Latest rating...

[billalm]

WXRK 92.3 has nothing to do with what's happening on 101.9. For your information, sales teams don't just grab the latest 6+ ratings each month and then spin the format wheel on the cluster's lowest rated station. Check the ratings for targeted demographics for 92.3 AND 102.7 and your argument looks silly. Both stations bill well and both are sold to specific audiences. CBS has decided that the rock format does not have a place in there current lineup in New York. It's not CBS's responsibility to bring a rock station to the table. Heck... they got out of the rock format in New York TWICE on 92.3. You know why? Cause it was losing money. End of story.

 

[XCountry285]

Actually CBS could have changed 92.3 or 102.7 to rock. it wasn't that difficult of a concept to grasp. Rock is a format hole in NYC a major format hole at that. 92.3 Now hasn't made any headway it's been a mess since it started. Fresh is doing ok but not that well to stop Lite or PLJ

 

[TheBigA]

Name any music format owned by CBS Radio that when the talent do talk they are saying something relevant? This is the same for the news stations. The hosts are sterile.

The hosts are professionals. They're not just yammering aimlessly like WBAI. Is it relevant? Absolutely. How can I tell? They are among the most listened to radio stations in NYC. You prefer something else? That's fine. But what you want has nothing to do with their abilities and talents.

 

[XCountry285]

92.3 has had horrible DJs: Chunky was horrific, it sounded like a joke. Even Opie & Anthony with K-Rock were a bunch of jokes. At least with 101.9 v 2.0 you had good DJs despite being from out of Chicago. They never talked I liked the whole jukebox type format. Hell it got better ratings than 92.3 Now in LI & a few other stations in NYC and skyrocketed.

 

[MoldaMania182]

WRXP rose in the ratings the last few months because it was so far in the hole, there was no where to go but up.

Thanks John Madden.

As much as you like rock and the format they were executing, WRXP in it's present form, even properly programmed by CBS, wouldn't pay the bills.

Pure baseless conjecture. You're not really entitled to your own facts.

If rock was a viable format in New York, someone would be doing it besides Q104.3. ...but it's not. ...
Like I said, if new rock was worth the investment in New York, someone would do it. In this case, it probably should have never re-appeared on the 101.9 frequency. Blame the idiots at Merlin for getting you all excited.

If flying cars were produceable, they'd be selling them too! So much false logic in your 'point' it's actually funny.
Ah yes, the detractors continue to roll out in FORCE for some reason.

 

[WNTIRadio]

We get it. You hate Alternative music. You've really done nothing but try to bash it since launch. You're quick to jump all over anyone that posts anything supportive. It's kind sad as if you have an axe to grind. I guess non-commers are just bitter these days. Donations down or something? You clearly have ZERO understanding of the format or its audience in 2012,

No, you're wrong. I DON'T hate alternative music. I grew up on WLIR. Listened to WFNX heavily when I was in the Boston area. One of my client stations is a major market commercial AAA that leans alternative (instead of AC like so many do). Listen to 104.5 in Philly when I'm down that way, as well as WFUV's Alternate Side.

I'm not in non-comm anymore, haven't been for 4 years. I'm stuck with this handle because you can't change it on these boards. My "post script" on the bottom of this post explains what my current occupation is. I spent plenty of time in programming, production and on-air too before deciding that engineering was my focus because that's where I can make the best living.

What I was bashing in RXP 1.0 was the inclusion of all of the s*** rock that's already on Q-104.3 (AC/DC, GNR, etc). RXP 2.0 was merely a place holder for a failing company that needed quick cash and wanted to sell the station after draining all of it's resources with a directionless attempt at a news product. I listened to 101.9 after the news went away, and I'm sad to see the music go away. I would like for someone to pick up the alternative format in NYC, perhaps Cumulus will on 94.7. But I'm not sad to see Merlin go, after they poached people away from 1010 and other stations and screwed them by never settling on what the station was supposed to be in the all news failure.

You work for Merlin or something? If so, I would have my resume ready because you're on a sinking ship.

 

[Jay Walker]

At least with 101.9 v 2.0 you had good DJs despite being from out of Chicago. They never talked I liked the whole jukebox type format.

From reading your post it sounds like to me your problem could be easily solved with the purchase of an mp3 player set to random shuffle...

 

[TheBigA]

92.3 has had horrible DJs: Chunky was horrific, it sounded like a joke. Even Opie & Anthony with K-Rock were a bunch of jokes. At least with 101.9 v 2.0 you had good DJs despite being from out of Chicago. They never talked I liked the whole jukebox type format.

Interesting to me that you hardly ever see these kinds of comments regarding other formats.

 

[WNTIRadio]

I like that he liked the DJ's.... because they didn't talk and were out of Chicago and it was a jukebox format?

Huh?

 

[mikerock]

Name any music format owned by CBS Radio that when the talent do talk they are saying something relevant? This is the same for the news stations. The hosts are sterile.

The hosts are professionals. They're not just yammering aimlessly like WBAI. Is it relevant? Absolutely. How can I tell? They are among the most listened to radio stations in NYC. You prefer something else? That's fine. But what you want has nothing to do with their abilities and talents.

I never said they were not professional or lacked ability or talent. It is managements execution of their formats. They are the most listened to since people have no where else to go.

Seems people are taking this way too personally.

 

[chrocket87]

92.3 has had horrible DJs: Chunky was horrific, it sounded like a joke. Even Opie & Anthony with K-Rock were a bunch of jokes. At least with 101.9 v 2.0 you had good DJs despite being from out of Chicago. They never talked I liked the whole jukebox type format.

Interesting to me that you hardly ever see these kinds of comments regarding other formats.

Irrational Alternative fans will make just about any excuse they can for the fact that their stations failed, but once another station isn't getting a 5 share in the 6+ books, it's time to flip, no excuses.

 

[mikerock]

92.3 has had horrible DJs: Chunky was horrific, it sounded like a joke. Even Opie & Anthony with K-Rock were a bunch of jokes. At least with 101.9 v 2.0 you had good DJs despite being from out of Chicago. They never talked I liked the whole jukebox type format.

Interesting to me that you hardly ever see these kinds of comments regarding other formats.

Irrational Alternative fans will make just about any excuse they can for the fact that their stations failed, but once another station isn't getting a 5 share in the 6+ books, it's time to flip, no excuses.

It actually did not fail. The Alternative format was a success, they built a shell of a station with no audience yet it ties and beat WXRK in just two short months without any promotion or DJ's. Merlin sold them since they needed the cash and CBS wanted to move the FAN to FM.

 

[PhilH]

I can't believe people are upset that a half-assed not even fully voice-tracked rock station run from another city is going away. Sure it was some of the music, but it wasn't really much of anything. A souless jukebox is gone, big deal.

If Merlin had kept the rock format in place and fixed it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Half-assed? It was the best job someone had done on a rock station in well over a decade, hell 15 years, in NYC. Souless? I'm assuming you're either 40+ or just have no understanding of the type of music a certain population of people 12-30 respond to these days.

Like I said in a previous post, the station wasn't for music nerds who have long abandonded radio even before the ipod was release. It was for people who aren't into top 40, probably enjoyed alternative music in the 90's and are still open to being exposed to new music. The station was PERFECT for that. But, I know, we have to have another format that caters to an aging audience (seriously, do people below 40 listen to sports radio?) One thing to keep in mind is that the classic rock and sports radio audience WILL DIE OUT soon. I can't imagine most kids want to tune in to hear what sounds like their dad arguing about sports statistics but, what do I know, I'm just a 20-something with some disposable income that advertisers would probably like to reach.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm just a 20-something with some disposable income that advertisers would probably like to reach.

Yep, and from what I've seen, they have other, perhaps more efficient, ways of reaching you.

 

[davideduardo]

But, I know, we have to have another format that caters to an aging audience (seriously, do people below 40 listen to sports radio?) One thing to keep in mind is that the classic rock and sports radio audience WILL DIE OUT soon. I can't imagine most kids want to tune in to hear what sounds like their dad arguing about sports statistics but, what do I know,

Sports, even on AM, reaches a fairly balanced and broad demographic range. the with 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening.

30% of WFAN's cume is under 35.

If you base your arguments on incorrect data or personal taste, your conclusions are going to be wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Sports, even on AM, reaches a fairly balanced and broad demographic range. the with 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening.

30% of WFAN's cume is under 35.

If you base your arguments on incorrect data or personal taste, your conclusions are going to be wrong.

Something got truncated as I posted just as the site went down for maintenance...

"WFAN is an example of this balance the with the 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening."

 

[mikerock]

I'm just a 20-something with some disposable income that advertisers would probably like to reach.

Yep, and from what I've seen, they have other, perhaps more efficient, ways of reaching you.

So you think it is wise for a company owning several 75-100 million dollar radio properties to write off the younger generation they will need in the future to maintain the value of that investment?

It is also a common myth that newer technologies can adequately replace radio. With bandwidth caps, bandwidth costs and limited service coverage, streaming is not an option for most. With young peoples busy lives there is not always the time or the money to recreate an entire radio station playlist to keep them entertained. Then there is also lack of connection with the community that is lacking with downloads.

This entire week is another perfect example how streaming,downloads and online properties are utterly useless compared to radio. With wired connections being down or without power, wireless was or is useless due to not being able to handle the capacity. This happens all the time with all the carries regardless of storm coverage when you get too many people using it in one area.

Sports, even on AM, reaches a fairly balanced and broad demographic range. the with 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening.

30% of WFAN's cume is under 35.

If you base your arguments on incorrect data or personal taste, your conclusions are going to be wrong.

Something got truncated as I posted just as the site went down for maintenance...

"WFAN is an example of this balance the with the 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening."

I am 47 and have a hard time believing 30% is under 35. Where did you get those stats from the WFAN marketing department? CBS properties clearly are catering to the elderly crowd. They are going to lose money on their investment long term if they continue to do so.

 

[TheBigA]

So you think it is wise for a company owning several 75-100 million dollar radio properties to write off the younger generation they will need in the future to maintain the value of that investment?

You were talking about advertisers. You said advertisers would like to reach 20-somethings.

It doesn't matter what the radio companies want to do. If advertisers have decided they'll spend their money in another way, that's what they'll do. Radio companies then adjust accordingly.

 

[MoldaMania182]

But, I know, we have to have another format that caters to an aging audience (seriously, do people below 40 listen to sports radio?) One thing to keep in mind is that the classic rock and sports radio audience WILL DIE OUT soon. I can't imagine most kids want to tune in to hear what sounds like their dad arguing about sports statistics but, what do I know,

Sports, even on AM, reaches a fairly balanced and broad demographic range. the with 18-34 being just under 20% of listening, 25-44 being about 35% and 45-64 being just over 33% of listening.

30% of WFAN's cume is under 35.

If you base your arguments on incorrect data or personal taste, your conclusions are going to be wrong.

How much of this actually just game play-by-play vs actual Sports Talk programming. That's more my question. The only people I know under 35 listening to WFAN regularly are a few sports junkies, who only listen wfan.com.

 

[davideduardo]

So you think it is wise for a company owning several 75-100 million dollar radio properties to write off the younger generation they will need in the future to maintain the value of that investment?

CBS is not writing off the under-35 demos. They have strong CHR stations as well as other formats appealing to young adults in many markets. They also have one of the strongest new media initiatives in the industry.

CBS, as most of us do, understands that there is a huge movement of content delivery away from towers and transmitters to new media. This movement is motivated by what consumers are doing: they are using less AM and FM and lots more apps and streams.

At some point, the FCC licenses will be worth very little, and smart operators are moving with the listeners to new distribution channels.

It is also a common myth that newer technologies can adequately replace radio. With bandwidth caps, bandwidth costs and limited service coverage, streaming is not an option for most.

If you survey the listeners of most any station appealing to any group in the "sales demos" you will find that they have already reduced their OTA radio usage and have increased their usage on smartphones, computers and tablets.

Most data plans can easily support extensive use of streaming audio, and listeners love the fact that they can use one device for music, radio, texting, calling, browsing, etc. And if it costs a little bit more, they are glad to pay it.

On the other hand, radio stations that don't recognize that many listeners who like their content are demanding it via new media will decline in usage and revenues.

With young peoples busy lives there is not always the time or the money to recreate an entire radio station playlist to keep them entertained.

Pandora, iHeart, Slacker, et. al.

Then there is also lack of connection with the community that is lacking with downloads.

Most people feel little connection with their "community" in the traditional sense. To them, their real community is Facebook... where friends and news of things near and far is "local" on your viewing device. The whole definition of community, which was once based on proximity, has now changed.

This entire week is another perfect example how streaming,downloads and online properties are utterly useless compared to radio. With wired connections being down or without power, wireless was or is useless due to not being able to handle the capacity. This happens all the time with all the carries regardless of storm coverage when you get too many people using it in one area.

Don't use a once-every-10-years occurrence to write off the way people want to have content delivered.

Radio will use this incident to push FM on mobile devices, and there will be enough radio stations around for the next decade to provide direct service, and the problem will be solved.

30% of WFAN's cume is under 35.

I am 47 and have a hard time believing 30% is under 35. Where did you get those stats from the WFAN marketing department? CBS properties clearly are catering to the elderly crowd. They are going to lose money on their investment long term if they continue to do so.

I got the data from the Arbitron PPM data, using a mean of the last year rounded to the nearest even integer.

CBS properties are NOT "clearly catering to the elderly crowd". Look at stations ranging from KLOL to WBBM-FM to KAMP, KROQ. WVEE, KMXB, WXRK, KZON and many more. Those are all 18-34 core stations which are in very high ratings rank positions in their markets.

CBS has a variety of formats serving 18-49, 25-54 and 18-34 and subsets of those principal sales demos. Some lean older, some lean younger. They all have viable targets in their markets... and like all companies with multiple stations, some are stellar performers, some are not.