Lkeller said:
Perhaps we could respectfully agree that radio (like any free commercial medium) serves two groups of "customers."
The term "customer" is already clearly defined and does not include the listeners of commercial radio stations. Now, this differs with non-commercial stations that depend on listeners for money to operate. KQED-FM 88.5 gets about 60% of their money from listeners; KALW 91.7 gets 75-80% last I checked. Other non-comm stations get more or less. So, for those stations, the listeners are indeed the customers.
This is also why the programming is different from commercial radio. Commercial radio uses "bait" as Weav says. Thus, you're more likely to hear popular songs repeated over and over again, but no playlist depth on commercial stations -- all sizzle and little steak.
But on non-commercial stations you hear the opposite -- you hear depth because those same listeners are listening for long periods of time. It's called TSL or time spent listening. Most non-comms have far more TSL than commercial stations do.
But if compelling programming isn't offered to the non-paying listeners, people stop listening in ever growing numbers, and the advertisers have less and less reason to pay good money to advertise there. And advertising rates go down, correct?
I know this is painfully obvious, so I'm not sure why we're arguing.
No, it is NOT painfully obvious. I've already cited situations where numbers aren't important: religion, block programming, infomercials, and vanity buys (talkshow hosts who think they have something compelling to offer the world and are willing to pay their own money to present it, such as the hosts on KEST 1450).
But let's get back to more mainstream commercial radio. Advertisers want to reach X number of listeners at any given time. You can do that with steak or you can do it with sizzle. Thus, you can have a station that has meat to it or you can do it on one of those stations with shallow playlists. Advertisers generally do not like high TSL stations because research has shown that they tend to be less likely to buy a products than listeners of low TSL stations. Why? Probably because the low TSL listeners tend to be more...uh...flaky, more enamored with trends, and thus more easily swayed. They like the latest hottest hits and get easily bored with more than that.
Thus, commercial radio doesn't really serve the listener. It serves fleeting groups of shallow, easily influenced listeners.
This is another reason why KGO has had a hard time selling ads. Their high-TSL listeners are more disciminating and less influenced by much of the radio advertising out there.
The bottom line question is: will a 2.0 rated KGO with cheaper syndicated programming make more money that the current 5.1 rated KGO that has to shell out a few million bucks annually to expensive local talent? I don't know that answer to that, but I would hope not.
Unfortunately, running the current KGO takes skill in hiring talent, setting up programming parameters, training sales teams, etc., than running a KABC, WABC, etc. All the other Citadel talkers need to do is carry Rush and Hannity and tell their national advertisers, "Hey we have Rush and Hannity in NY, Chi, LA, Dallas, wherever, wherever. We'll sell you spots for your drug store chain in those cities at X dollars." But the KGO approach has to be, "We have the #1 talkshow in the 2 to 4pm slot in the SF market." KGO can't be sold in combo with anything, except maybe KSFO because KGO is unique.
The reason everybody believes KGO will go to hell in short order is that it takes an extreme amount of management skill to run such an operation, and not many managers are up to it.
