Arbitron in the 1970s and since 2012 has been known as Nielsen Media.

Ratings began as total audience. TV broke out 2-12 when kids’ programming grew along with baby boomers.

For many years in radio, the total audience was 12+. I believe 6+ numbers came into use with PPMs (David or Huff can correct me if I’ve got that wrong).

The PPM brought 6+ to those markets. Diary markets stayed 12+

When the PPM began serious development around 1999, Arbitron and Nielsen were discussing a joint radio and TV effort. When I was on the original "Philadelphia Committee" (because of the first real PPM tests in Philly) our meetings included Arbitron and Nielsen people as well as a select group of radio station people who understood both the process of a survey and the technology of the meter.

So 6+ came into the PPM world because TV required it. They never dropped it when Nielsen left the PPM effort, and I really do not know why.

But even by the 60s, advertisers were interested in targeting demographics —so total audience has been less valuable to them than specific demos for 60-plus years.

Interestingly, back in the Pulse and Hooper ratings days, when age breaks were introduced it was 18-49 and not 25-54 that were the key demos. How Arbitron and the buying community switched to 25-54 is something I do not know and am now rather curious about. TV continues to be based on 18-49 as the "big number".