-
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
'Less Is More' Yields Less Revenue
- Thread starter vg4or
- Start date
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
> http://tinyurl.com/dycm2
>
"Citing its "Less Is More" inventory-reduction initiative, Clear Channel today suffered revenue declines of 7% in its radio division, to $931.9 million, as total revenue slipped 1%, to $2.46 billion during Q2."
Yeah, because crappy programming has NOTHING to do with it, right?
"But Clear Channel said it saw Q2 gains in selling :30s and :15s to advertisers."
Ummmm, maybe I'm dumb, but wasn't the whole point of "Less is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones? In which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated, and expected step from "L-i-M".
>
"Citing its "Less Is More" inventory-reduction initiative, Clear Channel today suffered revenue declines of 7% in its radio division, to $931.9 million, as total revenue slipped 1%, to $2.46 billion during Q2."
Yeah, because crappy programming has NOTHING to do with it, right?
"But Clear Channel said it saw Q2 gains in selling :30s and :15s to advertisers."
Ummmm, maybe I'm dumb, but wasn't the whole point of "Less is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones? In which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated, and expected step from "L-i-M".
I listen to 99% of my radio on the internet with this wonderful new pc and broadband.
No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC should break them up and let the Citizens of America run them!
Radio4U
<P ID="signature">______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://206.46.230.44/radio4u>http://206.46.230.44/radio4u</a></P>
No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC should break them up and let the Citizens of America run them!
Radio4U
<P ID="signature">______________
<a target="_blank" href=http://206.46.230.44/radio4u>http://206.46.230.44/radio4u</a></P>
> Ummmm, maybe I'm dumb, but wasn't the whole point of "Less
> is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones? In
> which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots
> isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated,
> and expected step from "L-i-M".
>
No, the whole point was to reduce commercial load overall and make up for the revenue by selling more 30's and 15's which are typically priced at 70% and 50% of the 60" rate. In addition, one of the points was to reduce clutter, and break up the 2 long stop sets into three or four shorter ones with lower total time per hour. Further, an objective was to sell through to the listener the reduction in set length and total commercials.
CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a revenue issue, not an audience or programming one.
> is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones? In
> which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots
> isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated,
> and expected step from "L-i-M".
>
No, the whole point was to reduce commercial load overall and make up for the revenue by selling more 30's and 15's which are typically priced at 70% and 50% of the 60" rate. In addition, one of the points was to reduce clutter, and break up the 2 long stop sets into three or four shorter ones with lower total time per hour. Further, an objective was to sell through to the listener the reduction in set length and total commercials.
CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a revenue issue, not an audience or programming one.
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
> > Ummmm, maybe I'm dumb, but wasn't the whole point of "Less
>
> > is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones?
> In
> > which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots
> > isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated,
>
> > and expected step from "L-i-M".
> >
>
> No, the whole point was to reduce commercial load overall
> and make up for the revenue by selling more 30's and 15's
> which are typically priced at 70% and 50% of the 60" rate.
> In addition, one of the points was to reduce clutter, and
> break up the 2 long stop sets into three or four shorter
> ones with lower total time per hour. Further, an objective
> was to sell through to the listener the reduction in set
> length and total commercials.
>
> CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a revenue
> issue, not an audience or programming one.
So, I was right...and that R&R story about this was probably a "woe is us" Clear Channel press release re-printed verbatim.
>
> > is More" to cut long commercials and have shorter ones?
> In
> > which case, this *news* of gains in selling shorter spots
> > isn't really news at all, but is the logical, anticipated,
>
> > and expected step from "L-i-M".
> >
>
> No, the whole point was to reduce commercial load overall
> and make up for the revenue by selling more 30's and 15's
> which are typically priced at 70% and 50% of the 60" rate.
> In addition, one of the points was to reduce clutter, and
> break up the 2 long stop sets into three or four shorter
> ones with lower total time per hour. Further, an objective
> was to sell through to the listener the reduction in set
> length and total commercials.
>
> CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a revenue
> issue, not an audience or programming one.
So, I was right...and that R&R story about this was probably a "woe is us" Clear Channel press release re-printed verbatim.
>
> So, I was right...and that R&R story about this was probably
> a "woe is us" Clear Channel press release re-printed
> verbatim.
>
No, it was the news report of the CCU earnings release and call per SEC requirements.
There are several dozen reports on this online, from the WSJ on down.
Here is the Yahoo report...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050809/earns_clear_channel.html?.v=12
> So, I was right...and that R&R story about this was probably
> a "woe is us" Clear Channel press release re-printed
> verbatim.
>
No, it was the news report of the CCU earnings release and call per SEC requirements.
There are several dozen reports on this online, from the WSJ on down.
Here is the Yahoo report...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050809/earns_clear_channel.html?.v=12
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
> No, it was the news report of the CCU earnings release and
> call per SEC requirements.
Ah, my bad.
> call per SEC requirements.
Ah, my bad.
T
TANK
Guest
> I listen to 99% of my radio on the internet with this
> wonderful new pc and broadband.
> No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC
> should break them up and let the Citizens of America run
> them!
>
>
> Radio4U
>
I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've had to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at the quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot more per gallon.
> wonderful new pc and broadband.
> No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC
> should break them up and let the Citizens of America run
> them!
>
>
> Radio4U
>
I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've had to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at the quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot more per gallon.
> CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a revenue issue, not an audience or programming one.
I have long noted that Clear Channel always talks about its revenue share but not their audience share. At least I've never heard them talk about it until now.
They say their ratings are up 3%. Anyway to verify that? Not that I don't believe them, but I'd like to be able to see where they go on the next 2 books. It's a little early to attribute a 3% ratings increase to any one thing. I don't think they'll tell us if they go down next book so I'd like to know how to verify it independently. I'm betting I can't. <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
I have long noted that Clear Channel always talks about its revenue share but not their audience share. At least I've never heard them talk about it until now.
They say their ratings are up 3%. Anyway to verify that? Not that I don't believe them, but I'd like to be able to see where they go on the next 2 books. It's a little early to attribute a 3% ratings increase to any one thing. I don't think they'll tell us if they go down next book so I'd like to know how to verify it independently. I'm betting I can't. <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
E
Ed_Walker
Guest
and your point is?
Your point is?
It seems like some on this board are willing to jump on any radio group that
a) runs too many spots;
b) decides to run less spots (obviously an admission of past "sins");
c) runs less spots and then the revenue goes down;
damned if they do; damned if they don't....
huh?
Your point is?
It seems like some on this board are willing to jump on any radio group that
a) runs too many spots;
b) decides to run less spots (obviously an admission of past "sins");
c) runs less spots and then the revenue goes down;
damned if they do; damned if they don't....
huh?
Re: 60's are uniquely American
> >
> I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production
> people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other
> stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them
> make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've had
> to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many
> advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller
> packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at the
> quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot more
> per gallon.
>
Most 30's are porduced as 30's and most 15's are produced as 15's. The 30 is the standard outsid ethe US and Canada, whether it be Europe, Asia or Latin America. In fact, in Latin America (including Puerto Rico, USA) one seldom ever sees a 60 come in, and in Mexico the 20 is the most common unit.
The 60 is an excuse for bad writing.
> >
> I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production
> people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other
> stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them
> make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've had
> to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many
> advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller
> packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at the
> quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot more
> per gallon.
>
Most 30's are porduced as 30's and most 15's are produced as 15's. The 30 is the standard outsid ethe US and Canada, whether it be Europe, Asia or Latin America. In fact, in Latin America (including Puerto Rico, USA) one seldom ever sees a 60 come in, and in Mexico the 20 is the most common unit.
The 60 is an excuse for bad writing.
> > CCU ratings are up due to "less is more." This is a
> revenue issue, not an audience or programming one.
>
> I have long noted that Clear Channel always talks about its
> revenue share but not their audience share. At least I've
> never heard them talk about it until now.
>
> They say their ratings are up 3%. Anyway to verify that? Not
> that I don't believe them, but I'd like to be able to see
> where they go on the next 2 books. It's a little early to
> attribute a 3% ratings increase to any one thing. I don't
> think they'll tell us if they go down next book so I'd like
> to know how to verify it independently. I'm betting I can't.
>
It is pretty easy to do if you have the software CCU got as part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier markets.
One can prove it by simply using market share increaes or decreases, weithting by population percentage of the US, and getting a result.
> revenue issue, not an audience or programming one.
>
> I have long noted that Clear Channel always talks about its
> revenue share but not their audience share. At least I've
> never heard them talk about it until now.
>
> They say their ratings are up 3%. Anyway to verify that? Not
> that I don't believe them, but I'd like to be able to see
> where they go on the next 2 books. It's a little early to
> attribute a 3% ratings increase to any one thing. I don't
> think they'll tell us if they go down next book so I'd like
> to know how to verify it independently. I'm betting I can't.
>
It is pretty easy to do if you have the software CCU got as part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier markets.
One can prove it by simply using market share increaes or decreases, weithting by population percentage of the US, and getting a result.
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
Re: and your point is?
> Your point is?
>
> It seems like some on this board are willing to jump on any
> radio group that
>
> a) runs too many spots;
>
> b) decides to run less spots (obviously an admission of past
> "sins");
>
> c) runs less spots and then the revenue goes down;
>
> damned if they do; damned if they don't....
>
> huh?
>
Actually, Ed, it was an interesting news story--even if Clear Channel wasn't the death of modern radio, which it is. [editor's note: the last part was opinion.]
> Your point is?
>
> It seems like some on this board are willing to jump on any
> radio group that
>
> a) runs too many spots;
>
> b) decides to run less spots (obviously an admission of past
> "sins");
>
> c) runs less spots and then the revenue goes down;
>
> damned if they do; damned if they don't....
>
> huh?
>
Actually, Ed, it was an interesting news story--even if Clear Channel wasn't the death of modern radio, which it is. [editor's note: the last part was opinion.]
> It is pretty easy to do if you have the software CCU got as
> part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the
> ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier
> markets.
>
Which affirms my point. There is no publicly reported information. I'd have to rely on Clear Channel to give me access to their data which they aren't about to do.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
> part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the
> ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier
> markets.
>
Which affirms my point. There is no publicly reported information. I'd have to rely on Clear Channel to give me access to their data which they aren't about to do.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
> > It is pretty easy to do if you have the software CCU got
> as
> > part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the
> > ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier
> > markets.
> >
>
> Which affirms my point. There is no publicly reported
> information. I'd have to rely on Clear Channel to give me
> access to their data which they aren't about to do.
>
Anyone with access to the market data can prove it. Ad agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious, they could do the same data runs.
> as
> > part of the corporate deal. It essentially gives them the
> > ability to cluster markets and regions and all thier
> > markets.
> >
>
> Which affirms my point. There is no publicly reported
> information. I'd have to rely on Clear Channel to give me
> access to their data which they aren't about to do.
>
Anyone with access to the market data can prove it. Ad agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious, they could do the same data runs.
K
k9ez
Guest
Re: 60's are uniquely American
> > >
> > I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production
> > people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other
> > stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them
>
> > make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've
> had
> > to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many
> > advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller
> > packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at
> the
> > quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot
> more
> > per gallon.
> >
>
> Most 30's are porduced as 30's and most 15's are produced as
> 15's. The 30 is the standard outsid ethe US and Canada,
> whether it be Europe, Asia or Latin America. In fact, in
> Latin America (including Puerto Rico, USA) one seldom ever
> sees a 60 come in, and in Mexico the 20 is the most common
> unit.
>
> The 60 is an excuse for bad writing.
>
AAAMEN David! Boy did YOU nail it!
> > >
> > I'm wondering how much fun the Clear Channel production
> > people are having cutting 60's that are sent from other
> > stations and agencies down to 30's while still having them
>
> > make sense and flow smoothly soundwise. I know they've
> had
> > to cut stuff that I send them. I also wonder how many
> > advertisers are finding that paying more for smaller
> > packages is like driving past Kroger or Biggs to shop at
> the
> > quicky mart. You still get the milk but it costs a lot
> more
> > per gallon.
> >
>
> Most 30's are porduced as 30's and most 15's are produced as
> 15's. The 30 is the standard outsid ethe US and Canada,
> whether it be Europe, Asia or Latin America. In fact, in
> Latin America (including Puerto Rico, USA) one seldom ever
> sees a 60 come in, and in Mexico the 20 is the most common
> unit.
>
> The 60 is an excuse for bad writing.
>
AAAMEN David! Boy did YOU nail it!
K
k9ez
Guest
> I listen to 99% of my radio on the internet with this
> wonderful new pc and broadband.
> No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC
> should break them up and let the Citizens of America run
> them!
>
>
> Radio4U
>
Ummmmmmmm last I checked the employees of Clear Channel, Entercom and Infinity WERE citizens of the US.
> wonderful new pc and broadband.
> No Need for Cllear Channel, Entercom and Infinity. The FCC
> should break them up and let the Citizens of America run
> them!
>
>
> Radio4U
>
Ummmmmmmm last I checked the employees of Clear Channel, Entercom and Infinity WERE citizens of the US.
> Anyone with access to the market data can prove it. Ad
> agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious,
> they could do the same data runs.
I am unaware that even the biggest agencies have EVERY market but I'll make inquiries at those agencies.
Now that I think about it, however, I may be making this more complicated than it need be. I think I'll just compile the 12+ numbers for every market that's publicly available, weighting by population percentage as you pointed out. Thanks.
I don't doubt Clear Channel's numbers, put I think independent verification is a good thing. In fact, come to think of it, it won't be much more trouble to create a report that shows how EVERY top group is doing. The problem is, I will only be able to share this information in very general terms or be prepared to deal with Arbitron attorneys. <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
> agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious,
> they could do the same data runs.
I am unaware that even the biggest agencies have EVERY market but I'll make inquiries at those agencies.
Now that I think about it, however, I may be making this more complicated than it need be. I think I'll just compile the 12+ numbers for every market that's publicly available, weighting by population percentage as you pointed out. Thanks.
I don't doubt Clear Channel's numbers, put I think independent verification is a good thing. In fact, come to think of it, it won't be much more trouble to create a report that shows how EVERY top group is doing. The problem is, I will only be able to share this information in very general terms or be prepared to deal with Arbitron attorneys. <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
> > Anyone with access to the market data can prove it. Ad
> > agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious,
> > they could do the same data runs.
>
> I am unaware that even the biggest agencies have EVERY
> market but I'll make inquiries at those agencies.
The national reps will have preetty much every market, too. Agencies will buy every market they will put campaigns in... the larger shops will have a blanket deal and get everything.
> > agencies typically have every market, and, while tedious,
> > they could do the same data runs.
>
> I am unaware that even the biggest agencies have EVERY
> market but I'll make inquiries at those agencies.
The national reps will have preetty much every market, too. Agencies will buy every market they will put campaigns in... the larger shops will have a blanket deal and get everything.
> The national reps will have preetty much every market, too.
> Agencies will buy every market they will put campaigns in...
> the larger shops will have a blanket deal and get
> everything.
Gotcha. But I don't think they're going to share it with me!
I'm proceeding with the publicly available information. It is somewhat easier than I thought to create the macros needed to make this work within a spreadsheet. Still, I estimate it will take a about five hours to do this without access to their software. I don't plan on working 5 hours straight either! Maybe by the weekend. It will be rough without any demographic or daypart detail, but it will still be more information than anyone else is handing out. It's for all stations for all 293 rated markets sortable by owner and by market. Once it's set up, it will be pretty easy to follow the ups and downs of different groups as long as I stay on top of it and enter the data as it comes in.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
> Agencies will buy every market they will put campaigns in...
> the larger shops will have a blanket deal and get
> everything.
Gotcha. But I don't think they're going to share it with me!
I'm proceeding with the publicly available information. It is somewhat easier than I thought to create the macros needed to make this work within a spreadsheet. Still, I estimate it will take a about five hours to do this without access to their software. I don't plan on working 5 hours straight either! Maybe by the weekend. It will be rough without any demographic or daypart detail, but it will still be more information than anyone else is handing out. It's for all stations for all 293 rated markets sortable by owner and by market. Once it's set up, it will be pretty easy to follow the ups and downs of different groups as long as I stay on top of it and enter the data as it comes in.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
- Status