Who are "They"? I feel that artists deserved to be paid for the music they create. I've bought a lot of records and concert tickets in my life. I also admit to getting free ones that were perks from Radio employment. People that support Public Radio understand the concept that quality isn't free...
-
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
Buffalo Live and Local
- Thread starter Rusty Bridges
- Start date
Have you read what people here are saying about WBFO?
I hear what you’re saying, Big A. Revenue from commercials makes radio possible. That said, I don’t remember it being this bad during the Golden Age of Top 40 radio. I would listen to Dan Neaverth on KB in the morning. Great personality. Creative bits. The latest news. My favorite tunes. I honestly don’t remember ever complaining about too many commercials. There’s an air check of the great Jack Armstrong available on the Internet. A now defunct Buffalo department store, AM&A’s, sponsored a 15 minute segment. Listening to Jack adlib a spot was pure joy.
Yes, that’s 50 years ago. I was a teen. Now I’m retired. We no longer have engaging personalties like Danny and Jack. The business has changed. But 6 minute stop sets with 60 second spots? It’s a turn off. Just today, I was making coffee when I got up. My first intention when I walked into the kitchen was to ask Alexa to play WGR so I could catch some analysis of last night’s Sabres game. But it was 6:45. I thought, “Well, WGR is going into two stop sets before the top of the hour. Alexa play WXXI.” Now, perhaps I’m an anomaly having been in the business. But I know the times of stop sets for my favorite talk and music stations. And if it’s time for a stop set, I’m tuning in something else. That’s not good!
Big A, you argue advertisers demand their 60 seconds to share their message. But eventually, they’re going to find out that’s not working. I agree with those who argue stop sets need to be shortened with perhaps 20 second spots. A perfect example of that was on FreeVee tonight. I was watching the return of one of my favorite series, Bosch: Legacy. They had 45 second breaks with three 15 seconds spots. It worked! It was not worth the effort to reach for the iPhone because of the short ad break. In fact, I noticed three different yogurt companies sponsored ads during the 90 minutes I watched the first two Bosch episodes. I was paying attention to the ads. Afterward, I was watching another show on another streaming service. The stop set was longer. I reached for the iPhone. Checked email and Facebook. None of the ads resonated.
Perhaps I’m wrong here. Maybe the fourth 60 second ads running in six minute stop sets on the New 96.1 or 97 Rock are bringing in tons of customers for sponsors. But common sense makes me think not. Commercial radio stations are going to have to rethink their business plans if they’re going to survive.
Do you listen to currents-based radio as you did 50 years ago? To be honest I don't see a lot of :60s anymore.
Radio stations ARE rethinking their business plans, and they don't include towers & transmitters. Why? Because commercials are the only revenue stream available. Unless you know of something else. The stations are stuck between advertisers who want repetition and multiple impressions, and listeners who want music for free. It's a no-win situation that radio can't win.
Ive mentioned this too and have proof they keep buying
You'll have to sell any change in how advertising is done to the sponsors. That means you'll need REAL data on tune-out factors and effectiveness of commercials of different lengths and in different cluster lengths. Fortunately, as online listening via website, app, or smart speakers becomes more prevalent you'll have LOTS of accurate data on customer behavior. There's a reason why the streamers, including the free or low-cost plans that are ad supported, insert their spots the way that they do. Radio needs to pay attention and rethink ad presentation. "The current system of commercial placement" that "has been in use for over 30 years" simply isn't as effective in the new media environment, especially with younger listeners. If we want to reach audiences under the age of 50, radio needs to adapt to their listening habits.
Huh? Why? It's their money. They do the studies, and they know the effectiveness. You have obviously never been in a room with advertising agencies or experts in marketing.
You want radio to mimic streamers? Sure, we can make radio cheaper, just like EMF, and we won't need as much money to stay on the air. Close down all of the local offices, fire all of the local staff, operate as a centralized operation like Sirius, Spotify, Apple, and EMF. No problem. We know how to do that. But it's the complete opposite of live & local.
You demand that radio program the way it did 50 years ago with live & local talent, but you want to eliminate the funding that made that kind of radio possible. That's what you're saying. Don't you understand the contradiction?
We know what we need to do to reach audiences under the age of 50, and that begins with selling all of the towers and transmitters and expanding non-broadcast aspects of the business. That's what Townsquare has been doing. That's what iHeart has been doing. The reason Audacy is in so much trouble is they're still trying to be Entercom.
Radio needs a second revenue stream that doesn't involve advertising. SiriusXM has subscriptions. Advertising to them is secondary. Apple has the hardware business. The entire purpose of Apple Music and Apple Radio is to sell computers and technology. Advertising is secondary.
The whole reason we have narrow formats and narrow playlists is because the advertisers have built this structure around Nielsen ratings and AQH. None of that exists in streaming. We know what we have to do. It's very obvious. But it will be very bad for the boomers who grew up with live & local radio.
Last edited:
You're comparing apples to oranges. We have physical assets such as towers, buildings, transmitters, audio chains, personnel, FCC fees, royalties, insurance, etc.. My electric bill for one month is likely more than their entire outlay in 2 years. They also target a niche audience. A mystery podcaster isn't worried about attracting a political audience. Someone specializing in 80's New Wave on a streaming service can survive on a limited number of subscribers or listeners. We can't. Our signals go out to a limited geographical area, and we have to do our best to hit the sweet spot to attract the most listeners.
Tell me this: Have you ever talked to an advertiser at all? Or is this based on your observations as a listener only? Please enlighten me. I understand being frustrated with the number of commercials we air, but that's how we pay our bills. It's our lifeblood. Just give me an idea of where your observations are coming from. Listener only? Management only? Both?
15 second spots work on "TV" or streaming video because it's a visual and audio medium. 15 seconds, just audio, in most cases is just not enough time to get a sponsor's message across, unless the 15s spots are part of a overall campaign which includes longer spots. JMO.
Most Radio stations do not care about Boomers. They have aged out of the "Sellable Demos". Boomers may still care about Radio but it is unrequited. The Ad Agencies have told Radio programmers to get rid of formats that bring in older listeners. "It's too hard to get a sale" has been the Mantra for years. Good Luck getting 20--40 year olds interested in Radio...
The fact is that 85% of 18-34 listen to radio. That's twice the percentage of Spotify.
Nielsen: Radio Tops In Audio Reach As Listening To AM/FM Streams Continues To Grow.
Radio continues to not only reach more consumers than any other audio platform, but also commands the largest share of audio time spent with both ad-supported and ad-free audio providers.
Back to live and local; a few days ago I was listening to a well-rated (no call letters, to protect the innocent) Buffalo station while driving. The air talent nicely and efficiently backed out of a music set, did a brief promo liner and transitioned to a localized event. Well-done, I thought ... until he meandered on. Because he'd done such a good job with the transition, I stayed with him, but wondered how many listeners might have punched out because their threshold of interest/attention (as was discussed earlier in this thread) had been exceeded. The air talent then dialed up an excessively long commercial break which I endured until the start of commercial #4. I tuned out and didn't go back to the station because I'd reached my destination.
Last edited:
Maybe. The complaint is that listeners don't like advertising. But they also don't like fundraisers for public radio. They try to imply that advertisers don't know how annoying their commercials are. But they know. It's why they do it. They know how many impressions it takes for their message to have an impact. To them, it's very scientific.
If there was any other way to fund radio, other than asking for donations, we would have done it a long time ago.
This. And increasingly those same advertisers are expecting the cost and volume of their ads to move more in line with digital advertising. That means broadcasters are expected to drop their rates and increase the number of impressions to listeners/viewers.
the problem more, in small markets is this.
If I pay 98.9 The River $3 a spot, why should I pay 97.5 The Hound $12 a spot?
Lets compare
98.9 The River is a class A in a valley
97.5 The Hound is a max equivalent Class B on a tall tower up in a tall forest.
The Hound has more listeners, provable at one time by ratings when they paid for them, moreso now by results from other advertisers, listener counts at events, contests, etc
Realizing this is somewhat unfamiliar territory to you; but stations that have the most listeners can charge more than stations with larger coverage but fewer listeners. The reason? Advertisers want to reach the most listeners. Covering distant fishing villages miles apart doesn't get them the number of impressions.
Not unfamiliar territory to me, Kelly.. 15 of my 20 years in radio is in commercial radio.
The example I cited above is one I have been through personally.
Some advertisers look solely at the cost. I've heard it a close second hand from WDDH sales people.
I'm sure it was. Either way, advertisers want their dollar to have the best chance at providing a return. Doesn't matter the type of ad, it's called 'conversion'. What's the ratio of return for every ad dollar spent? You have a better chance of conversion when there are more people hearing your ad, not when the ad travels a further distance. You need to stop thinking like a DXer.
Most advertisers that remain in business want the least cost and the highest conversion. That's nothing new or revolutionary.
- Status