-
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
NY Daily News"Shannon's 'True Oldies!
- Thread starter lalumia
- Start date
http://www.nydail> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
>
It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
> > http://www.nydail>
> >
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
> >
> I AM serious; YOU shush,and excuse me if a pay a littlr more
> creedence to someone like Scott Shannon than to you;thanks
> for sharing.
>
It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any station jumped on the format?
Answer that, please.
> >
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
> >
> I AM serious; YOU shush,and excuse me if a pay a littlr more
> creedence to someone like Scott Shannon than to you;thanks
> for sharing.
>
It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any station jumped on the format?
Answer that, please.
It is likely the usual reason. No one sees a way to maximize profitability by playing oldies. They may be wrong, but that is what they think.
>
> It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any
> station jumped on the format?
>
> Answer that, please.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
>
> It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any
> station jumped on the format?
>
> Answer that, please.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> It is likely the usual reason. No one sees a way to
> maximize profitability by playing oldies. They may be
> wrong, but that is what they think.
And, for the moment, that is the truth. As long as the majority of larger market advertisers specifically exclude 55+ listeners, there will be no long-term viability of any oldies format as the listeners continue to age. And any format that plays 50's and early 60's oldies will be in even deeper problems.
Again, radio does not have any conbtrol over the target demos for ad campaigns. The advertiser does. And when the advertiser is a big company, individual radio stations have no access or input. Good or bad, that is the way it works.
> maximize profitability by playing oldies. They may be
> wrong, but that is what they think.
And, for the moment, that is the truth. As long as the majority of larger market advertisers specifically exclude 55+ listeners, there will be no long-term viability of any oldies format as the listeners continue to age. And any format that plays 50's and early 60's oldies will be in even deeper problems.
Again, radio does not have any conbtrol over the target demos for ad campaigns. The advertiser does. And when the advertiser is a big company, individual radio stations have no access or input. Good or bad, that is the way it works.
> http://www.nydail>
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
>
> It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
>
No need to be rude. The guy was just posting about the article, not companing about oldies not back on NYC radio. Sheesh.
Glad to see someone has faith in the oldies format, even though this is something Shannon is doing as a fun thing on the side. He is a true radio professional.<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
>
> It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
>
No need to be rude. The guy was just posting about the article, not companing about oldies not back on NYC radio. Sheesh.
Glad to see someone has faith in the oldies format, even though this is something Shannon is doing as a fun thing on the side. He is a true radio professional.<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
> > > http://www.nydail>
> > >
> >
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
> > >
> > I AM serious; YOU shush,and excuse me if a pay a littlr
> more
> > creedence to someone like Scott Shannon than to you;thanks
>
> > for sharing.
> >
>
> It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any
> station jumped on the format?
>
> Answer that, please.
>
This really isn't the topic. It is just about Scott Shannon's True Oldies Channel.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
> > >
> >
> ynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/351853p-300070c.html
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's still not coming back. Get Sirius and shush.
> > >
> > I AM serious; YOU shush,and excuse me if a pay a littlr
> more
> > creedence to someone like Scott Shannon than to you;thanks
>
> > for sharing.
> >
>
> It's been three months since the flip - why hasn't any
> station jumped on the format?
>
> Answer that, please.
>
This really isn't the topic. It is just about Scott Shannon's True Oldies Channel.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
> > It is likely the usual reason. No one sees a way to
> > maximize profitability by playing oldies. They may be
> > wrong, but that is what they think.
>
> And, for the moment, that is the truth. As long as the
> majority of larger market advertisers specifically exclude
> 55+ listeners, there will be no long-term viability of any
> oldies format as the listeners continue to age. And any
> format that plays 50's and early 60's oldies will be in even
> deeper problems.
>
> Again, radio does not have any conbtrol over the target
> demos for ad campaigns. The advertiser does. And when the
> advertiser is a big company, individual radio stations have
> no access or input. Good or bad, that is the way it works.
>
It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they do. One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are interested in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person is now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research? Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain your view on what I say. <P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
> > maximize profitability by playing oldies. They may be
> > wrong, but that is what they think.
>
> And, for the moment, that is the truth. As long as the
> majority of larger market advertisers specifically exclude
> 55+ listeners, there will be no long-term viability of any
> oldies format as the listeners continue to age. And any
> format that plays 50's and early 60's oldies will be in even
> deeper problems.
>
> Again, radio does not have any conbtrol over the target
> demos for ad campaigns. The advertiser does. And when the
> advertiser is a big company, individual radio stations have
> no access or input. Good or bad, that is the way it works.
>
It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they do. One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are interested in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person is now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research? Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain your view on what I say. <P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
This site has been updated! Check it out! Thanks
</P>
>
> It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to
> update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just
> don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they do.
> One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are interested
> in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person is
> now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day
> someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into
> nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research?
> Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain
> your view on what I say.
>
I get your point and agree to some extent. What the bigger national and regional advertisers have found, though, is that they have to draw the line somewhere. If you are familiar with a bell curve, envision the target of a product being the center of an age/based bell curve. When it gets out, maybe, 10 to 12 years on either side, it falls off really fast, with maybe 80% of appeal and consumption in the 20 to 24 year range. So an advertiser says, I am going after the ages where my ads pay back in sales, not outside.
The Census, and thus Arbitron, divide the nation into age groups. So an advertiser will research against standard age groups. If they find that 55-64 is less a potential market than 45-54, they will exclude that demo.
A lot is approximate, and is based on points on a curve. At some point, a client either over spreads or over narrows. But they get reasonably good efficiency.
And the real issue is not the affluence or lack of same of over 55-s. It is the fact tht they are more set in buying patterns, and it takes too much ad money to get them to change.
> It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to
> update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just
> don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they do.
> One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are interested
> in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person is
> now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day
> someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into
> nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research?
> Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain
> your view on what I say.
>
I get your point and agree to some extent. What the bigger national and regional advertisers have found, though, is that they have to draw the line somewhere. If you are familiar with a bell curve, envision the target of a product being the center of an age/based bell curve. When it gets out, maybe, 10 to 12 years on either side, it falls off really fast, with maybe 80% of appeal and consumption in the 20 to 24 year range. So an advertiser says, I am going after the ages where my ads pay back in sales, not outside.
The Census, and thus Arbitron, divide the nation into age groups. So an advertiser will research against standard age groups. If they find that 55-64 is less a potential market than 45-54, they will exclude that demo.
A lot is approximate, and is based on points on a curve. At some point, a client either over spreads or over narrows. But they get reasonably good efficiency.
And the real issue is not the affluence or lack of same of over 55-s. It is the fact tht they are more set in buying patterns, and it takes too much ad money to get them to change.
> >
> > It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to
>
> > update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just
> > don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they
> do.
> > One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are
> interested
> > in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person
> is
> > now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day
> > someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into
>
> > nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research?
>
> > Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain
> > your view on what I say.
> >
>
> I get your point and agree to some extent. What the bigger
> national and regional advertisers have found, though, is
> that they have to draw the line somewhere. If you are
> familiar with a bell curve, envision the target of a product
> being the center of an age/based bell curve. When it gets
> out, maybe, 10 to 12 years on either side, it falls off
> really fast, with maybe 80% of appeal and consumption in the
> 20 to 24 year range. So an advertiser says, I am going after
> the ages where my ads pay back in sales, not outside.
>
> The Census, and thus Arbitron, divide the nation into age
> groups. So an advertiser will research against standard age
> groups. If they find that 55-64 is less a potential market
> than 45-54, they will exclude that demo.
>
> A lot is approximate, and is based on points on a curve. At
> some point, a client either over spreads or over narrows.
> But they get reasonably good efficiency.
>
> And the real issue is not the affluence or lack of same of
> over 55-s. It is the fact tht they are more set in buying
> patterns, and it takes too much ad money to get them to
> change.
>
This is actually starting to get worse! Now, I'm hearing about stations that do well 25-54, not getting the buys if the demo is mostly 40-54! (It has to do with buying patterns being set by age 40/Tell that to my 92 year old mother who now buys tablets to put in her dishwasher.) Also, I'm hearing about more buys 18-49 than 25-54! If this keeps up, there won't be any Classic Rock or even 80s music on the radio! Is that enough exclamation points?
> > It's a shame what advertisers think. I think it is time to
>
> > update their research. Your facts are correct, but I just
> > don't understand why advertisers use the reasearch they
> do.
> > One day you are 54 years old. The adveristers are
> interested
> > in you, then the next day you turn 55. "hey, that person
> is
> > now 55. we don't care about them anymore." What, they day
> > someone turns 55, they stop listening to radio and go into
>
> > nursing homes? Perhaps, there should be some new research?
>
> > Understand what I'm trying to say David Eduardo? Explain
> > your view on what I say.
> >
>
> I get your point and agree to some extent. What the bigger
> national and regional advertisers have found, though, is
> that they have to draw the line somewhere. If you are
> familiar with a bell curve, envision the target of a product
> being the center of an age/based bell curve. When it gets
> out, maybe, 10 to 12 years on either side, it falls off
> really fast, with maybe 80% of appeal and consumption in the
> 20 to 24 year range. So an advertiser says, I am going after
> the ages where my ads pay back in sales, not outside.
>
> The Census, and thus Arbitron, divide the nation into age
> groups. So an advertiser will research against standard age
> groups. If they find that 55-64 is less a potential market
> than 45-54, they will exclude that demo.
>
> A lot is approximate, and is based on points on a curve. At
> some point, a client either over spreads or over narrows.
> But they get reasonably good efficiency.
>
> And the real issue is not the affluence or lack of same of
> over 55-s. It is the fact tht they are more set in buying
> patterns, and it takes too much ad money to get them to
> change.
>
This is actually starting to get worse! Now, I'm hearing about stations that do well 25-54, not getting the buys if the demo is mostly 40-54! (It has to do with buying patterns being set by age 40/Tell that to my 92 year old mother who now buys tablets to put in her dishwasher.) Also, I'm hearing about more buys 18-49 than 25-54! If this keeps up, there won't be any Classic Rock or even 80s music on the radio! Is that enough exclamation points?
D
Diceros
Guest
I've listened to Shannon's real oldies and I like a lot of the music but after a half hour I found myself bored by it. I find myself listening more and more to soul music from the 60's and early 70's. It still sounds fresh to me and I'm discovering a lot of great music that never got played on the big top 40 stations of the day.
- Status