Long awaited Bob vs. Jack analysis

[Radio_Realist]

Re: VH analysis

> I haven't individually done this research- this is the
> result of what radio listeners are telling radio operators
> who've carefully constructed this format, based on what
> listeners tell us they want.
>
> It may be a "mish-mash" to you and other closed-minded "I
> hate anything that's not inside my little box of what radio
> should be" thinkers.
>
> If we don't want radio to die in favor of the alternatives,
> radio MUST think outside the box and (this is critical)
> actually LISTEN TO THEIR AUDIENCE. Jack isn't a radio
> concoction- it is a response to what listeners are saying
> they want.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Jack means selecting a tiny little segment of the audience, like maybe one out of every ten listeners, who are dissatisfied with what's already being played, and seeing if you can't successfully carve out a little, profitable niche. It means looking at what the competition is doing, and then doing something different because competing with other stations head-to-head is too difficult. It means following the path of least resistance to find an niche that you can have all to yourself.

Basically, WRRK made the decision to ignore what their current listeners wanted, and to instead pursue getting NEW listeners, even if that meant deliberately chasing away their current listeners. Steel City was not listening to THEIR audience. They ignored the input of their "Loyal Listeners Club". Bob was not a response to the station's listeners saying what they wanted, it was a response to what their non-listeners wanted.

So, today, right this very minute, those of us who used to regard WRRK as our favorite station are no longer listening to it. And the overwhlming majority of those who didn't use to listen to WRRK, who preferred some other station instead, aren't even aware that WRRK changed formats.

Of course, over at Clear Channel, WDVE is running promos welcoming all the former WRRK listeners.

Jack (and Bob) might help one radio station steal listeners away from another station, but it won't do diddly to get those who stopped listening to radio as their primary source for music to return to radio.

> If you want classic rock, go to the classic rock station.
> If you like AC, go to the AC station. Not EVERYBODY only
> likes one narrow type of music. It is possible (hope you're
> sitting down) that not everybody thinks like you.

I can't go the the classic rock station anymore. It was turned into Bob. The country stations are still country. The "urban" stations are still urban. The elevator music stations still play elevator music. But the one pure classic rock station in Pittsburgh ISN'T THERE ANY MORE. It's gone.

From a business perspective, maybe Saul did the right thing, and having two radio stations chasing the skirts instead of one programming for the men and the other programming for the women will increase his ad revenues. Then again, Steel City Media is also the publisher of the local newspaper that sucks so badly they have to give it away.

As for everybody not liking one type of music, I think it's been demonstrated that getting a 10 share means you're a success. That means that even if Bob manages to score a 10 in Pittsburgh (and that remains to be seen), it means that 90% of those of us who live here choose something other than Bob.

So get off your high horse about "everybody" this and "everybody" that. You don't know squat about what Pittsburghers like in the first place.

 

[cingram]

Re: Jammin' Oldies

Well, of course this thread has drawn me in.

There are a million things I could say, but the first one that comes to mind is that I'm more or less glad not to be doing Jammin' Oldies these days.

It was great at the beginning, and there was a demand for it, but the "oh wow" factor falls off sharply after hearing "I Will Survive" for the 500th time!

We tried very hard to be "color blind," but sometimes it was difficult to get the Caucasian and African-American audiences to agree on the music.

And we were blessed with an airstaff with lots of talent and heritage in the market, which certainly helped us last longer than other stations did.

When they decided to add Britney Spears and 'N Sync to the mix (which was NOT my call), it was doomed. Not long after that, they vacated the airstaff.

The format is still doing very well in Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh could have survived, but there's no doubt that it was a niche format. Darn good niche, though: it had the highest ratings in the history of 104.7, for a brief while.

And it was fun while it lasted.

 

[BarryMcCockiner]

Billboards.

>
> If that is an accurate description of their strategy, how do
> they plan to reach those new listeners to persuade them to
> tune in and sample the new Bob format?
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Billboards.

You meant it sarcastically, but think about it: Remember how many Channel 97 billboards and bus cards we saw over the years?

Plus, in a great scheme of cross-incestual-promotion, the City Paper had a full page ad with the Bob-FM logo.

> >
> > If that is an accurate description of their strategy, how
> do
> > they plan to reach those new listeners to persuade them to
>
> > tune in and sample the new Bob format?
> >
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 11/10/05 09:03 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack analysis

And that can be said about almost every single radio station in America.

(you're showing your ignorance)


>
> Yes, especially the fact that even "VERY successful" means
> that nine out of ten listeners do NOT like your station.


> > You do realize most of the anti-Jack club are the same
> > people who bitch and moan about "cookie-cutter" and
> > "corporate" radio. When something unusual and different
> > DOES become successful, they cry about that because it
> > doesn't measure up to their limited view of what radio is
> > supposed to be.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

VH analysis

The Jack concept is not my personal opinion- it's a total, 100% response to listener demand. Nobody should confuse what radio thinks and what the listeners have said they want.

Hey, there's a concept- listen to your listeners. WOW!!! And, then- GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! Holy cow!

And, by the way- in most markets where a Jack/V.H. station is on-air, the positive response has been stunning. So, whether we think Jack is this or that is a moot point. It is working and working well in most markets where it's on.

>
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
>
> Jack means selecting a tiny little segment of the audience,
> like maybe one out of every ten listeners, who are
> dissatisfied with what's already being played, and seeing if
> you can't successfully carve out a little, profitable niche.
> It means looking at what the competition is doing, and then
> doing something different because competing with other
> stations head-to-head is too difficult. It means following
> the path of least resistance to find an niche that you can
> have all to yourself.
>
> Basically, WRRK made the decision to ignore what their
> current listeners wanted, and to instead pursue getting NEW
> listeners, even if that meant deliberately chasing away
> their current listeners. Steel City was not listening to
> THEIR audience. They ignored the input of their "Loyal
> Listeners Club". Bob was not a response to the station's
> listeners saying what they wanted, it was a response to what
> their non-listeners wanted.
>
> So, today, right this very minute, those of us who used to
> regard WRRK as our favorite station are no longer listening
> to it. And the overwhlming majority of those who didn't use
> to listen to WRRK, who preferred some other station instead,
> aren't even aware that WRRK changed formats.
>
> Of course, over at Clear Channel, WDVE is running promos
> welcoming all the former WRRK listeners.
>
> Jack (and Bob) might help one radio station steal listeners
> away from another station, but it won't do diddly to get
> those who stopped listening to radio as their primary source
> for music to return to radio.
>
> > If you want classic rock, go to the classic rock station.
>
> > If you like AC, go to the AC station. Not EVERYBODY only
> > likes one narrow type of music. It is possible (hope
> you're
> > sitting down) that not everybody thinks like you.
>
> I can't go the the classic rock station anymore. It was
> turned into Bob. The country stations are still country. The
> "urban" stations are still urban. The elevator music
> stations still play elevator music. But the one pure classic
> rock station in Pittsburgh ISN'T THERE ANY MORE. It's gone.
>
>
> From a business perspective, maybe Saul did the right thing,
> and having two radio stations chasing the skirts instead of
> one programming for the men and the other programming for
> the women will increase his ad revenues. Then again, Steel
> City Media is also the publisher of the local newspaper that
> sucks so badly they have to give it away.
>
> As for everybody not liking one type of music, I think it's
> been demonstrated that getting a 10 share means you're a
> success. That means that even if Bob manages to score a 10
> in Pittsburgh (and that remains to be seen), it means that
> 90% of those of us who live here choose something other than
> Bob.
>
> So get off your high horse about "everybody" this and
> "everybody" that. You don't know squat about what
> Pittsburghers like in the first place.
>

 

[Radio_Realist]

Re: VH analysis

> The Jack concept is not my personal opinion- it's a total,
> 100% response to listener demand. Nobody should confuse
> what radio thinks and what the listeners have said they
> want.
>
> Hey, there's a concept- listen to your listeners. WOW!!!
> And, then- GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! Holy cow!

And that is NOT what WRRK did. Steel City Media listened to the people who were NOT their listeners, and asked them what it would take to make them start listening. Why can you not grasp this simple concept. Steel City Media told their CURRENT listeners, "Screw you, we're going to replace you." And that's what they are doing.

> And, by the way- in most markets where a Jack/V.H. station
> is on-air, the positive response has been stunning. So,
> whether we think Jack is this or that is a moot point. It
> is working and working well in most markets where it's on.

You keep responding to any posts about apples by describing oranges. I've seen virtually no evidence that Jack (or Bob) has ever increased ratings numbers BY ADDING ADDITIONAL LISTENERS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY KEEPING THEIR CURRENT LISTENERS.

I don't dispute that Jack (or Bob) might possibly enable WRRK to steal more listeners away from the other stations than what they chased away from their current audience.

But even if WRRK shows a total net gain in listeners, they won't keep very many of their current listeners. So your claim that they gave THEIR LISTENERS what those listeners claimed they wanted is flat-out wrong.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: VH analysis

> > Hey, there's a concept- listen to your listeners. WOW!!!
>
> > And, then- GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! Holy cow!
>
> And that is NOT what WRRK did. Steel City Media listened to
> the people who were NOT their listeners, and asked them what
> it would take to make them start listening. Why can you not
> grasp this simple concept. Steel City Media told their
> CURRENT listeners, "Screw you, we're going to replace you."
> And that's what they are doing.

Don't be so unreasonably acute, Realist. "Your listeners" means the whole body of radio consumers in the market.

No station is going to listen to "their listeners" and only their listeners--they are a portion of the total audience. And when you're talking about a super-niche format like the type of deep classic rock that WRRK was playing, "their listeners" are a very small number (see, e.g., the ratings--demos and overalls).

If a station wants to expand and gain more ratings--more share of the audience, and thus more ad revenue--it's not going to talk to just "its listeners". WRRK already has them listening. WRRK will talk to the vast radio audience that is NOT listening to WRRK. THAT'S where the growth potential is.

Anytime you make a change to a station, you're going to lose some of "your listeners". That happened when 96.9 changed from the Channel 97-style format to the 97/RRK-style format back in January. I thought Channel 97 was great; 97/RRK...not so much. They decided to go after a different audience, one that was looking for deeper classic rock and a different presentation. I didn't like it.

It's not unheard of for stations to go for a totally different audience: evidence, B-94 into B-93.7 into 93.7/BZZ, 180-degrees into K-Rock. Did Infinity listen to the CHR crowd? Obviously not!

Steel City didn't tell its current audience "Screw you, we're going to replace you". There's enough in Bob to keep some of the WRRK audience around. But by and large the WRRK audience left, and will be replaced by other target demos.

It happens.

 

[Radio_Rancher]

Re: VH analysis

They didn't have enough listeners. That's why they changed the format. Of course they'd have to try to recruit new listeners.

Station doesn't have a big enough audience. Station looks for ways to attract more listeners.

Talk about a simple concept that isn't being grasped.


> And that is NOT what WRRK did. Steel City Media listened to
> the people who were NOT their listeners, and asked them what
> it would take to make them start listening. Why can you not
> grasp this simple concept. Steel City Media told their
> CURRENT listeners, "Screw you, we're going to replace you."
> And that's what they are doing.
>

 

[OldiesCat]

VH analysis

a) how do YOU know who they listened to? You're OUT OF RADIO but daily pretend to know exactly how specific things are done at specific stations. You always make claims you're never in a position to back up or provide proof of.

b) so, if a station decides to make a format change, what other message than "we're doing to replace you" would you suggest they send? It goes with the territory. There IS no other way to put it- "hey, gang- there aren't enough of you out there listening to us and we've found another format that can get us more listeners and make us more money" is exactly how format changes work.


>
> And that is NOT what WRRK did. Steel City Media listened to
> the people who were NOT their listeners, and asked them what
> it would take to make them start listening. Why can you not
> grasp this simple concept. Steel City Media told their
> CURRENT listeners, "Screw you, we're going to replace you."
> And that's what they are doing.
>
> > And, by the way- in most markets where a Jack/V.H. station
>
> > is on-air, the positive response has been stunning. So,
> > whether we think Jack is this or that is a moot point. It
>
> > is working and working well in most markets where it's on.
>
>
> You keep responding to any posts about apples by describing
> oranges. I've seen virtually no evidence that Jack (or Bob)
> has ever increased ratings numbers BY ADDING ADDITIONAL
> LISTENERS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY KEEPING THEIR CURRENT
> LISTENERS.
>
> I don't dispute that Jack (or Bob) might possibly enable
> WRRK to steal more listeners away from the other stations
> than what they chased away from their current audience.
>
> But even if WRRK shows a total net gain in listeners, they
> won't keep very many of their current listeners. So your
> claim that they gave THEIR LISTENERS what those listeners
> claimed they wanted is flat-out wrong.
>

 

[Radio_Realist]

Re: VH analysis

> They didn't have enough listeners. That's why they changed
> the format. Of course they'd have to try to recruit new
> listeners.
>
> Station doesn't have a big enough audience. Station looks
> for ways to attract more listeners.
>
> Talk about a simple concept that isn't being grasped.

Point taken. But Steel City used to get better numbers for WRRK than they've been getting lately. And, even when their overall numbers were low, they did do well in some key demographics, and seemed to sell plenty of commercial time to companies that desired their target market.

Since WRRK's numbers were dropping, then it's clear that they were losing listeners to some other station. And, since WDVE's numbers were gaining, and 'DVE is the closest to WRRK in music format, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or one of Dionne Warwick's friends to see that they were losing listeners to 'DVE.

So, they had two choices. Choice one was to strive to keep the listeners that they had and also add more, mainly by recovering those they lost to 'DVE. Choice two was to jettison most of their current audience and recruit a whole new audience, and hope that the new one would be even bigger.

Time will tell whether they made a good choice.

I think think keeping the customers you already have and adding to them makes more sense.

And please don't tell me that since they still play some classic rock, they'll keep some of their old audience. Everyone who was a radio "professional" kept telling me over and over that playing just one song by someone like Bruce Springsteen or Led Zepplin that wasn't a tested mega hit would chase away the audience. Those same people cannot expect to turn around and say that playing some piece of disco crap would not chase away listeners.

I don't care if someone does spend their entire day talking to a mic in a tiny little room, the idea that one non-hit song by an artist that the listener liked would chase away that listener, while a song the listener absolutely hates would not simply doesn't make any sense. That dog just won't hunt.

 

[tibbs]

Re: Jack analysis

Well, generally speaking, you are 100% right on that 10%
assessment OC, but you're dealing with a format that is
expected to be not only approved and loved by 90% of the
listeners (unlike every other format) and has the written
consent of every single person in radio, but one that
has to change the world as we know it, otherwise it is
a failure. Amazing how those with such high expectations
can bring nothing concrete to the argument that will
enhance or improve radio. Instead, it more negative
dribble to make those unimportant, feel important.


<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by tibbs on 11/11/05 01:24 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[Part-timer]

Re: VH analysis

> You keep responding to any posts about apples by describing
> oranges. I've seen virtually no evidence that Jack (or Bob)
> has ever increased ratings numbers BY ADDING ADDITIONAL
> LISTENERS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY KEEPING THEIR CURRENT
> LISTENERS.
>
> I don't dispute that Jack (or Bob) might possibly enable
> WRRK to steal more listeners away from the other stations
> than what they chased away from their current audience.
>
> But even if WRRK shows a total net gain in listeners, they
> won't keep very many of their current listeners. So your
> claim that they gave THEIR LISTENERS what those listeners
> claimed they wanted is flat-out wrong.
>

There are two reasons for format changes (actually there's one: your ratings/revenues are not what you want them to be).

One change is when you think you've got a solid core that be be expanded if you make certain changes that will result in more sampling (cume) or longer time spent listening (TSL). Both are components of the final Average Quarter Hour rating and share figures. In this case you stay on track with your core concept and try to make it better. If you're as misguided as Steel City was in this case, you see "Rock Without Rules" and its "intriguing personalities "(that still cracks me up almost a year later) as the solution.

The other is basically when you say "we got nothin'" and blow it up. RRKs core audience who made them the #1 choice for classic rock was VERY small. They existed only as a second choice to DVE, and with the emergence of K-Rock, now the third choice for some. So you blow it up.

The rest is radio marketing 101. You always say "this is what YOU told us you wanted" even if you just changed the format to Reggaeton (spanish hip-hop... sorry, I'm back in FL).

You make these choices based on what segments of other stations' core audiences might be available of you provided something that's more appealing than their current favorite.

And ironically, sister station WLTJ is among the stations that Bob will hurt the most. But the idea is you'll also share listeners with DVE, Star, and 3WS, maybe making that total persons number higher in the long run.

As far as the current RRK audience goes, we harken back to those great old days of baseball when Bucs management told Ralph Kiner, "We finished last WITH you, we can finish last WITHOUT you."


<P ID="signature">______________
"With God as my witness, I could have sworn turkeys could fly."</P>

 

[OldiesCat]

Jack analysis

uh-huh and si, senor. All true.



> Well, generally speaking, you are 100% right on that 10%
> assessment OC, but you're dealing with a format that is
> expected to be not only approved and loved by 90% of the
> listeners (unlike every other format) and has the written
> consent of every single person in radio, but one that
> has to change the world as we know it, otherwise it is
> a failure. Amazing how those with such high expectations
> can bring nothing concrete to the argument that will
> enhance or improve radio. Instead, it more negative
> dribble to make those unimportant, feel important.
>

 

[Radio_Realist]

Re: VH analysis

That sounds pretty much like what I said in my post of 11/10/05 at 08:34 PM.

> There are two reasons for format changes (actually there's
> one: your ratings/revenues are not what you want them to
> be).
>
> One change is when you think you've got a solid core that be
> be expanded if you make certain changes that will result in
> more sampling (cume) or longer time spent listening (TSL).
> Both are components of the final Average Quarter Hour rating
> and share figures. In this case you stay on track with your
> core concept and try to make it better. If you're as
> misguided as Steel City was in this case, you see "Rock
> Without Rules" and its "intriguing personalities "(that
> still cracks me up almost a year later) as the solution.
>
> The other is basically when you say "we got nothin'" and
> blow it up. RRKs core audience who made them the #1 choice
> for classic rock was VERY small. They existed only as a
> second choice to DVE, and with the emergence of K-Rock, now
> the third choice for some. So you blow it up.
>
> The rest is radio marketing 101. You always say "this is
> what YOU told us you wanted" even if you just changed the
> format to Reggaeton (spanish hip-hop... sorry, I'm back in
> FL).
>
> You make these choices based on what segments of other
> stations' core audiences might be available of you provided
> something that's more appealing than their current favorite.
>
>
> And ironically, sister station WLTJ is among the stations
> that Bob will hurt the most. But the idea is you'll also
> share listeners with DVE, Star, and 3WS, maybe making that
> total persons number higher in the long run.
>
> As far as the current RRK audience goes, we harken back to
> those great old days of baseball when Bucs management told
> Ralph Kiner, "We finished last WITH you, we can finish last
> WITHOUT you."
>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Jammin' Oldies

I remember David Eduardo saying that Jammin' Oldies was originally to appeal to "assimilated Hispanic females" in a particular market, then appaently was adapted to be used elsewhere for general audiences. In Cincy, for some reason, it still works, but maybe the lack of an Urban A/C (and some strong personalities), contributes to that.

 

[am-fm]

Re: VH analysis

Jack/Bob/Variety Hits is an updated oldies staion with a bigger playlist than most oldies stations are allowed to have. Shouldnt the success of VH encourage others to climb out of that 300 song box that they live in?<P ID="signature">______________

AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.118.54:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>

 

[Radio_Realist]

Re: VH analysis

> Jack/Bob/Variety Hits is an updated oldies staion with a
> bigger playlist than most oldies stations are allowed to
> have. Shouldnt the success of VH encourage others to climb
> out of that 300 song box that they live in?

It's not so much a question of whether 300 is the magic number for the ideal size of a playlist, it's more a question of which songs are on the list, and whether they afit together into an overall cohesive sound, or they sound like an iPod set to random play.

When WRRK played their A-to-Z stunt, they played around 10 songs per hour, 21 hours per day (with 3 off for Quinn in the Morning), and it took them a little over nine days to play their entire library. That's around 2,000 songs -- and every one of them was "classic rock"! Those who advocate tight playlists are quick to point out that a 2,000 song playlist is too big.

But while 2,000 is too big, 300 is too small. There must be a point somewhere between the two extremes that is the more appropriate quantity. So, you're right, other stations should climb out of the 300 song box, and into a 500 or 600 song box.

And they need to learn to ignore those who insist that the only alternative to a too-tight 300 song list is a too-loose 2,000 song list.

 

[tibbs]

Re: VH analysis

> > Jack/Bob/Variety Hits is an updated oldies staion with a
> > bigger playlist than most oldies stations are allowed to
> > have. Shouldnt the success of VH encourage others to climb
>
> > out of that 300 song box that they live in?
>
> It's not so much a question of whether 300 is the magic
> number for the ideal size of a playlist, it's more a
> question of which songs are on the list, and whether they
> afit together into an overall cohesive sound, or they sound
> like an iPod set to random play.
>
> When WRRK played their A-to-Z stunt, they played around 10
> songs per hour, 21 hours per day (with 3 off for Quinn in
> the Morning), and it took them a little over nine days to
> play their entire library. That's around 2,000 songs -- and
> every one of them was "classic rock"! Those who advocate
> tight playlists are quick to point out that a 2,000 song
> playlist is too big.
>
> But while 2,000 is too big, 300 is too small. There must be
> a point somewhere between the two extremes that is the more
> appropriate quantity. So, you're right, other stations
> should climb out of the 300 song box, and into a 500 or 600
> song box.
>
> And they need to learn to ignore those who insist that the
> only alternative to a too-tight 300 song list is a too-loose
> 2,000 song list.
>

RR ---

You are right for a change. Instead of 300 as to few and 2000
as to many, take the average and you get:

1150 songs.

That's just about exactly WHAT JACK'S PLAYLIST IS!

Glad you have finally seen the light.

 

[tibbs]

Re: VH analysis

> That sounds pretty much like what I said in my post of
> 11/10/05 at 08:34 PM.


Yeah, but your post was not as easy to understand. It did
not flow well, like a GOOD radio station. It was all over
the place. Although it didn't have enough points, like to
small of a playlist. And nobody was listening.

Just playing RR.

REVENUE. 7 deadly letters.

Look at successful Urban stations that don't make the money.
Been a double edged sword for some time now. It's just a
fact of business. You have to connect to enough listeners
and those listeners have to connect to the products being
sold and the advertisers have to see solid results.