Music Fades Out

[SirRoxalot]

SMART broadcasters follow the MONEY. Stations that bring in listeners with DISPOSABLE INCOME are what ADVERTISERS are interested in. That doesn't mean chasing the "lowest common denominator", or even the most people.

I've seen formats with good numbers whacked because the sales people couldn't sell those numbers. I've heard advertisers pass on stations because the people that came in as a result of advertising on that station weren't "the kind of customers" that they wanted. And no, that's not a euphemism for any ethnic or racial group - it's all about who has the most money to spend on a particular type of product.

The bigger question is "Why is talk successful"? Could it be that people relate to talk radio better because it seems to be centered more on THE LISTENER? Topics, calls, opinions, rants, etc. are all targeted at persuading the LISTENER to adopt a certain point of view. It's NOT just an endless stream of "We're great, listen to us." The sales job is much more subtle. Add to that a "companion" factor, and you begin to understand why talk radio has become more successful than the souless, generic, "safe" presentation of too many music radio formats.

 

[landtuna]

An example... KTAR in Phoenix was 8th in Winter 2009 in 25-44 as a pure FM talker. The same station, on AM, a few years earlier was 16th.

In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I am not a 'talker' listener. But do you suppose the above improvement was also due to a change of personalities? I'm thinking that the personality would drive listenership far more than AM vs FM. After all, they are both just buttons on your radio and talkers are essentially equal unless the AM has a borderline signal.

Also, since the Phoenix area gets a lot of snowbirds from November through April, I would expect the "older" formats would always improve in winter over the remainder of the year. Do you see that?

 

[davideduardo]

In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I am not a 'talker' listener. But do you suppose the above improvement was also due to a change of personalities? I'm thinking that the personality would drive listenership far more than AM vs FM. After all, they are both just buttons on your radio and talkers are essentially equal unless the AM has a borderline signal.

The AM has the best signal of any in the market. And the programming did not change significantly.

WIBC Indianapolis... not in top 10 25-54. Moved to FM, now in top 5. KSL in Salt Lake. Added FM simulcast, moved to #1 25-54, an increas of about 5 or 6 rank positions.

There are a couple of dozen more examples.

Also, since the Phoenix area gets a lot of snowbirds from November through April, I would expect the "older" formats would always improve in winter over the remainder of the year. Do you see that?

No. Non permanent residents seldom get surveyed. And there was no seasonal difference, as I was also looking at multi book averages.

25-54 for FM implementations of traditional talk (not hot talk) has increased in markets ranging from Seattle and San Francisco (that one is all news) to Dayton and Jacksonville and Pittsburgh and New Orleans.

Sooner or later, every significant talker will move to FM or simulcast to get the demos that produce sales.

 

[KOOL Listener Lauren]

An example... KTAR in Phoenix was 8th in Winter 2009 in 25-44 as a pure FM talker. The same station, on AM, a few years earlier was 16th.

In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I am not a 'talker' listener. But do you suppose the above improvement was also due to a change of personalities? I'm thinking that the personality would drive listenership far more than AM vs FM. After all, they are both just buttons on your radio and talkers are essentially equal unless the AM has a borderline signal.

Also, since the Phoenix area gets a lot of snowbirds from November through April, I would expect the "older" formats would always improve in winter over the remainder of the year. Do you see that?

First, about a statement you made earlier, landtuna-- yes, you do know someone under 40 who listens to talk.

And KTAR-FM has improved tremendously, as DavidEduardo mentioned. You can attribute several factors to their improvement:

1) Presence on the FM dial. I don't feel it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt. In KTAR-FM's case, they seem to be a younger, hipper, news/talk station and FM fits it well. On the contrary, KFYI is a good example of a station that does not need to make the move to FM anytime soon, and I wouldn't advise it necessary for news/talk just yet. The move to FM can only do so much.
2) Change of personalities. The addition of Joe Crummey to evenings, the combining of Mac Watson and Larry Gaydos in PMD...
3) KTAR Rewards program, which has been running for a few (or several?) months now. Great incentives to listen, and win great prizes.
4) This is very important: An improved online and social networking presence, through their very own website, through Facebook and Twitter. Not just the station identity itself, but the hosts and news reporters are effective in what they are doing.

These are only a few of the factors I find are building KTAR-FM up. It's really sounding impressive lately.

 

[davideduardo]

SMART broadcasters follow the MONEY. Stations that bring in listeners with DISPOSABLE INCOME are what ADVERTISERS are interested in. That doesn't mean chasing the "lowest common denominator", or even the most people.

That's not true. Any buy based on ratings is made based on sheer numbers. Very few buys are made on disposable income, because in the US nearly everyone has the money for the kinds of consumer goods and services normally sold on the radio. For every high-end account, there are 50 mass market accounts.

I've seen formats with good numbers whacked because the sales people couldn't sell those numbers.

That's usually indicative of bad training or bad sellers. I managed a station in a top 15 market that got into the 30 share range yet the sellers did not like the format. I got new sellers.

The only exceptions are with stations where the demos are outside the 18 to 54 spread, and in those cases there is just no way to be successful... unless there is enough quality local direct business to support the station.

I've heard advertisers pass on stations because the people that came in as a result of advertising on that station weren't "the kind of customers" that they wanted. And no, that's not a euphemism for any ethnic or racial group - it's all about who has the most money to spend on a particular type of product.

I witnessed a case of this sort of thinking years ago... the client believed that a certain group would not shop at his matress outlet. After much insistence (the station owner lay down on a matress and refused to move until he got a buy), they went on the station. They increased sales by something like 60% in the first week and sustained the level, year after year.

In another case, the retailer simply had the wrong product mix for the area. He tried several stations, cable, print, and then went out of business. Advertising is 90% the product, the price, the location, the message and 10% the medium.

The bigger question is "Why is talk successful"? Could it be that people relate to talk radio better because it seems to be centered more on THE LISTENER? Topics, calls, opinions, rants, etc. are all targeted at persuading the LISTENER to adopt a certain point of view. It's NOT just an endless stream of "We're great, listen to us." The sales job is much more subtle. Add to that a "companion" factor, and you begin to understand why talk radio has become more successful than the souless, generic, "safe" presentation of too many music radio formats.

Actually, talk is one of the harder sells. First, loads and loads of national and regional advertisers have no-talk dictates as they don't want to be associated with controversy and polarization. Second, most of the audience is over 55, and pretty much not salable. So talk stations do well because they have so much more inventory, so they can price lower because they can load up on the spots.

If you are other than the top talker in a market and don't have a viable 25-54, forget about it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The continued insistence that transactional sales are the only sales that are made, and that relational sales don't exist is just plain wrong. If you're one of the top 10 stations in the top 20 markets, that might - and I repeat might be purely transactional. Everybody else has to expend time and talent on relational sales, and perception is reality for buyers.

If "disposable income" isn't part of the equation, why does Arbitron bother with all those breakouts on audience metrics? Do you mean to say that they're meaningless? I've got a lot of friends who are sales people that would LOVE to go up against somebody trying to sell that.

It ain't all just numbers. The idea that "numbers are all that matters" is what's messing up this entire business.

 

[pocket-radio]

WOKV in Jacksonville does very well 25-54 AM & FM Newstalk. Though the Fm signal accounts for a very small percentage of their total audience. How can this be, I thought AM was dead? If your business plan is based on selling numbers in a book to agencies, then you've got big problems! Large markets are off 25% because that's what they did. While small market radio still sells ideas to direct clients and builds relationships. Hello invest in talent, pay people well and stop chasing after agencies, who just want the lowest rates and added value all based on numbers in a book that makes no sense..

Radio is broken.

Let me see are we a country of young 18-24's? or aging baby boomers? Here's your Hint. Boom, boom, boom!

 

[landtuna]

First, about a statement you made earlier, landtuna-- yes, you do know someone under 40 who listens to talk.

I stand corrected! [BIG wink!] I thought you had but three favs: KOOL, KAZG and that Q thing up in LV.

And KTAR-FM has improved tremendously, as DavidEduardo mentioned. You can attribute several factors to their improvement:

1) Presence on the FM dial. I don't feel it's necessary, but it couldn't hurt. In KTAR-FM's case, they seem to be a younger, hipper, news/talk station and FM fits it well. On the contrary, KFYI is a good example of a station that does not need to make the move to FM anytime soon, and I wouldn't advise it necessary for news/talk just yet. The move to FM can only do so much.

That has been my position as well. Unless the signal/coverage is an issue I don't see FM as having a significant advantage over AM. In fact, as a good AM signal generally covers better than an urban FM I would think it would have better attraction. Virtually all home/auto radio's have both AM/FM so tuning isn't an issue.

2) Change of personalities. The addition of Joe Crummey to evenings, the combining of Mac Watson and Larry Gaydos in PMD...

I can't argue this as I am not familiar with talk personalities on KTAR but from what I've gathered here on the boards there has been considerable movement over the past two years. That is what I was referring to in my post. And I would think the on-air staff would be the main attraction for listeners versus the type of signal. David says otherwise.

3) KTAR Rewards program, which has been running for a few (or several?) months now. Great incentives to listen, and win great prizes.

I wasn't aware talkers did this. Seems kind of childish to me considering my estimation of the age of listeners but if it works.......

4) This is very important: An improved online and social networking presence, through their very own website, through Facebook and Twitter. Not just the station identity itself, but the hosts and news reporters are effective in what they are doing.

This goes back to what myself and several other posters have opined lately; that it can take more than on-air presence to retain and/or grow an audience. Used to be personal appearances but now it's Twitter. Wouldn't thrill me but than I'm an old .....well, you know.

 

[davideduardo]

The continued insistence that transactional sales are the only sales that are made, and that relational sales don't exist is just plain wrong. If you're one of the top 10 stations in the top 20 markets, that might - and I repeat might be purely transactional. Everybody else has to expend time and talent on relational sales, and perception is reality for buyers.

You are confusing national sales with agency sales. In markets like LA, if you are in the top 25 to 30 stations, 80% and up of your revenue is agency... and agency is transactional. Of course, there are so many variables in transactional selling that relationships and trust make up a big part of the equation.

Even when you get out of the top 50 markets, there is a lot of business that is not national. Even in the mid "second 50" markets, national is 20% of billing in such markets, and agency is more than half... remember, there is a portion of the market revenues that goes to the daytime AMs and limited coverage FMs and such that do religion, ethnic, brokered, etc. If you limit the analysis to "viable" stations, meaning those that are signal-competitive, you will find that in the top 100 and maybe top 150 markets it is impossible to make a decent return without a mix of agency and direct business.

And with big box and chain stores controlling more and more of the retail economy, even smaller markets have to deal with agency accounts and prove that someone is listening.

If "disposable income" isn't part of the equation, why does Arbitron bother with all those breakouts on audience metrics? Do you mean to say that they're meaningless? I've got a lot of friends who are sales people that would LOVE to go up against somebody trying to sell that.

They are not used that often, but Arbitron gathers the information so that it can also sell stations qualitative data, such as whose listeners are more likely to buy a new pickup truck.

If you are selling to a Lexus dealer, that data may be useful. But for most sales, most of the breakouts are useless... but Arbitron puts them in so everyone has something that is specifically useful. In the PPM software, almost everything is customizable... you can do 33-42 year old women in one county of the Metro if you want. But generally, people run the same 25-54 reports, as that is what the buyers want... and, even if ratings are secondary, that is what many retailers want, too.

It ain't all just numbers. The idea that "numbers are all that matters" is what's messing up this entire business.

Almost everything basic we buy is done with metrics. A quart of milk, a pound of cheese. Only with things like a Picasso or a Rolls Royce or a designer wardrobe do we not apply a standard metric. And how many people do we know that buy any of those?

 

[davideduardo]

WOKV in Jacksonville does very well 25-54 AM & FM Newstalk. Though the Fm signal accounts for a very small percentage of their total audience. How can this be, I thought AM was dead?

FM likely accounts for much of the listening, and nearly all of it in 25-54. But there is no way of knowing, because in Fall of 2007 WOKV opted for single line reporting, and the AM and FM numbers are combined and not available separately.

So, when you say that the FM accounts for a small percentage of the total audience, you are just guessing since there is no separate figure for the AM and the FM. None.

The AM alone averaged about a 6 for the two years prior to adding FM. Now it is averageing above a 10 share. And the 25-54 has nearly doubled.

If your business plan is based on selling numbers in a book to agencies, then you've got big problems! Large markets are off 25% because that's what they did.

In larger markets, any client big enough to spend on radio is big enough to have an agency. And most do.

Small markets where ratings are not important are markets that have no ratings... Needles, CA, for example. But most stations that are not in the paid religion / niche ethnic category are dependent on some agency business and do need ratings to show value even to local accounts.

While small market radio still sells ideas to direct clients and builds relationships. Hello invest in talent, pay people well and stop chasing after agencies, who just want the lowest rates and added value all based on numbers in a book that makes no sense..

In some markets, particularly the top 10, 75% or more of revenue comes from agencies. Local direct accounts can't afford radio... the markets are too big for a single location or small number of location type business.

Let me see are we a country of young 18-24's? or aging baby boomers? Here's your Hint. Boom, boom, boom!

Hint, hint, hint. Most advertisers know that there is a poor or negative ROI when advertising to geezer demos.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Almost everything basic we buy is done with metrics. A quart of milk, a pound of cheese. Only with things like a Picasso or a Rolls Royce or a designer wardrobe do we not apply a standard metric. And how many people do we know that buy any of those?

That, in a nutshell, is the single biggest problem with corporate media today.

Music is not "product". People don't relate to songs like they do to widgets. Consuming entertainment may be a lot more like buying a Picasso for the average person than it is like buying a dozen eggs, a quart of milk, or a pound of cheese. How that music is presented is like how a gallery presents a Picasso. Do they just throw it on a shelf in a stack of Picassos and have you leaf through until you find one you like? Do they choose one for you and tell you "This is the one for you, based on our extensive study of Picasso buying trends"?

The artistry that was once a part of radio has been slowly leeched out of the business by "metrics". How about if you turn your spreadsheets on why Picasso was a success, when thousands of other artists who followed the same trends weren't? Maybe the time and effort expended on that study will keep the number-crunchers busy, and give radio a chance to recover.

 

[TheBigA]

Music is not "product". People don't relate to songs like they do to widgets.

If you're going to criticize music radio, you have to start first with the music.

You think the radio business is corporate? Spend some time at a major label. They make CC look like a mom & pop.

What has killed music radio first and foremost is bad music, made by people who really don't know what people want, don't know how to sell music, have lost touch with retail, and think they can litigate their way out of failure.

The music being made for the last 20 or so years IS product. BAD product.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

One thing I know is happening, because I experience it, is that little non-comms are getting a boost from the boredom brought on by the same-old, same-old.

I think that's fine, and it wouldn't surprise me as music starts to leave commercial radio, because of fractured audience numbers, you will see public stations increase music. As well it should. The purpose of public, non-commercial radio, as defined by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, was to serve the interests of the public UNENCUMBERED by the pressures of commercial radio. They operate under a different business model. It's more like satellite radio. Their customers aren't advertisers, but their members. So if they're able to attract large numbers of memberships while playing music that can't attract a sellable figure, then that's great. The hard part will be turning listeners of their programming into paid members. That's similar to what XM has to do. But public radio is available on conventional devices.

At the same time, this allows commercial stations to focus on what they do best, which is appeal to the largest number of people (or lowest common denominator). The funny part is that the RIAA stands to make the least amount of money from the non-coms, and they will end up playing the most music.

At times Public Radio seems like just a different type of commercial radio. For example there was a study done time see what public radio formats generated the most listener financial support. The NPR News-Talk model was first followed by Classical. Religious stations also fit into that non commercial catagory but as time goes on (and funding gets cut) all of these stations are starting to sound like commercial radio.

 

[pocket-radio]

Music sucks, because the label executives think they know what the public wants! The labels stopped innovating and taking risk's. Uh just like radio!

 

[johnbasalla]

Stupid decisions by the music industry are major reasons why they are in such trouble today in relation to selling music to consumers. I say one of the major "stupid" events was with an early Jewel song (It may have been "Who Will Save Your Soul or "You Were Meant For Me"). The version that was played on radio was substantially different then the one consumers got when the purchased the full CD. The version everyone heard and liked was either for radio only or was "the single", which was hard to find. Consumers were p---ed! Also, killing off the single, which I interpreted back then as an attempt to "force" people to buy the over-priced full CD's was another bad move. Proof of the single concept viability is the .99 cent downloads now so popular. On top of that, in place of singles, they wanted you to buy for between $8 and $10, maxi-singles on CD which would feature the hit song, maybe another song and then 3 or 4 remixes of the hit. Hey! I just want the one version I know and like, and don't want to spend extra bucks for further control room fiddling with a good song. Then you have too many full CD's with 2 good songs and 12 that suck. This list is getting long now, isn't it. And, a previous poster is right. They now want to litigate themselves out of the basement when it is their fault that they are down there in the first place.

 

[pocket-radio]

David Eduardo, radio wants to sell numbers, like Wallstreet does, paper really, nothing but paper. Even buyers in the top 25 markets still buy people and still want good ideas!. It's still about people and relationships. That's part of our problem, transactional sales are easier than actually coming up with something creative, a person would buy.
It's more work, you have to leave the office, write a proposal and come up with a spot too..

Live by the numbers and you die by the numbers. Radio is off by 25%, because the Agency business is off..
Buy yet even in the top 25 markets, I bet you could find lots of busineses willing to buy a dam good idea..

The problem is, we've forgot how..

 

[TheBigA]

That appears to me to be a huge oversimplification of the situation.

 

[landtuna]

The music being made for the last 20 30 or so years IS product. BAD product.

Fixed.

Excepting some New Age and Easy/Jazz Listening.

 

[davideduardo]

David Eduardo, radio wants to sell numbers, like Wallstreet does, paper really, nothing but paper. Even buyers in the top 25 markets still buy people and still want good ideas!. It's still about people and relationships.

The "good ideas" are value added and moochandising and such, when taken from the agency's point of view. Relationships are based on giving good service, and that to an agency mostly means getting the rates in quickly at the right CPP.

That's part of our problem, transactional sales are easier than actually coming up with something creative, a person would buy.

Transactional sales are in most cases more difficult. They require a lot of work to please the buyer without giving away the whole candy store.

It's more work,

I was GM for a decade or so and GSM for about another decade in a top 15 market where I sold about 95% transactional business. Before that, I was in a market that was 100% transactional. In all cases, it took as much or more work, and a lot of personal visits, to make each sale.

you have to leave the office, write a proposal and come up with a spot too..

The two differences between local direct and agency business is that the agency rates average muuuuuuuuuch higher, and we don't have to pretend we know anything about writing copy or creating campaigns for 100 different business we know nothing about.

Live by the numbers and you die by the numbers.

That's so trite. You have to have numbers to get results for a client, whether you buy ratings or not. Agencies just use metrics based on audience deliver, because sales figures just don't work when you have a multi-station, multi-media buy.

Good stations get better ratings and results than bad ones. I learned that when I programmed my first station at about age 17, so I'm surprised that if an inexperience teenager could figure that one out, why so many experienced adults can't. That was the year I figured out that it was a lot easier to sell if you were #1 than if you weren't, and you could get better rates, too.

Radio is off by 25%, because the Agency business is off..

No, that is not so. Agencies are intermediaries. Agency business is off because everyone from banks to GM is off, and the economy is overall off by about 25%.

Buy yet even in the top 25 markets, I bet you could find lots of busineses willing to buy a dam good idea..

Not really. The accounts with enough money to make it worthwhile are mostly with agencys, or they are Lasik centers and colon cleansing clinics. I have a hard time coming up with fun things to say about the colon.

The problem is, we've forgot how..

We only deluded ourselves in thinking, ever, that we knew how. We are a medium, the messenger, not the message.

 

[adma]

The music being made for the last 20 30 or so years IS product. BAD product.

Fixed.

Excepting some New Age and Easy/Jazz Listening.

New Age?!? Easy/Jazz Listening?!? Talk about being part of the delusional problem, here...