• 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

New Chicago oldies station WZZN-FM

Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> > That's great news for you and WRLL's other 44 listeners.
> >
> > >
> > > This is great news for those of us who loved WRLL the
> way
> > it
> > > was before they added post-1963 music to their playlist.
>
> > > Now maybe we'll get our radio station back.
>
> I am wondering if ABC is simply stupid, does not get radio
> or whether they are stunting in some way in a transition to
> something else.
>
> If WJFK saw the handwriting on billings and demos, and got
> out of oldies, why does ABC go into a format that is having
> trouble and, on top of it, take the end of the format that
> is not just 55+ but mostly 65+?
>
> Not only did they go oldies, the went with old oldies.
>
> Even if they get big shares 12+, it will all be very old
> demos, practically uncalled for in the transactinal (ratings
> and rate based dealing) that is normal in amakrket the size
> of Chicago.
>
> Is the fact that JFK billed a lot more than the old format
> enough? Or do they have some secret plan or strategy that
> this is part of?
>

Blah blah blah. Nice to know ABC has faith in this format even if it doesn't bill as well. They may spike in the ratings and get lots of attention. Why so negaive Eduardo? Your post is all about billing. What you say is true, but who cares. Oldies is back (on FM) in Chicago, lets just be happy someone has faith in this format, if it isn't a stunt. And please don't give me another lecture on billing, numbers, ratings, demos, etc.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> > > That's great news for you and WRLL's other 44 listeners.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is great news for those of us who loved WRLL the
> > way
> > > it
> > > > was before they added post-1963 music to their
> playlist.
> >
> > > > Now maybe we'll get our radio station back.
> >
> > I am wondering if ABC is simply stupid, does not get radio
>
> > or whether they are stunting in some way in a transition
> to
> > something else.
> >
> > If WJFK saw the handwriting on billings and demos, and got
>
> > out of oldies, why does ABC go into a format that is
> having
> > trouble and, on top of it, take the end of the format that
>
> > is not just 55+ but mostly 65+?
> >
> > Not only did they go oldies, the went with old oldies.
> >
> > Even if they get big shares 12+, it will all be very old
> > demos, practically uncalled for in the transactinal
> (ratings
> > and rate based dealing) that is normal in amakrket the
> size
> > of Chicago.
> >
> > Is the fact that JFK billed a lot more than the old format
>
> > enough? Or do they have some secret plan or strategy that
> > this is part of?
> >
>
> Blah blah blah. Nice to know ABC has faith in this format
> even if it doesn't bill as well. They may spike in the
> ratings and get lots of attention. Why so negaive Eduardo?
> Your post is all about billing. What you say is true, but
> who cares. Oldies is back (on FM) in Chicago, lets just be
> happy someone has faith in this format, if it isn't a stunt.
> And please don't give me another lecture on billing,
> numbers, ratings, demos, etc.
>
. . . and maybe they have someone who is willing to WORK to make this format a success. What a novel idea . . . WORK to make something a success. I wish I would have thought about this years ago.
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> First of all, David..... it was WJMK (NOT WJFK). I honestly
> wonder why you have such a disdain to the oldies format.
> Not everybody in Chicagoland is into AC, AOR, CHR or
> whatever the "buzzword" is today. 94.7 in Chicago was a
> loser, plain and simple. Many people wondered WHY ABC did
> not do this sooner. The WLS brand would show credibility in
> the market, IF they go that route. Chicago NEEDS a fulltime
> FULL POWERED FM oldies station. ABC saw that the void was
> there. Never mind the crap about "demographics". 94.7 and
> oldies would be a great combination. Add the WLS-FM
> call-letters and you would see ABC go to town.
>
>
> 73,
>
> Peter Q.
>
Despite former comments from David stating something to the effect he understood Chicago radio, I don't think he has a clue about the Chicago audience that grew up listening to LS and CFL.
>
> > If WJFK saw the handwriting on billings and demos, and got
>
> > out of oldies, why does ABC go into a format that is
> having
> > trouble and, on top of it, take the end of the format that
>
> > is not just 55+ but mostly 65+?
> >
> > Not only did they go oldies, the went with old oldies.
> >
> > Even if they get big shares 12+, it will all be very old
> > demos, practically uncalled for in the transactinal
> (ratings
> > and rate based dealing) that is normal in amakrket the
> size
> > of Chicago.
> >
> > Is the fact that JFK billed a lot more than the old format
>
> > enough? Or do they have some secret plan or strategy that
> > this is part of?
> >
>
 
> Over the last fifteen or so years, the call letters "WLS"
> have become identified in Chicago with talk radio and not
> the classic top-40 format that used to blast it's way out at
> night to most of the "lower 48" at 890 on the dial.
>
> On the other hand, prior to 1960, "WLS" was identified with
> "The Prairie Farmer Station".
>
Larry Lujack's "Animal Stories" came about as an offshoot of having to read farm reports on his show every morning.
 
> > Over the last fifteen or so years, the call letters "WLS"
> > have become identified in Chicago with talk radio and not
> > the classic top-40 format that used to blast it's way out
> at
> > night to most of the "lower 48" at 890 on the dial.
> >
> > On the other hand, prior to 1960, "WLS" was identified
> with
> > "The Prairie Farmer Station".
> >
> ...and the world's largest store.
>
. . . which now has a "blue light" special on its towers on its namesake building in Chicago.
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> First of all, David..... it was WJMK (NOT WJFK).

Sorry. I thought everyone knew by now my typing sucks...

> I honestly
> wonder why you have such a disdain to the oldies format.

I have a disdain for stations that do not do what they are supposed to do, which is make money.

> Not everybody in Chicagoland is into AC, AOR, CHR or
> whatever the "buzzword" is today.

However, most business in Chicago except on suburban stations and little AMs is transactional. That requires sales demo delivery. This station can not deliver sales demos.

> 94.7 in Chicago was a
> loser, plain and simple.

Agree here. Entirely.

> Many people wondered WHY ABC did
> not do this sooner. The WLS brand would show credibility in
> the market, IF they go that route. Chicago NEEDS a fulltime
> FULL POWERED FM oldies station. ABC saw that the void was
> there. Never mind the crap about "demographics". 94.7 and
> oldies would be a great combination. Add the WLS-FM
> call-letters and you would see ABC go to town.

But not, necessarily, make any money.
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> >
> Despite former comments from David stating something to the
> effect he understood Chicago radio, I don't think he has a
> clue about the Chicago audience that grew up listening to LS
> and CFL.

I grew up listening to WLS, and have (it's on my website) an LS jock card signed by nearly the entire staff from the early 60-s... achieved by camping out at the station for a day. I can still sing, "On top of a pizza, all covered with cheese" along with the best of them.

Today, I am part of a team that has 8 25-54 shares in Chicago.
 
Re: Chicago oldies

> Wow, why so negative about a proven billing format? All this
> anger and hatred... tsk tsk tsk.

It is also a proven FALLING billing station.

WJMK billed 20% more in 1997 than today, despite the increase in market billing of slightly over 20% in the same period. In other words, against the market, WJMKs billings are off 40% over thelast 8 years.
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

Always enjoy your posts David. It's nice to hear the business side of things expressed with intelligence and feeling. However, if a ton of people want to hear a certain kind of music, isn't it stupid and clueless of the sales department to ignore them? There has to be a way to sell them. You have to go to where the customers are. This brand loyal nonsense has no basis in reality.

"Today I climbed into my Biscayne intending to go to Bohack to purchase a case of Ballantine and some Ipana." Korvettes is out of business and Vic Tanney's is no longer the gym of choice

The stores and the products I grew up with don't exist any more.

Computers, internet service, cell phones and service providers, luxury Japanese imports, new brands of beer, wine, vodka, new airlines, exotic vacations, specialty stores, Home Depot, Health Clubs, Viking stoves, gormet restaurants etc. How can a person have brand loyalty to things that didn't exist while said person was in his or her "wonder years".

The listeners being ignored are living in the same century as the "more desirable" demo. Isn't there some way to sell the here and now to those listeners?? Or is it just easier to cite the latest study??

jc
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> Always enjoy your posts David. It's nice to hear the
> business side of things expressed with intelligence and
> feeling. However, if a ton of people want to hear a certain
> kind of music, isn't it stupid and clueless of the sales
> department to ignore them? There has to be a way to sell
> them. You have to go to where the customers are. This brand
> loyal nonsense has no basis in reality.

The issue is not the sales department but the buyers. In a market like Chicago, larger stations depend on mostly national and local agency sales and buys form larger businesses that have ad departments that analyze media buys on demo targeting and rate efficiency.

Very, very few advertisers want 55+ listeners, and sellers from one station can not change the whole marketing focus of large advertisers.
>
> The listeners being ignored are living in the same century
> as the "more desirable" demo. Isn't there some way to sell
> the here and now to those listeners?? Or is it just easier
> to cite the latest study??

Many brands are designed, packaged and marketed nationally to a very specific demo. One local station will not make any impact on this.
 
Re: be nice to David

> Despite former comments from David stating something to the
> effect he understood Chicago radio, I don't think he has a
> clue about the Chicago audience that grew up listening to LS
> and CFL.
> >

Now now, don't you know that David's nickname is Mr. Ubiquitous ???????
 
Re: Chicago oldies

> [I have no hatred toward a "proven billing format". Just
> acknowledging what everybody and their brother knows- that
> WRLL, noble as their cause and as good as they sound, has
> few listeners and low ratings.]


You Radio Elitists out there need to stop thumbing your collective noses at WRLL. The staff at WRLL is still collecting a paycheck, unlike many FORMER Radio Elitists.
 
Re: Chicago oldies

And you must have flunked Radio 101.

WRLL, as noble their mission and as great as they sound, is ranked #32 in the Chicago radio ratings. What part of that don't you understand?
 
Chicago oldies

a) I'm no "radio elitist" (and my paychecks are still being cashed)

b) I've never thumbed my nose at WRLL- just stating the truth, that they are the 31st ranked station in Chicago. They sound great but can't be considered a success with low billing and lousy ratings. There's quality (which they truly are) and there's quantity (revenue and ratings-they have neither to be considered among Chicago's "elite" (to use one of your fave phrases).

>
> You Radio Elitists out there need to stop thumbing your
> collective noses at WRLL. The staff at WRLL is still
> collecting a paycheck, unlike many FORMER Radio Elitists.
>
 
Re: Chicago oldies

Yep, you're right. An AM music station is ranked #32. And what happened to that "ratings don't matter, billing does?" Selectively used it can go a long way to justify your agenda.

I find it interesting that WRLL (thanks to WJMK's flip to stagnation) is at a 1.2 12+. I also find it interesting that there's FM stations being touted as better, doing less or the same.

Klunk, why would you even bother with this strange person?

> And you must have flunked Radio 101.
>
> WRLL, as noble their mission and as great as they sound, is
> ranked #32 in the Chicago radio ratings. What part of that
> don't you understand?
>
 
Chicago oldies

I have never said "ratings don't matter" (what IS it with you guys, always trying to put words in my mouth?).

What I've said is that you don't have to have consistently top ranked numbers to make money. But a station ranked #32 with fairly high-priced talent has no shot,
long-term. That's different than whether they sound good (which they do), just a statment of fact about their low ratings and accompanying low revenues.

> Yep, you're right. An AM music station is ranked #32. And
> what happened to that "ratings don't matter, billing does?"
> Selectively used it can go a long way to justify your
> agenda.
>
> I find it interesting that WRLL (thanks to WJMK's flip to
> stagnation) is at a 1.2 12+. I also find it interesting that
> there's FM stations being touted as better, doing less or
> the same.
 
Re: Chicago oldies

> [I've never thumbed my nose at WRLL- just stating the
> truth, that they are the 31st ranked station in Chicago.
> They sound great but can't be considered a success with low
> billing and lousy ratings.]


We both have different definitions of the word "success". As a consumer, I see radio as a volatile business. So if my favorite station is still on the air, programming the same format as it did yesterday, I consider that a success.
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> > That's great news for you and WRLL's other 44 listeners.
> >
> > >
> > > This is great news for those of us who loved WRLL the
> way
> > it
> > > was before they added post-1963 music to their playlist.
>
> > > Now maybe we'll get our radio station back.
>
> I am wondering if ABC is simply stupid, does not get radio
> or whether they are stunting in some way in a transition to
> something else.
>
> If WJFK saw the handwriting on billings and demos, and got
> out of oldies, why does ABC go into a format that is having
> trouble and, on top of it, take the end of the format that
> is not just 55+ but mostly 65+?
>
> Not only did they go oldies, the went with old oldies.
>
> Even if they get big shares 12+, it will all be very old
> demos, practically uncalled for in the transactinal (ratings
> and rate based dealing) that is normal in amakrket the size
> of Chicago.
>
> Is the fact that JFK billed a lot more than the old format
> enough? Or do they have some secret plan or strategy that
> this is part of?
>

Its cheap to run. If most of the programming is gonna be ran off their own satellite service they won't have to spend as much money on it. They can also fill a void and make a bit of extra cash at the same time and possibly better ratings.

As for the demos, Oldies is not just 55+ If that was the case, me and many other people wouldn't be listening to it right now. Oldies is a format that people young and old do listen to and enjoy. The songs are still played at parties, etc.

Back in 2001 when George Harrison died I read a newspaper article that a music store in town has had a HUGE demand for Beatles and other oldies artist CDs among younger demos.

So they can grab the older (regular oldies demo) as well as the occational younger listener.

Thats my guess.<P ID="signature">______________

AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
 
Re: Chicago oldies

> a) I'm no "radio elitist" (and my paychecks are still being
> cashed)
>
> b) I've never thumbed my nose at WRLL- just stating the
> truth, that they are the 31st ranked station in Chicago.
> They sound great but can't be considered a success with low
> billing and lousy ratings.

Lets not forget WRLL's signal is not all the best. That could contribute to the lower ratings. For its signal, and the fact that its an AM station at the very top of the dial playing oldies music, I think its doing pretty well. Its doing better 12+ then a full signal AM station (WIND) and its just below a full signal FM that was playing active rock. That full signal FM is WZZN.<P ID="signature">______________

AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
 
Re: ABC... stupid,clueless or stunting?

> > > That's great news for you and WRLL's other 44 listeners.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is great news for those of us who loved WRLL the
> > way
> > > it
> > > > was before they added post-1963 music to their
> playlist.
> >
> > > > Now maybe we'll get our radio station back.
> >
> > I am wondering if ABC is simply stupid, does not get radio
>
> > or whether they are stunting in some way in a transition
> to
> > something else.
> >
> > If WJFK saw the handwriting on billings and demos, and got
>
> > out of oldies, why does ABC go into a format that is
> having
> > trouble and, on top of it, take the end of the format that
>
> > is not just 55+ but mostly 65+?
> >
> > Not only did they go oldies, the went with old oldies.
> >
> > Even if they get big shares 12+, it will all be very old
> > demos, practically uncalled for in the transactinal
> (ratings
> > and rate based dealing) that is normal in amakrket the
> size
> > of Chicago.
> >
> > Is the fact that JFK billed a lot more than the old format
>
> > enough? Or do they have some secret plan or strategy that
> > this is part of?
> >
>
> Its cheap to run. If most of the programming is gonna be ran
> off their own satellite service they won't have to spend as
> much money on it. They can also fill a void and make a bit
> of extra cash at the same time and possibly better ratings.
>
> As for the demos, Oldies is not just 55+ If that was the
> case, me and many other people wouldn't be listening to it
> right now. Oldies is a format that people young and old do
> listen to and enjoy. The songs are still played at parties,
> etc.
>
> Back in 2001 when George Harrison died I read a newspaper
> article that a music store in town has had a HUGE demand for
> Beatles and other oldies artist CDs among younger demos.
>
> So they can grab the older (regular oldies demo) as well as
> the occational younger listener.
>
> Thats my guess.
>

Great post. We have to keep in mind that just because many people are over the age of 55, doesn't mean the younger people (such as myself) won't listen. I believe there are quite a few young oldies listeners. If the music is introduced to young people, they may like it. They don't HAVE to be from the generation the music came out.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom