And DN, why did you even bring up Jack going away? That was in response to my suggestion to put sports on 96.5, which was brought on by the seemingly constant chatter on this board that 93.3 should go sports. To me, if iHeart is going to put KJR on FM, they should put it on 96.5, which is carrying some play by play already and move the Jack format to 93.3. The only reason I suggested a rebrand was because iHeart seems to be dropping the Jack name from a lot of its stations.
-
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
Lowest KUBE ratings ever, in December PPM
- Thread starter crainbebo
- Start date
I got it completely right, as Jack is not a "cheap" format.
Not true. They pay, in that market size, a considerable fee for the Jack franchise plus music licensing fees and a share of the cluster's program expenses like production, etc.
And you did not say "zero programming costs". You stated that the station was cheap to run, and that is not true.
Unless the simulcast protects the format against AM death and even grows the resultant combo.
Your statements don't show any experience with cluster strategy, agency sales and economics.
Last edited:
The only savings Jack stations have are no talent costs. To David's point; talent salary isn't the only cost of running a major market radio station. Not even close.
I wouldn't take that bet if I were you. Especially if you're basing the conclusion from 6+ publicly-facing ratings. Talk about a 'sucker's bet'!
Look David, I’ve got better things to do than to get into a pissing match over what I did or didn’t say or mean. But I will say you constantly show how your knowledge is superior to everybody else’s and we are all wrong.
I made a very simple point that it makes less sense to kill a standalone station for a simulcast. You turned it into a personal attack on my abilities and knowledge even though you have no idea who I am, how long I’ve worked in this business and what positions I have held.
Perhaps you, Big A and Kelly should all get into a room and argue the fine points of radio.
One of the functions of being moderator is to step in when inaccurate data is presented to avoid it becoming "urban legend". Your statement was, at best, confusing and seemed inaccurate as no format is without costs and Jack is definitely not a "cheap" format to do, particularly in the Top 50 markets where it is licensed under a monthly consultancy fee.
You are taking a discussion too personally. We see your point, but disagree. It is as simple as that.
And the disagreement is on the reasons for a simulcast when it means sacrificing a standalone station: if the gains on preserving the revenue of the larger billing station are greater than the independent format's potential, then the simulcast makes sense.
You will note that the three of us disagree as often as we agree, even on direct radio subjects. There is no single way to program or run a radio station successfully
The big difference for KUBE is... the programming. Used to be big talent on KUBE, on air and in the programming dept. Now, like much of radio, it's mostly an advertising service, right?
That's how the corporate radio suits have always viewed terrestrial radio solely as. But no one outside of corporate radio suits thinks like corporate radio suits. That's today's disconnect. The big name air talent always kept the worst of it at bay and once that started disappearing, there was nothing keeping listeners from looking elsewhere.
In an day where the consumer can create their own un-edited, un-censored playlist on their ubiquitous smartphone for a subscription fee, how would radio successfully compete with more talk and potentially censored/radically edited music? Unless the talent can stand alone (someone like the former T-Man comes to mind) without music, then the smartphone playlist wins. That sort of talent/fit doesn't just come along on a frequent basis.
Commercial radio has always been about advertising. You just arrive on this planet? If so, welcome!
What the alternative thinking? Hobbyists? Non-professionals? Armchair programming experts? Oh yeah, that would be good for the business.
They don't have to look elsewhere. Everything most consumers need is right there on their smartphone. But those subscription services cost money too. For that reason; radio is still the go-to for 90% of consumers.
About that "90% of consumers" radio statistic myth; Can we please retire it?
Because seriously Kelly, you're talking about practically a captive audience with that kind of number in 2022. At a time when some young people have never even heard of local radio. Or understand any concept of it (YouTube has really been with us 16 years.)
Because with 90% of people listening to radio, the top Seattle Twitter trends wouldn't be talking about the latest series on Netflix, the new mayor or the Seahawks. They would be talking about what was just played on KJR-FM or something.
And you can look around you in 2022 and see that 90% number isn't true (just by the layers of dust on the blister packaged radios at Walmart.)
It's also a number that for some reason has changed very little in 40 years in spite of all modern tech. Or generations, when everything else in entertainment tech these days has been completely shaken up by Millennials/Gen-Z.
And to realistically achieve 90% active terrestrial radio listenership in 2022, you would have to get rid of the smartphone, satellite radio, 500 channel cable TV, podcasts, video games and all forms of streaming entertainment and audio/video social media (again, get the consumer usage data on all these things combined and show me where terrestrial radio gets 90% active listenership.)
It doesn't. No matter how hard you process the numbers (and I've tried as liberally as I can), they just don't add up to 90% in 2022.
Terrestrial radio still has an audience. And still a pretty decent sized one overall (especially when the power is out and people need to save their phone battery charge.) Just not that BIG of one in this multiverse of whatever.
Because seriously Kelly, you're talking about practically a captive audience with that kind of number in 2022. At a time when some young people have never even heard of local radio. Or understand any concept of it (YouTube has really been with us 16 years.)
Because with 90% of people listening to radio, the top Seattle Twitter trends wouldn't be talking about the latest series on Netflix, the new mayor or the Seahawks. They would be talking about what was just played on KJR-FM or something.
And you can look around you in 2022 and see that 90% number isn't true (just by the layers of dust on the blister packaged radios at Walmart.)
It's also a number that for some reason has changed very little in 40 years in spite of all modern tech. Or generations, when everything else in entertainment tech these days has been completely shaken up by Millennials/Gen-Z.
And to realistically achieve 90% active terrestrial radio listenership in 2022, you would have to get rid of the smartphone, satellite radio, 500 channel cable TV, podcasts, video games and all forms of streaming entertainment and audio/video social media (again, get the consumer usage data on all these things combined and show me where terrestrial radio gets 90% active listenership.)
It doesn't. No matter how hard you process the numbers (and I've tried as liberally as I can), they just don't add up to 90% in 2022.
Terrestrial radio still has an audience. And still a pretty decent sized one overall (especially when the power is out and people need to save their phone battery charge.) Just not that BIG of one in this multiverse of whatever.
You're confusing listening with comprehension. Those are two different functions. School teachers know what I'm talking about. People listen to all kinds of things, but only a small part is comprehended. By the way, people use Spotify and other digital devices in the same way. Comprehension there is often even lower. There's a lot of selective hearing going on. Nielsen only measures listening, not comprehension. So the 90% number is accurate, but it doesn't mean that the listening will have the effect you're talking about. At one time, the comprehension rate for radio was a lot higher, but unfortunately we just have too much information, too much media, and too much content for people to digest.
You have a point; We all have information overload. But what I'm trying to illustrate here is, beyond the Nielsen PPM panel (whose participation necessitates a minimum amount of daily radio listening), it doesn't look that perfect.
It's there (I still hear KEXP sometimes blaring out of somebody's car when I'm down in Seattle. Or sometimes KIRO-FM.) But nowhere near the scale of the legendary KISW/KXRX and KUBE/KPLZ rivalries of the 1980s, which, with fewer immediately accessible entertainment options, could have only happened then.
That's simply because there's a LOT more competition now. People live on their smartphones, or command certain music choices from their smartspeakers. Earbuds and headphones have replaced boom boxes and loud car stereos. What you mentioned was when radio was the only game in town. Now there are dozens, or even hundreds of music, news, and entertainment choices. Why do you think that most of the largest radio groups got tired of losing younger audiences with smartphones to things like their own playlists? So groups like iHeart had to switch gears and start their own streaming services. That's to bolster their business model because being radio only had them painted into a corner.
As BigA mentioned; the 90% figure is determined through what, and how long survey respondents are actually listening to. Chances are if you asked them how many times they listened to the radio in a given week, they might say none. In reality, they probably were listening to radio in the car, or via a stream.
I think there’s really something to be said for originality. When you offer programming that is more challenging to get elsewhere, and you have a much safer business model. I’d say this is true for KISW (with the live and local talk shows that they offer), KEXP (with their focus on new music that might be hard to find on streaming apps), or KIRO (offering a local perspective on the the community).
You can take away much of what makes a radio station unique and still be successful. KZOK is a good example of this. While they may only be local in the morning at this point, they still seem to do very well. With this being said, take too much away and you’re left with a cookie-cutter product that can hardly become a powerhouse. This is definitely true for KUBE, which really exists because there’s no clear answer as to what format would be better on 93.3, and they can still benefit from splitting listeners with KHTP. In the world of accounting, there is a cost associated from eliminating an unprofitable brand, because you have to come up with something else to take the place of that brand (money), and you lose out on anything positive that the current brand is doing (perhaps it’s losing money, yet it’s not hemorrhaging money like it could with a new format that turns out to be completely unsuccessful). I’m sure that the bean counters at iheart have been through this over and over again, and have decided that KUBE should remain unchanged.
Personally, I feel that all of this is a great disservice to listeners who actually care about the programming on KUBE. At the same time, making drastic and risky changes could also be a disservice to the listeners who care about KJR AM/FM, KJAQ, KBKS or KZOK if KUBE doesn’t pull a decent share of the weight.
It will certainly be interesting to see where this goes in the future. As of now, iheart still refers to KUBE as being on 104.9 in multiple locations on their Facebook page, along with multiple links to “power 93.3.”
Last edited:
Incorrect: being on the Nielsen PPM panel does not require any amount of listening or viewing or streaming. It simply involves carrying the meter to register any mass media with audio one hears.
BTW, panelists are recruited by household or dwelling unit, not the individual.
The reason there is that music tastes have become much more fragmented, so there are no overwhelmingly dominant stations. And, what many don't realize is that 40 years ago, air conditioning was not standard on many if not most cars. So lots more people drove with the windows open and we could hear what they were listening to.
Is "Jack" an actual brand that people connect with? IMO - No. Dump "Jack" branding. Save money! Move "The Jet" down to 96.5 - Take Sports to FM with NHL - Gen Z isn't about listening to the radio. It's digital, it's on demand, it's streaming. Will be interesting in the next few years to see what companies pivot to embrace new tech, Web 3, and continue to grow while others go the way of the dinosaur.
What would you say if I told you that Jack does better in 25-54 than The Jet? Same with KZOK.
- Status