NYC Metro Radio Ratings: August 2022

[davideduardo]

While the latter is true, I can guarantee you news radio is largely not one of the multiple mediums for the bulk of people under 50.

That is very superficial research. Actually, folks who listen to the station that has Seacrest or Bobby Bones or whoever has a good morning show get news as part of the program.

But news is not why they came to the show (I was gonna' say "tuned in" but that is pretty dated!). They came for the host of the show and the whole package. And on most stations, at least hourly news is part of that. But when asked, they say "I love Scott Shannon" or whatever. They don't say, "Oh, the show is OK but they really have terrific newscasts".

Radio is not used like Huffington Post or Breitbart.... morning shows are not driven by news. They are based on the talent(s) and, to some extent, the music. Not the news, so they don't mention that. But deep research reveals that news is one of the key ingredients.

Just like nobody goes to McDonalds and says "give me the two patty hamburger with the special sauce". They ask for a Big Mac. They order it by name because they like the "package". But if they get a Big Mac without the sauce, they will be storming the counter asking for a replacement!

 

[CassChopper96]

WNYL might be here to stay as an alternative rock station. Maybe WINS moves to 94.7. Thats is probaly the only option avaliable. WNEW and WCBS-FM are safe

 

[ksradiogeek]

WNYL might be here to stay as an alternative rock station. Maybe WINS moves to 94.7. Thats is probaly the only option avaliable. WNEW and WCBS-FM are safe

Audacy is NOT blowing up The Block to do this. Not now, not any time soon. An air staff was recently added, and it’s starting to bite into Hot, ‘BLS and KTU. If anything, wait a few years before ANY talks of format changes happen at ‘XBK.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

There is likely little to be gained yet by putting all news on an FM. Likely better to maximize billing until the format itself runs out of energy.

But what do you propose should replace it?

A big problem I see is the shift of media consumption, moving away from linear broadcasts to on-demand. If you look at TV, the trend is obvious -- streaming now beats cable in the number of subscribers and it has altered the way people watch TV. The main things that still work as linear broadcasts are live sports...and news.

I anticipate this is where radio is headed as well. The shift in radio consumption habits lags TV because most people don't have the equipment in their cars to support easy on-demand streaming...yet, but it's coming.

Apart from the morning shows, radio has already effectively gone to pre-recorded (voicetracked) programming for the rest of the day, offering no compelling reason for anyone to listen live once they have the means to stream their favorite recorded content on-demand in the car.

On top of that, we have the almost constant effort from the music industry to push a bill through Congress that would slap music performance royalties on terrestrial radio, and I'm afraid one of these days they will finally succeed. Then what?

Radio is going to need those formats that attract a linear OTA listening audience, and suddenly the talk formats will look a lot cheaper to run than music. Not every station can be sports. Broadcasters are going to wish they invested more time and effort into evolving all-news into a format that has remained attractive to younger listeners than just letting it run its course and then having to try to start over from scratch when faced with this looming crisis.

 

[TheBigA]

Broadcasters are going to wish they invested more time and effort into evolving all-news into a format that has remained attractive to younger listeners than just letting it run its course and then having to try to start over from scratch when faced with this looming crisis.

They have, and it doesn't involve traditional media. That's where this is heading. Broadcasters are using resources involved in on-air to create content that is more attractive to younger audiences, that can be consumed on demand rather than in real time. So declining ratings at WNYL isn't particularly important, especially given that the format is still making money. They're simply looking for other ways to monetize that audience besides traditional on air spots. All this attention to linear ratings is missing the point completely. The past is not coming back.

 

[CassChopper96]

If Audacy where as strong in New York as they are in Hartford. We probably would not even be having this conversation

 

[AceBiscuits]

If Audacy where as strong in New York as they are in Hartford. We probably would not even be having this conversation

To say that's an apples to oranges comparison is an understatement.

 

[CassChopper96]

To say that's an apples to oranges comparison is an understatement.

You missed my point. Audacy has several weak stations in NYC. So they have an easier decision putting a AM news station on FM

 

[CTListener]

If Audacy where as strong in New York as they are in Hartford. We probably would not even be having this conversation

I agree with AceBiscuits. Having a firm grip on AC, Hot AC and hip-hop/urban in the Hartford market is a much better foundation for cluster success than having another rhythmic station in a city full of them and a station trying to make rock work when the genre is dying in the demographic that used to be its happy hunting ground.

Another advantage in Hartford for Audacy: Only one legacy, expensive-to-run, 55+-skewing AM station to worry about instead of two.

 

[davideduardo]

But what do you propose should replace it?

AM is in its very twilight era. There will be no replacement.

A big problem I see is the shift of media consumption, moving away from linear broadcasts to on-demand. If you look at TV, the trend is obvious -- streaming now beats cable in the number of subscribers and it has altered the way people watch TV. The main things that still work as linear broadcasts are live sports...and news.

And low income families that can not @fford subscription-based services. With today’s extreme inflation, that could be as much as 25% of all households.

I anticipate this is where radio is headed as well. The shift in radio consumption habits lags TV because most people don't have the equipment in their cars to support easy on-demand streaming...yet, but it's coming.

With the averag car age of over 12 years now, we are talking over a decade.

Apart from the morning shows, radio has already effectively gone to pre-recorded (voicetracked) programming for the rest of the day, offering no compelling reason for anyone to listen live once they have the means to stream their favorite recorded content on-demand in the car.

current systems are less than easy to use. As a sidebar issue, I suspect that legislation will step in to control how many apps a person can use while driving.

On top of that, we have the almost constant effort from the music industry to push a bill through Congress that would slap music performance royalties on terrestrial radio, and I'm afraid one of these days they will finally succeed. Then what?

At some point, legislators will note that all the paid services isolates perhaps a quarter of the population who are low income.

Radio is going to need those formats that attract a linear OTA listening audience, and suddenly the talk formats will look a lot cheaper to run than music. Not every station can be sports. Broadcasters are going to wish they invested more time and effort into evolving all-news into a format that has remained attractive to younger listeners than just letting it run its course and then having to try to start over from scratch when faced with this looming crisis.

There are many uncertainties in the music and broadcast businesses that still to be created technologies will be part of.

But traditional formats like all news don’t account for varied interests of different people and families. One size does not fit all.

 

[davideduardo]

You missed my point. Audacy has several weak stations in NYC. So they have an easier decision putting a AM news station on FM

Yet all news is a twilight-years format an it will die just as fast on FM.

One of Audacy’s FM is a marginal signal, and the other has lower, but very significant billings that are in the top 175 billers in the whole country.

 

[AceBiscuits]

You missed my point. Audacy has several weak stations in NYC. So they have an easier decision putting a AM news station on FM

I didn't miss your point at all. In fact, this is the third time I have made some kind of statement to this point on this exact thread.

That decision is not nearly as easy as you think. It is way too early to call The Block weak, and Alt may not be netting big ratings but it bills well. Eliminating one or both of those is a loss for Audacy, especially when said AM news stations are skewing old, and they will lose the billing of whatever music format is eliminated.

Audacy does not need to put WINS or WCBS-AM on an FM signal. They could, but they don't need to. It doesn't make the format any more accessible, and isn't going to make ratings for those signals go up.

Moving either station is the equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's not going to stop the all-news format from sinking in relevance.

 

[CTListener]

At some point, legislators will note that all the paid services isolates perhaps a quarter of the population who are low income.

Why should they care about low-income people having access to less entertainment than higher-income people? Pursuit of happiness does not preclude some forms of happiness being out of reach.

 

[TheBigA]

Why should they care about low-income people having access to less entertainment than higher-income people? Pursuit of happiness does not preclude some forms of happiness being out of reach.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is why should they use the power of the government to create even more wealth for billionaire recording artists who live in gold-plated mansions and fly to their shows in private jets?

 

[davideduardo]

Why should they care about low-income people having access to less entertainment than higher-income people? Pursuit of happiness does not preclude some forms of happiness being out of reach.

Low income people vote, and can decide an election.

 

[CTListener]

Low income people vote, and can decide an election.

As they nearly did in 2020.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

As they nearly did in 2020.

You are confusing low income with low intelligence. The aren't synonymous.

The party that won in 2020 is the party that actually supports social programs that benefit low income people, and it seems enough of those people voted accordingly that they DID decide the election.

The ones who "nearly" decided it the other way were well compensated fake electors and corrupt political operatives.

 

[davideduardo]

You are confusing low income with low intelligence. The aren't synonymous.

The party that won in 2020 is the party that actually supports social programs that benefit low income people, and it seems enough of those people voted accordingly that they DID decide the election.

The ones who "nearly" decided it the other way were well compensated fake electors and corrupt political operatives.

Let's not change a discussion of free vs. paid entertainment services into one of politics.

The fact is that there is a trend towards entertainment requiring monthly fees, both for audio and video. That marginalizes lower income households that are predominantly Black or Hispanic as well as many rural areas in lesser industrialized states like West Virginia and Mississippi.

 

[davideduardo]

That's one way of looking at it. Another is why should they use the power of the government to create even more wealth for billionaire recording artists who live in gold-plated mansions and fly to their shows in private jets?

You make a good point in that artists that would get the most revenue from radio rights fees, were they to be required, tend to be "well to do" already. Radio rights fees would mostly benefit labels, not artists. And it is the three major labels that are paying the lobbyists!

 

[TheBigA]

The fact is that there is a trend towards entertainment requiring monthly fees, both for audio and video.

Those platforms are all privately owned, not licensed by the government. The broadcast spectrum is owned by the public, not the private companies. Thus its programming should be available for free. If the government would like to sell spectrum to broadcasters, that would change the discussion.

The second point is that subscription music services are digital, and the law requiring music royalties specifies that fact. Music played on broadcast stations is analog. That includes HD radio, which uses analog spectrum.